Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by The E   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:05 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

Imaginos1892 wrote:0bamaCare was an expensive disaster. It would have to be repealed eventually, and the longer it was allowed to drag on, the more expensive and disastrous it would have been. They lied to get it passed, they knew it would blow up after 0bama was safely out of office, and it was starting to blow up even before that.


An "expensive disaster" without which hundreds of thousands or millions of people wouldn't have access to affordable health care. An "expensive disaster" that a majority of americans would rather see improved than repealed.

Repealing Obamacare is such a policy disaster that the republicans want to ram it through congress without debate. Not because this is an urgent priority, but because they know that too much public scrutiny would erode the last vestiges of non-Trumpet support they have.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Michael Everett   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:27 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2526
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

So... would the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be a good replacement for ObamaCare?
:twisted: :lol:
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:40 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

Yeah too much public discussion and a lot more of this happens among Trumps base....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1v5mybUcAAu2_W?format=jpg



"Wait Obamacare is the ACA? Shit *I* get my insurance from the ACA!"


"Wait Obamacare is Kynect? We love Kynect! You can't repeal that..."

Etc...
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by biochem   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:30 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

The E wrote:
Imaginos1892 wrote:0bamaCare was an expensive disaster. It would have to be repealed eventually, and the longer it was allowed to drag on, the more expensive and disastrous it would have been. They lied to get it passed, they knew it would blow up after 0bama was safely out of office, and it was starting to blow up even before that.


An "expensive disaster" without which hundreds of thousands or millions of people wouldn't have access to affordable health care. An "expensive disaster" that a majority of americans would rather see improved than repealed.

Repealing Obamacare is such a policy disaster that the republicans want to ram it through congress without debate. Not because this is an urgent priority, but because they know that too much public scrutiny would erode the last vestiges of non-Trumpet support they have.



You've been reading too much propaganda from the left. Obamacare is not European style socialized healthcare. It is a Frankenstein monster which combines the worst aspects of both the pre-Obamacare US system and the socialized system. And it has never worked well. It has worked so poorly from the start that the right wing conspiracy types claim it was deliberately designed to fail in order to force socialized healthcare on an unwilling US public.

Obamacare is comprised of 4 parts.

1) Young adults may stay on parents plan until Age 26

2) Expansion of medicaid (free care for the poor) and advertising to increase enrollment among already eligible poor people.

3) Federal regulation requiring people to buy what the government has defined as "good" healthcare insurance or be fined. As the initial benefits to insurance companies have been phased out these plans typically have become very expensive plans (~$12,000/year with varying levels of income based subsidies) with sky high deductibles ($7000-12,000 per year) but which cover a list of benefits the Feds think are necessary. A common complaint among people on these plans is that they already had insurance prior to Obamacare and now they are paying more and getting less (i.e. there is a mismatch in what the government requires and what they want from an insurance plan).

4. New requirements on employers to offer insurance to employees working 30 hours or more a week. Most employers who weren't offering health insurance responded by reducing hours to 29 hours a week i.e. employees not only didn't get health insurance they got a pay cut.

The big problem is that the Republicans pretty much universally want to repeal Obamacare. But they are arguing about what to replace it with.

1. Nothing. This is the Freedom caucus position. Healthcare regulation would then revert to the states which could individually choose to keep all or parts of Obamacare. No it wouldn't result in million of uninsured. It would result in a reversion back to pre-Obamacare rules in some states. About 15% of the population was uninsured at that time. About 10% is uninsured now. So a maximum impact would be 5% of the population. That is likely high since the government changed how it counted the numbers starting in 2013, in order to make enrollment look better. Also, 70% of that 5% (or roughly 4%) came from additional people on medicaid. Roughly half of those would already have been eligible but applied because of the advertising campaign. Even if laws reverted, they would still be eligible leaving a maximum impact of 3% of the US population.

2. Keep #1 - the age 26 provision but repeal the rest. This proposal is popular and cheap. Young people are healthy and don't require much medical care and it adds to parental peace of mind plus saves families money since they don't need to buy separate insurance for college students etc.

3. Keep #1 and part or all of #2 (medicaid), since most of the expansion was due to individuals in #2 this would keep most of them covered. There are various proposals on how much of #2 to keep. Some proponents of this want to keep more, others want to keep less. Some want individual states to have more control, others want less etc etc. There is a lot of fighting about details even among those who want this general proposal.

4. Add a high risk pool. For the vast majority of people what they need (and want) from the individual market is catastrophic care. If you don't have employer insurance and are buying it on your own, it is a great deal cheaper to buy insurance that only covers big things (car accidents, cancer etc) and pay for your broken arms and medicines out of pocket. This is not true for for people with chronic conditions (diabetes, autoimmune disorders). The idea behind high risk pools is that instead of everybody paying for top notch coverage that is expensive that people with these types of medical conditions would be offered subsidies (lots of arguments over the details of what these subsidies should be among supporters of the subsidies ranging from state provided medical insurance to tax credits etc).

5. Repeal #3, is universally popular. Most of the people covered under it already had insurance and they are NOT happy with the changes. The devil is in the details again. Lot of arguments about when to do it. Insurance companies will need to start offering the old products again and they'll need time to prepare. How much time is the argument.

6. Repeal #4 is also popular since it never worked well and resulted in pay cuts for a lot of people it was supposed to help. Again the fight appears to be over timing.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by The E   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:05 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

biochem wrote:You've been reading too much propaganda from the left. Obamacare is not European style socialized healthcare.


You wasted a lot of words on something I already know.

The point is, the republicans want to replace the ACA with something more to their liking. Problem is, they are far too enamoured with the idea of making the poor poorer to actually do something sensible (Like, for example, an actual universal health care system).

But more than that: Not only do the republicans not have a single plan to present, the plan they do plan on presenting isn't even known outside of a small group yet. Instead of making their plan public and defending it against actual, factual criticisms of its merits and flaws, they decided that one of the most important pieces of legislation they're doing this season should stay secret until the very last moment.

Why are they doing this? Is it because they are so sure that whatever they come up with is going to be so good that every liberal commenter will be outed as a fearmonger trying to make that bastion of individual prosperity that is the GOP look bad?

Or is it because they know that without such blatant bullshit, this legislation would not stand a chance?
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by noblehunter   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:21 am

noblehunter
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:49 pm

biochem wrote:You've been reading too much propaganda from the left. Obamacare is not European style socialized healthcare. It is a Frankenstein monster which combines the worst aspects of both the pre-Obamacare US system and the socialized system. And it has never worked well. It has worked so poorly from the start that the right wing conspiracy types claim it was deliberately designed to fail in order to force socialized healthcare on an unwilling US public.

Obamacare is comprised of 4 parts.

1) Young adults may stay on parents plan until Age 26

2) Expansion of medicaid (free care for the poor) and advertising to increase enrollment among already eligible poor people.

3) Federal regulation requiring people to buy what the government has defined as "good" healthcare insurance or be fined. As the initial benefits to insurance companies have been phased out these plans typically have become very expensive plans (~$12,000/year with varying levels of income based subsidies) with sky high deductibles ($7000-12,000 per year) but which cover a list of benefits the Feds think are necessary. A common complaint among people on these plans is that they already had insurance prior to Obamacare and now they are paying more and getting less (i.e. there is a mismatch in what the government requires and what they want from an insurance plan).

4. New requirements on employers to offer insurance to employees working 30 hours or more a week. Most employers who weren't offering health insurance responded by reducing hours to 29 hours a week i.e. employees not only didn't get health insurance they got a pay cut.

The big problem is that the Republicans pretty much universally want to repeal Obamacare. But they are arguing about what to replace it with.

1. Nothing. This is the Freedom caucus position. Healthcare regulation would then revert to the states which could individually choose to keep all or parts of Obamacare. No it wouldn't result in million of uninsured. It would result in a reversion back to pre-Obamacare rules in some states. About 15% of the population was uninsured at that time. About 10% is uninsured now. So a maximum impact would be 5% of the population. That is likely high since the government changed how it counted the numbers starting in 2013, in order to make enrollment look better. Also, 70% of that 5% (or roughly 4%) came from additional people on medicaid. Roughly half of those would already have been eligible but applied because of the advertising campaign. Even if laws reverted, they would still be eligible leaving a maximum impact of 3% of the US population.

2. Keep #1 - the age 26 provision but repeal the rest. This proposal is popular and cheap. Young people are healthy and don't require much medical care and it adds to parental peace of mind plus saves families money since they don't need to buy separate insurance for college students etc.

3. Keep #1 and part or all of #2 (medicaid), since most of the expansion was due to individuals in #2 this would keep most of them covered. There are various proposals on how much of #2 to keep. Some proponents of this want to keep more, others want to keep less. Some want individual states to have more control, others want less etc etc. There is a lot of fighting about details even among those who want this general proposal.

4. Add a high risk pool. For the vast majority of people what they need (and want) from the individual market is catastrophic care. If you don't have employer insurance and are buying it on your own, it is a great deal cheaper to buy insurance that only covers big things (car accidents, cancer etc) and pay for your broken arms and medicines out of pocket. This is not true for for people with chronic conditions (diabetes, autoimmune disorders). The idea behind high risk pools is that instead of everybody paying for top notch coverage that is expensive that people with these types of medical conditions would be offered subsidies (lots of arguments over the details of what these subsidies should be among supporters of the subsidies ranging from state provided medical insurance to tax credits etc).

5. Repeal #3, is universally popular. Most of the people covered under it already had insurance and they are NOT happy with the changes. The devil is in the details again. Lot of arguments about when to do it. Insurance companies will need to start offering the old products again and they'll need time to prepare. How much time is the argument.

6. Repeal #4 is also popular since it never worked well and resulted in pay cuts for a lot of people it was supposed to help. Again the fight appears to be over timing.

You seemed to have missed the part where insurance companies were forbidden from using "pre-existing conditions" to deny coverage. I think that one is also pretty popular.

Also, 3% of the US is about 9 million people. So according to your analysis the Republican "plan" would result in millions of people becoming uninsured.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by biochem   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:34 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

The E wrote:
biochem wrote:You've been reading too much propaganda from the left. Obamacare is not European style socialized healthcare.


You wasted a lot of words on something I already know.

The point is, the republicans want to replace the ACA with something more to their liking. Problem is, they are far too enamoured with the idea of making the poor poorer to actually do something sensible (Like, for example, an actual universal health care system).

But more than that: Not only do the republicans not have a single plan to present, the plan they do plan on presenting isn't even known outside of a small group yet. Instead of making their plan public and defending it against actual, factual criticisms of its merits and flaws, they decided that one of the most important pieces of legislation they're doing this season should stay secret until the very last moment.

Why are they doing this? Is it because they are so sure that whatever they come up with is going to be so good that every liberal commenter will be outed as a fearmonger trying to make that bastion of individual prosperity that is the GOP look bad?

Or is it because they know that without such blatant bullshit, this legislation would not stand a chance?



They don't have "a" plan, they have a dozen plans and they are trying to reconcile them into a single plan that everyone ( or at least 50%) of congress can live with. There is a lot of negotiating still happening. People are having to compromise. At the end they'll have a bill. It is secret now because it is an ever changing draft. Today's version isn't going to be the same as tomorrow's. I want to see the final version before I decide if I like it or not but that version doesn't exist yet.

Governing is messy as EVERY opposition group in history found out when they managed to take power. When campaigning every congressman can campaign on whatever replacement plan is most acceptable to their constituents i.e. dozens of ideas but when it comes to a vote they'll have to make an up/down choice on that particular bill not the bill that campaigned on (which only existed in their heads).

You are being unnecessarily rude and insulting to Republicans with the comment enamored with making the poor poorer. They aren't trying to do that. Their belief about how to fix the system may differ from yours and there are pluses and minuses to it. If you are being truly honest with yourself, you'll admit that there are a LOT of problems with single payer. You just feel that in your opinion the benefits outweigh the problems. Very few people in the USA support single payer, even the majority of Democrats do not support single payer. So the true question at hand is what do people in the USA feel is the best way to move forward.

They are trying to do this because Republican voters hate Obamacare and they want it gone. This is a campaign promise they are keeping to their supporters.

One of the options was to send it back to the states. In many ways that may be the best one. That way the Democratic states can keep Obamacare (or whatever version that appeals to their own voters) and Republican states can pick whatever version appeals to their voters. The problems seem to be coming from trying to find a one size fits all version for the entire country. The different parts of the country are too diverse in their opinions as to the best way for one size fits all to make anyone happy.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by The E   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:34 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

biochem wrote:You are being unnecessarily rude and insulting to Republicans with the comment enamored with making the poor poorer. They aren't trying to do that. Their belief about how to fix the system may differ from yours and there are pluses and minuses to it. If you are being truly honest with yourself, you'll admit that there are a LOT of problems with single payer. You just feel that in your opinion the benefits outweigh the problems. Very few people in the USA support single payer, even the majority of Democrats do not support single payer. So the true question at hand is what do people in the USA feel is the best way to move forward.


And yet, Republican policies are consistently:
1. Reducing worker's rights
2. Cutting taxes on the rich
3. Increasing the cost of living for the average workers

I feel justified in claiming that the GOP is about making the poor poorer, given that. When was the last time the GOP actually worked for the interests of the poor directly, rather than the interests of industry leaders?
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by biochem   » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:24 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

The E wrote:
biochem wrote:You are being unnecessarily rude and insulting to Republicans with the comment enamored with making the poor poorer. They aren't trying to do that. Their belief about how to fix the system may differ from yours and there are pluses and minuses to it. If you are being truly honest with yourself, you'll admit that there are a LOT of problems with single payer. You just feel that in your opinion the benefits outweigh the problems. Very few people in the USA support single payer, even the majority of Democrats do not support single payer. So the true question at hand is what do people in the USA feel is the best way to move forward.


And yet, Republican policies are consistently:
1. Reducing worker's rights
2. Cutting taxes on the rich
3. Increasing the cost of living for the average workers

I feel justified in claiming that the GOP is about making the poor poorer, given that. When was the last time the GOP actually worked for the interests of the poor directly, rather than the interests of industry leaders?


And the democrats have been doing an equally poor job (they say the right things but their job performance has been appalling). That why Trump got elected and why Bernie got the support he did. The working class is enraged with BOTH parties.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Daryl   » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:15 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3176
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

We Aussies have zero respect for our politicians, and at one point had five PMs in three years; however despite this our systems seem so much better than the US.
Our health care is two tier.
Firstly Medicare is universal and covers every citizen. Lifesaving and urgent stuff is done expeditiously and well, but anything that can be put off is, like hip or knee replacements. Gets done eventually but could be months or years. Funded by a universal wage levy of 2%.
The second tier is by private Health Insurance companies, for all the other stuff. Mine costs about $300 a month for two and covers everything. In the past year I've had numerous hospital stays, a pacemaker, port a cath, six months chemo, and various world class treatments. Cost $0. Expectations are that I'll eventually end up better than in many years, and much is due to the system.
I realise that it will never happen in the US, due to the "Socialist" bogeyman but that is unfortunate.
Top

Return to Politics