Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP Healthcare Plan is a Liberal Conspiracy. Follow

#152 Apr 07 2017 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
How many times did they push for votes to repeal the ACA? Were those just to abolish it, or were they also trying to replace it?
Just abolish.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#153 Apr 07 2017 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
Damnable double!!Smiley: mad


Edited, Apr 7th 2017 8:25pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#154 Apr 07 2017 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
Thanks



Thanks
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#155 Apr 07 2017 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Crappy analogy, I admit
If you didn't use crappy analogies, you'd get less flack. Just sayin'.


Fair enough. Again though, it was one in a list of things. The broader point that we do tend to start with very general objectives and then narrow them down to more detailed plans as we get closer to the event in question is pretty valid though, right? I don't know about you, but I'm usually still making adjustments to my shopping list right up to the point I'm walking in the store (and sometimes even after that point). And I don't have to deal with other people changing their minds about what they want for dinner.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Which explains why they didn't have a fully written piece of legislation in hand.
They didn't have anything which is, again, the point. They couldn't come up with even a basic framework for something different since the ACA passed? Really? Maybe you GOP folk should get more competent and concerned people on your team.


They did have a basic framework. What they didn't have was a full piece of legislation. We're not talking about changing the tie you wear to dinner here. There's a massive amount of time and energy between "here's a bullet list of thing we want to change" and "here's the actual legislation, written in legal form that can stand future judicial scrutiny and re-definition, properly scored, and which meets the requirements of the list of bullet points we started with, and which we have a high confidence we can get enough votes in the house and senate to pass".

It's a totally unworkable requirement, and frankly this is the only time I've ever in my life heard it being demanded. It took the Democrats a little over a year to pass the ACA. And that was with a super majority in the Senate. I don't recall anyone criticizing them because Obama made "fixing health care" one of his major political planks in his campaign, but then didn't have a ready to vote on bill within the first 100 days of taking office. Do you? It takes time to write legislation, and you can't start doing so until after a session of congress starts and you know who all the players and factions are. I mean, you could write it ahead of time, but you'll only have to completely re-write it when a new session begins again.

Again, the GOP assumed, as we all did, that they'd have a president Clinton to deal with. So yeah. You'll have to forgive them for not actually spending a ton of time and effort writing a bill they believed would never possibly become a law. They chose to spend their time and effort trying to win house and senate seats (and the white house), so that at some point in the future they'd have sufficient numbers to pass such a bill, and then they'd write it. They just didn't expect it would happen this soon.

No one writes complete (or even partial) legislation that far in advance. I'm not even sure where this assumed requirement came from. As I mentioned above, I've never seen it demanded before. And frankly, it seems like a pretty weak argument. Who cares really? They'll write it when they write it. Are you actually in a hurry for the GOP to change the health care system? I assume not. So this isn't really about criticizing them for doing something which you don't actually want them to do, right? It's about finding something, anything at all, to criticize them for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Apr 07 2017 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
How many times did they push for votes to repeal the ACA? Were those just to abolish it, or were they also trying to replace it?
Just abolish.


Those were all before the major portions of the ACA took effect though. It's one thing to cancel a piece of legislation that phases in from year 3 to year 5 when you're still in year 1 or 2. You just pass a law and don't implement the original legislation. It's a completely different thing to do so when you've reached year 6. You now have to account for the fact that changes have already occurred. You have to find a way to roll back those changes, and to do so in a way that minimally impacts those who have already had to adjust their lives to the new/current legislation. All those people whose employers dropped them from their health care, and who went on the public exchanges? You can't just eliminate the exchanges, right? If you'd prevented the option in the first place, it would have been easy.

Now, it's not so much. So the choice was between a total re-write of the health care system, which takes quite a bit of time, including many years of phase in for the replacement, or a much faster "modification" to the existing law. Ryan chose to do the latter, because it was easier, and he thought he could get the votes for it. He thought wrong. The GOP members wanted a full repeal and replace of the ACA, not just a tepid adjustment to it. So yeah, back to the drawing board.

I honestly believe it was the right choice to make.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Apr 07 2017 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
I was only asking the question because I was too lazy to google it.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#158 Apr 07 2017 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I was only asking the question because I was too lazy to google it.


Fair enough. I was just following that up with an explanation as to why calls for repealing it, which started 6 years ago, can't just magically be done with a snap of a finger today. You'll also note that bills to repeal the ACA by the house GOP stopped right around the same time that the ACA components began to phase in and take effect. Precisely because you can't simply repeal a law once its begun to have effect. You have to write an actual replacement that adjusts for the effects of the law for the time it's been in effect. And the exact nature of that replacement legislation will change over time as more of the components of the original law take effect. So you have a bit of a moving target for the entire time period between when the first law is passed, and you can even think about replacing it.

Which, again, is part of the reason why they didn't have a fully written piece of legislation ready to go in January or something. I still happen to think the bigger reason is that they simply assumed that Clinton would win the election and were preparing for that more likely scenario and not the much less likely one in which Trump is sitting in the oval office. It's not like Democrats were the only ones shocked and surprised when Trump won.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Apr 07 2017 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
They did have a basic framework.
Which I've never heard of or seen. Do you have a link to it?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#160 Apr 07 2017 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It took the Democrats a little over a year to pass the ACA.

Good thing they didn't spend the seven years before that howling about how they had a better plan.

Amusingly, back in 2015 ("Oh noes Freedom Caucus!!!!!") you insisted repeatedly that the GOP had a plan ready to go. In fact, rather than whine and cry about how it was too hard because different people were in office every couple of years, you insisted that:
Quote:
The GOP had a consistent set of ideas back in 2009, and they have a consistent set of ideas today.

I guess the expiration date on that "consistency" was 2015, huh? Now it's all "But there's new people and it's too hard to have a plan! Smiley: cry "

Even worse, the GOP "plan" fell apart at bullet point number one where a significant number of House Republicans balked at the idea of immediately and completely repealing the ACA. I mean, if you can't even get step one of your "consistent set of ideas" off the ground, you can't really pretend that you always had a plan. Or, well, I guess you just had a really shitty plan no one actually thought through.

Edited, Apr 8th 2017 12:30am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#161 Apr 08 2017 at 2:44 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course, that's just my insurance based on the fact sheet that I got last year about all the changes that were made in response to the passage of ACA.
Being an honest fellow, you will post that here (with your info redacted, of course).
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#162 Apr 10 2017 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I guess the expiration date on that "consistency" was 2015, huh?
It's just a coincidence that all the people that were involved with that consistent plan were all replaced two years ago. Like Paul Ryan.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#163 Apr 10 2017 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
gbaji wrote:
They did have a basic framework. What they didn't have was a full piece of legislation. We're not talking about changing the tie you wear to dinner here. There's a massive amount of time and energy between "here's a bullet list of thing we want to change" and "here's the actual legislation, written in legal form that can stand future judicial scrutiny and re-definition, properly scored, and which meets the requirements of the list of bullet points we started with, and which we have a high confidence we can get enough votes in the house and senate to pass".
Which is the interesting part to me.

Kind of wondering what happened behind the scenes. Was something worked out previously, but they didn't get the right people elected that could have passed it; so it was suddenly a no-go in the new congress? We're there votes that deserted from the 'yes' camp in the last month or two, perhaps swayed by changing opinions of their constituents, or convinced by lobbyists? Was the whole thing smoke and mirrors the whole time and they never really did have the votes necessary to pass it, just put on a show for the sake of meeting a campaign promise?

gbaji wrote:
It took the Democrats a little over a year to pass the ACA. And that was with a super majority in the Senate.
Funny thing is, now in hindsight, it's apparent just how much of significant legislative accomplishment that was. Wasn't happy at all with the way the Democrats strong-armed that broken piece of legislation through, but looking back now, it's pretty obvious getting 60% of the senate to vote one way on health care was pretty significant.

gbaji wrote:
Are you actually in a hurry for the GOP to change the health care system?
Health care costs keep going up, sea levels keep going up, cost of college keeps going up, federal debt keeps going up, cost of supporting retiring baby boomers keeps going up. All are not an immediate concern until they suddenly are, and they don't suddenly hit everyone at the same time, so there's little motivation to change. It's an urgent issue for a small number of people, a distant thought for others, and still more have already forgotten what it was like to have it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#164 Apr 10 2017 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
cost of college keeps going up
Not here. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Apr 10 2017 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
cost of college keeps going up
Not here. Smiley: thumbsup
I want to see that in a recruitment video with a Billy Mays impersonator doing the selling. Instead all I get is the same tired dribble about patriotism and pride or whatever. Ya'll are missing out on a great opportunity.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#166 Apr 10 2017 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
BILLY MAYS HERE, WITH AN EXCITING NEW OFFER ON FURTHERING YOUR EDUCATION!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#167 Apr 10 2017 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Perfect. There's hope for this country after all.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#168 Apr 10 2017 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Just give Phil Swift some cocaine and we'd easily have Mays back.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Apr 10 2017 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They did have a basic framework.
Which I've never heard of or seen. Do you have a link to it?


Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

Here's another list of things they want to do.

Both of those look like they were generated around the time when the ACA was first being debated (or very soon after passage). You seem to be the victim of a narrative that needed so strongly to convince everyone that there was no alternative plan to what Obama and the Dems were proposing, that despite the GOP writing paper after paper, and going to everyone who would listen and practically yelling "this is what we think we should be doing instead", no one listened. And on the rare occasions when what they said was reported, no one talked about it on the alphabet networks on your TV. So if you are Joe average media consumer, all your heard was "The GOP has no alternative plan", probably about 100,000 times.

And most people still believe that. Ironically, those people are so convinced of this, that they wont even bother to spend 10 seconds of their own time checking this amazing thing called "the internet" to see if that's actually true.


BTW, that's what a "framework" looks like. If you're demanding actual legislation, we can find examples of that. Heck. We saw what Ryan came up with. It wasn't great, but it was actual proposed legislation.

Again, you're missing the larger point that you start with lists of objectives and broad ideas of how to achieve them. Then you build support for that, and if you think you have enough, then you write the detailed legislation. You don't do it the other way around. Which is why it's bizarre that everyone seems to want to demand just that, but only in this one specific case. I'm reasonably certain that Elon Musk got investors in his new electric car company with a list of "things we want our car to be able to do", and no one was actually demanding existing blue prints for the finished product at that stage. No one does what you're demanding the GOP should have done, in the order you seem to think they should have done it.

You're just hearing a ton of folks on your TV and news sources demanding this, or criticizing them for not having it, and assuming that this is a reasonable demand. It's not. It's being done precisely to make you think it is, though. And apparently this works on most people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Apr 10 2017 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,541 posts
gbaji wrote:
despite the GOP writing paper after paper, and going to everyone who would listen and practically yelling "this is what we think we should be doing instead", no one listened.


It's almost like...everyone wanted Obamacare because it...you know...existed.
#171 Apr 10 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here

Edited, Apr 10th 2017 7:08pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#172 Apr 11 2017 at 12:38 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#173 Apr 11 2017 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
How?
How else?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Apr 11 2017 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?

It won't. That's why Ryan wanted to push it through before the CBO could score it. It would have dropped millions of people from their insurance and raised premiums for millions more by changing the subsidy tiers, driving out healthy people and allowing companies to charge extra for various things (repealing essential benefits) including substantial premium increases for older individuals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175 Apr 11 2017 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
gbaji wrote:
despite the GOP writing paper after paper, and going to everyone who would listen and practically yelling "this is what we think we should be doing instead", no one listened.


It's almost like...everyone wanted Obamacare because it...you know...existed.


First off, "everyone" didn't want Obamacare. In fact, it consistently polled at well below 50% support for the entire time period it was being debated, discussed, and written.

Secondly, this is the same legislation that Pelosi said "you can find out what's in it after we pass it" (paraphrase)? Seriously? It wasn't written either. It was still being re-written and modified and adjusted right up until they lost their super majority in the Senate and then had to scramble to try to use reconcilliation to make it "fit" and then kinda tossed what they had onto the presidents desk.

We got the equivalent of a musical chairs legislation. It was not what *anyone* intended or wanted. It's just the form it happened to be in when the music stopped.

And again, the point is that they didn't start actually writing the legislation itself until well after they knew how many votes they had. And they were still writing it a year later. I still suspect that what happened was that the GOP folks involved in this assumed, as did most of us, that Clinton was going to win, and they might not even have retained the Senate, so they wrote a half measure legislation that could pass with minimal votes and might be able to get through a veto if painted as a "fix for Obamacare" rather than a full repeal and replace. Then Trump won, and the GOP did better in the Senate than expected, and they suddenly realized that they did have the numbers to write a much more complete health care bill. But they didn't have that even close to written, so they decided to just do "something" that would meet the presidents 100 days requirement, and tossed the Ryan half measure bill out there.

And yeah. It got rejected by the GOP itself. Not surprising at all IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Apr 11 2017 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here


And? I was asked for example of the GOP "framework" for their proposed health care changes. The list of things they want to accomplish hasn't changed. How you accomplish that, on the other hand, changes constantly as the political landscape changes, and in this case, as various portions of the ACA came into effect. I'm reasonably certain I've already explained multiple times now why the GOP kinda had to wait until they had sufficient numbers (and knew what they were and who they were) before they could start writing the actual legislation. In response, I was told that they didn't even have a framework. Those links were to the framework.

I'm not sure what you expect here. We're not going to find examples of fully written legislation anywhere, because that's not how legislation is written (seriously, go look at how committees work and you'll get an idea why). Again, it's like you're asking me to provide blueprints for a car when we're still debating what kinds of capabilities we think the car we're designing should have and don't yet know what materials we'll have available, how much money we'll have for design, what kind of factories and tools we'll have, etc.

No one does what is being demanded here. No one. There is nothing at all unusual for a political party to write up a list of things they'd like to accomplish and then fight for those things, and run campaigns on those things, all without ever having written any legislation. It's normal. You gain support for the idea first, then you fill out the details. Doing it the other way around is just a huge waste of time and resources.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#177 Apr 11 2017 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?


How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available", and "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". You're applying a ridiculous double standard here.

Um... But if you want the answer, it's been given multiple times to you. By allowing insurers to offer a wide variety of plans, they can include ones with less comprehensive coverage, but much lower premiums. By allowing insurers to compete across state lines, it can increase competition, resulting in not only more plan options, but forcing prices down on each tier of plan. Tort reform can also reduce premiums by reducing overhead to the health industry as a whole, the majority of which just lines the pockets of lawyers and does little or nothing to contribute to the health of those paying for this.

There's three things right off the top of my head, all of which I know for a fact have been discussed on this forum before. Some of them probably in this very thread. So yeah... How has been answered. Oh. And that is before mentioning that by merely *not* mandating the purchase of health insurance by everyone, you can avoid a cost increase (like what we've seen) that is pretty much guaranteed when you hand out free money like that. IMO, one of the biggest flaws with the ACA is that in their obsession over the true concept that the larger a pool of insurers, the lower the cost per person, they forgot that this only works when those insurers are free to buy or not buy the insurance. Once you mandate the purchase the rules change. Democrats often tend to forget stuff like that. So by just removing the mandate, we could lower premiums. Even if we changed nothing else at all. Viva la Free Market!

And yes, before you go there, that's all still a long way from written legislation. But again, that's a whole different issue. The devil is in the details, but that's true of anything you do, and probably doubly so for legislation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Apr 11 2017 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#179 Apr 11 2017 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here


And?


And nothing, you said you didn't know when they were from, so I looked it up.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#180 Apr 11 2017 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,758 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


How does forcing insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions and the Government paying for part of the premiums actually lower premiums though?

I only pay 560 dollars per year for my employer health insurance. But my employer pays 5600 ontop of that. The combined 6160 is still the cost of that health coverage even if I'm only paying 560 dollars.

Edited, Apr 12th 2017 12:11am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#181 Apr 11 2017 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


How does forcing insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions and the Government paying for part of the premiums actually lower premiums though?

I only pay 560 dollars per year for my employer health insurance. But my employer pays 5600 ontop of that. The combined 6160 is still the cost of that health coverage even if I'm only paying 560 dollars.

Really, dude?
gbaji wrote:
"more affordable", and "more available",
For the record, now that the 401(c)3 I work for decided to get group health insurance for us it cost me ~$125US a month for health insurance. I have no idea what the admin side pays, though.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#182 Apr 11 2017 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,758 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Really, dude?


I'm not the one that highlighted the specific question in the quote.

Friar Bijou wrote:
For the record, now that the 401(c)3 I work for decided to get group health insurance for us it cost me ~$125US a month for health insurance. I have no idea what the admin side pays, though.


Not that I care how much your employer pays, but in case you were curious yourself, I think that the new ACA rules (or, if not the rules themselves, it happened around the same time as the ACA) require it to be listed on your W2. It's the only reason I know how much they contribute.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#183 Apr 12 2017 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here


And?


And nothing, you said you didn't know when they were from, so I looked it up.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#184 Apr 12 2017 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
And now that song is stuck in my head.

Jerkass.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#185 Apr 12 2017 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Fine. Here this will clear it out of your head.



Edit: Love how Maui and Tamatoa have the same face in those two images... Go Disney. Smiley: lol

Edited, Apr 12th 2017 9:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#186 Apr 12 2017 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?


How does that make it more affordable? Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the current pool of health care insurance consumers pays X dollars, and the total cost to provide them health care costs Y, with X and Y being relative to each other. Right now, the value of Y is based on the insurers refusing to cover the costs for pre-existing conditions. We change the rules to require this. That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.

We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons. It can only increase costs.

Quote:
When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Huh? What subsidy cut what rate in half? Premiums have increased at a rate faster than they were before the ACA was passed. And that's saying something. The law basically made the very thing they sold it on and made it worse. It was never about affordability. It was about getting people to support it by calling it that, while actually doing something else entirely.

How do you not see this?


Quote:
Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


No. Not at all. The trick appears to be that you've somehow bought the entire line of BS that was sold to you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Apr 12 2017 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons...
I can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons; you historically have argued against doing anything for social reasons. Thought I'd point that out.



Ayn.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#188 Apr 12 2017 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#189 Apr 12 2017 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,758 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#190 Apr 12 2017 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
Of couse not. If the choice is a pile of gold 100 meters high or a pile 66 meters high with everyone getting taken care of, historically it's been "100 meters high it is!!"


There used to be a time when companies understood a thing called "the public good". Too bad that concept died, huh?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#191 Apr 12 2017 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons...
I can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons; you historically have argued against doing anything for social reasons. Thought I'd point that out.


Then make that argument. What you tried to do was argue that by covering PECs, it would somehow result in decreased costs. It wont. It will (and did) increase costs across the board.

Say "it's worth the extra cost to provide this". It's not that hard. My issue here is the bait and switch nature of this. Its' called the "Affordable Care Act". It was argued based on the issue of rising health care/insurance costs. It was sold to the public as a means to reduce those costs. And that was absolutely a lie.

I guess what bothers me so much about this, is that there are people who honestly think this is a great idea and we should go forward with it, but instead of actually saying "this is a great idea and we should go forward with it", they feel like they have to lie about what they are doing in order to get it done. Vote for the bill first, then find out what's in it. I think that's a terrible way to make law. If you actually think something is the right thing to do then argue for it, and then win the freaking argument. But if you can't win that argument, on those merits, then drop it. Don't just do it anyway by just re-labeling what you're doing as something else. That's never a good idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Apr 12 2017 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
Of couse not. If the choice is a pile of gold 100 meters high or a pile 66 meters high with everyone getting taken care of, historically it's been "100 meters high it is!!"


There used to be a time when companies understood a thing called "the public good". Too bad that concept died, huh?


While you're at it, why not argue that grocery stores should just provide food for free? That would be for the public good too, right? The problem with the "public good" argument is that there is no end to what is in the public good. Because the public is just as greedy as the businesses you're demanding take action to help the public good. They'll keep taking as much as you're willing to give them. And if you get the government in the business of forcing companies to provide for that public good, you're heading down a really nasty slippery slope.

Oh. And at the risk of repeating myself, that is not in any way aligned with the concept of "affordable". If they wanted to call it the "Public Good Act", then we could assess it on those merits.

There's no such thing as free. The only way to make something free is to make someone else pay for it. I don't know about you, but I don't want a government that gets in the habit of doing that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 12 2017 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then make that argument. What you tried to do was argue that by covering PECs, it would somehow result in decreased costs. It wont. It will (and did) increase costs across the board..
*SIGH*

YOU wrote:
"more affordable", and "more available"
Which is what I was responding to. Quit *****ing changing the subject every time you are answered. It's been pretty tiresome for the past eight years.

The fact that the insurance companies raised their prices is purely a matter of "more money!!" not "OMG we're gonna go broke".


Frankly, I think we should go completely single payer and let the health isurance companies go the way of the buggy harness industry.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#194 Apr 12 2017 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
PECs are a problem because it incentivized insurance corps to aggressively drop coverage, thus not adequately performing the entire function of insurance which is risk mitigation.

Disconnect this from the affordability argument, as it's a totally different discussion. If your argument is that PEC part of the legislation is an onerous cost driver you just don't understand the market, sorry.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#195 Apr 13 2017 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,334 posts
I love my universal healthcare.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#196 Apr 13 2017 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's no such thing as free.
God knows how costly it is to my aspirin supply every time you think you're insightful about politics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Apr 13 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Apr 13 2017 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,334 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#199 Apr 13 2017 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Because the animals actually liked Jesus, they were tired of being sacrifices, and he was supposed to put a stop to that. They don't like you so much since you'll just wait until they get turned into hot dogs then eat them. That cow has all the reason in the world to "accidentally bump" the surgeon.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#200 Apr 13 2017 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Being operated on a cross and being thrown in a cave for three days for recovery makes it less appealing.

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 12:21pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Apr 13 2017 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,334 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Being operated on a cross and being thrown in a cave for three days for recovery makes it less appealing.

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 12:21pm by lolgaxe
Americans and their constant need for luxuries Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (56)