Fake Senate ACA Replacement Already Blocked!

[iceberg]

why do people calling this a 'healthcare bill'

this is how to *pay* for healthcare, not improving the quality of care out there. if anything this is an insurance act, not healthcare.

 

[The Derp]

It's time to move on. The ACA didn't work, plain and simple. Yeah, people signed up for it mostly cuz it was free or mostly subsidized; people love free stuff. But the truth is that we as a nation cannot afford free health care for everybody, to believe otherwise is to ignore reality. Not unless you want to have everybody paying a huge increase in taxes, and I mean everybody rather than just the top 50%. I think we can do better than the ACA and better than what we had before that, and better than a single payer system too. The problem is the politicians in Washington are too involved in their power games to do what's best for the rest of us, and we're too stupid to vote the bastards out of office.

You mean after seven years of bitching endlessly about Obamacare, Conservatives now want to move on from it? Huh? What troubles me, and many others, is that the Conservatives had seven years to come up with a replacement plan, and they didn't. Instead, they cobbled together these sloppy bills last-minute, and don't even know -or want to know- of the consequences of it. We can certainly afford to provide everyone with health care, it just requires us to do away with the costly and pointless private insurance system, which is the root of most of the high costs due to profit motives and administrative expenses. Not sure why you would oppose taxing the wealthy to pay for health care for everyone else. Don't the rich want healthy workers to keep producing goods and services that they profit from?

As I said before, there are only two paths forward for further insurance reform: going back to the system we had before, or single payer. There's no other path forward from here. Insurance companies prove that they cannot be profitable and put patient needs above their profit motive. So since they can't do that, why even have private insurance companies at all? What benefit to patients do private insurance companies achieve? They don't actually have anything to do with how your health care is delivered to you, all they have to do is restrict where you can get health care, and the administration of reimbursements to providers. They serve no other function and are entirely extraneous to health care delivery.

 

[The Derp]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

 

[sealybobo]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

As expected, the bill released Thursday amounts to a massive rollback of the federal commitment to promote health care access and would instead pay for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

I just love it when Republican liars and losers say something can't be done

Oscar is entering the Affordable Care Act market while other insurers have fled amid uncertainty over the future of the ACA, lack of a federal guarantee to continue cost-sharing reduction payments and lackluster financial performance.

Oscar to enter exchange market in six states

Do you think AETNA and Humana are the only two companies that can be the middle man? All they do is shuffle paper. They make nothing. They suck balls. Get out! We should move to single payer Medicare for all. If not, we will just let the free market push out the Humana's who are greedy and the Oscar's who will do it better for less.

 

[JBond]

Neither statement is true. It is not market-based

Yes, it is market-based because there is literally a marketplace exchange where insurance plans compete with one another on a level playing field. That is the very definition of market-based.

it is subsidy based,

No, the subsidies are a consequence of the market because insurers cannot be profitable if they have to provide universal coverage. That's why the subsidies are necessary. Trump campaigned on the promise that his repeal of Obamacare would provide universal coverage. Now, the realities of that promise show that you can't make a promise like that. That's why the Conservative bills are basically Obamacare minus Medicaid and subsidies. There literally is no other place to go than a) back to the system we had before or b) single payer.

be it the bailouts for insurance companies or tax payer subsidized premium payments. Single payer is a loser. It is not workable.

It's workable in every other First World, single-payer nation. All our allies have some form of it. You all don't seem to understand the difference between health care and health insurance. Health care is delivered to you, health insurance just pays for it. Apart from that function, insurance companies serve no other role when it comes to your health care other than restricting access.

I guess we will see what happens in CA.

 

[The Derp]

this is how to *pay* for healthcare, not improving the quality of care out there. if anything this is an insurance act, not healthcare.

Which is all Obamacare was too. You can't reform the system, provide universal coverage, and maintain profits for insurance companies. So we have a choice to make; do we provide universal coverage, or do we preserve insurance company profits. Patient needs or shareholder needs? We have to make a choice.

 

[Smedley VonBuren]

Can't win without votes! Three GOP or more vote, "Nyet(?)" or however that is said(?)!

Enough GOP senators to block Obamacare replacement will announce opposition: NBC News, citing source

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(At GOP, the "Nyet" votes have it. . . .speaking of Lands of Many Nations!)

GREAT NEWS!! Now we can let Obamacare completely collapse. Why should we clean up the Dems mess!

 

[The Derp]

Do you think AETNA and Humana are the only two companies that can be the middle man? All they do is shuffle paper. They make nothing. They suck balls. Get out! We should move to single payer Medicare for all. If not, we will just let the free market push out the Humana's who are greedy and the Oscar's who will do it better for less.

BINGO!

 

[iceberg]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

 

[The Derp]

I guess we will see what happens in CA.

Yes, we will. It should work because it works in nations with single-payer systems that have equal population sizes to California. A better experiment would be to introduce a Public Option to the exchanges to offer patients more choices. But Conservatives oppose that because a Public Option would further fan the flames of the pointlessness of private insurance. And we can't have those flaws exposed, can we?

 

[iceberg]

this is how to *pay* for healthcare, not improving the quality of care out there. if anything this is an insurance act, not healthcare.

Which is all Obamacare was too. You can't reform the system, provide universal coverage, and maintain profits for insurance companies. So we have a choice to make; do we provide universal coverage, or do we preserve insurance company profits. Patient needs or shareholder needs? We have to make a choice.

its not that i disagree with you - but when we also reference all these 3rd world countries with great healthcare, how do they do it? is "socialized medicine" just cheap insurance?

there's a lot more to it than this but i 100% agree both sides need to cut the shit out and work together.

 

[grainbely]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

 

[JBond]

I guess we will see what happens in CA.

Yes, we will. It should work because it works in nations with single-payer systems that have equal population sizes to California. A better experiment would be to introduce a Public Option to the exchanges to offer patients more choices. But Conservatives oppose that because a Public Option would further fan the flames of the pointlessness of private insurance. And we can't have those flaws exposed, can we?

Lol! Yep, the first thing everyone thinks of when dealing with a Federal bureaucracy is efficiency. Ocare has already cost twice the BS estimates feed to us.

 

[JBond]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

They are leaving because the bailouts are ending. It's not complicated.

 

[The Derp]

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

You mean they were until they had to start paying claims for people they previously excluded because of pre-existing conditions. You can't have a profitable insurance company and guarantee universal coverage for specifically that reason. That's why subsidies are necessary to defray the cost of having to cover pre-existing conditions. This is the model Conservatives were in support of about 23 years ago, for 15 years. So it's confusing to see them oppose it today. Makes me think their opposition to it is wholly political and ideological. Not economic or fiscal. Because the realities of a for-profit insurance system is that it only is for-profit if it doesn't pay out claims. Which is in direct conflict with the guarantee Trump made of universal coverage.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

That 50% you didn't pay didn't just magically vanish. It was redistributed to providers and insurers. So that means a provider has to charge more for something like aspirin so the provider can use that reimbursement and apply it to things like giving a 50% off to someone with no insurance. That means your premiums will increase too to cover those costs. It is grotesque entitlement to think you get a discount on health care and that discount isn't passed onto the provider and policyholders.

 

[Preacher]

 

[sealybobo]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Insurance companies are very profitable. And the ACA was a gift to the insurance companies. In fact they wrote it. Did you know that? That's why the mandate everyone has had to buy their product. And why they were given years to jack up the price before the cost savings kicked in.

The oil companies made a great profit too when gas was $4 a gallon. Do you want to go back to that too?

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

Major insurance companies are enjoying record profits but claim they are losing money under the Affordable Care Act

 

[iceberg]

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

You mean they were until they had to start paying claims for people they previously excluded because of pre-existing conditions. You can't have a profitable insurance company and guarantee universal coverage for specifically that reason. That's why subsidies are necessary to defray the cost of having to cover pre-existing conditions. This is the model Conservatives were in support of about 23 years ago, for 15 years. So it's confusing to see them oppose it today. Makes me think their opposition to it is wholly political and ideological. Not economic or fiscal. Because the realities of a for-profit insurance system is that it only is for-profit if it doesn't pay out claims. Which is in direct conflict with the guarantee Trump made of universal coverage.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

That 50% you didn't pay didn't just magically vanish. It was redistributed to providers and insurers. So that means a provider has to charge more for something like aspirin so the insurer can use that reimbursement and apply it to things like giving a 50% off to someone with no insurance. That means your premiums will increase too to cover those costs. It is grotesque entitlement to think you get a discount on health care and that discount isn't passed onto the provider and policyholders.

it's a grotesque entitlement to think i have to pay for someone elses coverage when you boil it down like that. you think only their rates are going to go up?

please.

 

[task0778]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

I believe you're out of your mind. Only the most ideological CEOs and business owners eschew profits to make political points. It's hard to stay in business when you do that.

 

[sealybobo]

A twisted number


DONALD TRUMP
"Two million more people just dropped out of Obamacare. It is in a death spiral."

Mostly false