Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

You had health care before the ACA passed right? You will have the same health care after it's repealed. See how that works?

This made me Observer story about person with Obamacare posting about the takedown of Obamacare!

I said it made me laugh not that it was legitimate. I don't think that SNL skits are real, either, but they can be funny.

This hopefully should be fixed now. Let us know if you guys run into anymore posts being incorrectly flagged. Sorry folks!

Who is "they"? I think part of the problem is that "they" is usually a bunch of people opposed to anything the GOP is planning, and they're selling you the absolute worst case super scary scenarios to make sure you oppose it as well.

As to changing how it's funded, isn't block grants how it's always been funded? Honestly not sure, but is that really an issue? The blocks to states are based on aggregate state need, so if there's a downturn in your state, and more people in need, the block size increases. There's no real difference except that perhaps your state has a bit more control over how the money gets spent and can tailor the assistance to the wants and needs of the citizens in your state. Which is usually a good thing.



Again, who is "they"? And this isn't specifically about the repeal of the ACA. You're lumping a bunch of "scary things" into one basket to make it appear larger. Let's stick to just this one thing for the moment.



Disabled Americans, by and large, did not actually benefit from the passage of the ACA though. That's the starting premise that is affecting your conclusion. Prior to the ACA, medicare and medicaid provided health care to retired and disabled Americans. So if you were in one of those categories, you were covered. With the passage of the ACA, funding for those things got "shared" into funding for "everyone without health insurance". In other words, the ACA actually took money earmarked for disabled and retired Americans and handed it to other people to use to buy health insurance. They took money out of those funds in the range of half a trillion dollars.

By any objective measure, you were actually harmed by the passage of the ACA, not helped. I know that the rhetoric is pretty thick, and you've been likely sold a whole lot of roses and puppies about Obamacare, but the reality is that it was a massive shift of funds from the existing medicare and medicaid programs to the public health care co-ops, most of which have subsequently failed and gone bankrupt, leaving the funds that you were supposed to depend on for your health care in danger. Obama screwed you over. And you're screaming for it to continue. Which is what I find astounding.

The only people actually benefited by the ACA was the small percentage of people who were unemployed or underemployed, who could not afford to purchase health insurance directly, but who did not qualify for either medicare or medicaid. That's not you btw.



Again though, this is a phrase that gets bandied around and misused. Most people hear "pre-existing condition" and assume that anyone with an ongoing illness is refused coverage (or even used to be) if they attempt to obtain health insurance. That's not what it means in this context though. In this case, it really means "a major and expensive condition that existed prior to ever obtaining any health insurance at all during your entire lifetime". If you have insurance X, and you have an existing condition, when you transfer to insurance Y, that company will cover you. It's always been like this because the industry is treated as a whole unit in this regard.

The only case of denying coverage is when someone never pays for any health insurance for their entire life, and then only when they contract some major illness they show up and want to pay a standard premium and have the insurance cover their expenses. This is the equivalent of buying home insurance after a fire burns down your house. No one's going to cover you after the fact. It's up to you to be responsible and make a choice to buy insurance ahead of time. It's your risk to take.

I'll also point out that not having health insurance is not the same as not receiving health care. If you show up with a health problem, you will be provided for, at least to the point of life saving treatment. And there are a host of methods to provide for those who can't afford treatment as well. The big lie of the ACA was that the absence of a big government program to provide that treatment meant that it didn't exist at all. While there certainly were people who fell between the cracks, the correct solution should have been to find and fill the cracks, not completely remake the whole system in such a way as to create more problems than were solved.



Will they actually not be able to afford it? Or are they just worried that they wont? Were they able to obtain insulin prior to the passage of the ACA? Why then assume they wont when it's repealed? Again, it sounds like a whole lot of fear and not a lot of foundation for that fear.



I don't believe so. I think the "world is ending" hysteria is very much a creation of scare tactics the Left is tossing out there for everyone to build on. The ACA provided very few actual tangible benefits, a whole lot of negatives, but has been painted as though it's the salvation of sick people nation wide. It's amazing to me how often I'll talk to someone who's playing up the virtues of Obamacare, and talking about how great is it that finally we can all have health care now that the ACA exists. I always ask them "So you didn't have health care before the ACA?". To which I usually get a reply like "Oh. I did. But I know there's a bunch of people who didn't, so it helps them". To which I ask "Ok. Who? Do you know anyone directly?". It's always "Someone I know, knows someone who was benefited by Obamacare". But you talk to that person, and it's also "someone I know, knows someone", etc, etc, etc.

And yes, I know there are people on the public exchanges. But here's the thing. The vast majority of those on those exchanges either didn't want to or need to be there (ie: the mandate forced them to buy health insurance they didn't want to buy), or they would have received health insurance coverage via employment or direct purchase if the ACA hadn't passed, but went on the public exchange because it did. So that 20 million number? Probably 15-18 million of them would have had health insurance via alternative means if the ACA had never been passed. It didn't actually benefit them. The numbers are just rigged to make it look like it did.

And the 100+ million people who saw their health insurance premiums increase by 30-50%, and their deductibles double, and their coverage range shrink? They got screwed. They're paying more for less. All to provide a freaking illusion of covering more people.

It was a terrible law from day one. It was designed to be a terrible law. The obvious intent of the ACA was to break our health care system so badly, that in 10-15 years the public would demand a fully socialized system. It was never intended to make health care or coverage "better". Which is why it's so amazing that so many people still try to praise it like it's the second coming or something. It was a bad law. It should never have been passed. Repealing it is a very good thing.

While I'm not going to cheer lead for the GOP on this issue either, they are at least presenting proposals that might make the actual issues afflicting our health care system "better". Ironically, it's the same things they proposed back in 2009, but where ignored. Things like allowing insurers to compete across state lines (so more choices for the consumer, which is always a good thing). Things like tort reform. And yeah, they'll look into alternatives to help out people who find themselves falling through the cracks of the system as well. How many of these things will get done? I don't know. How well will they work? Also don't know. But at least their plans and proposals don't actually break anything.

And that's a good thing.

Well, on one. I actually thought, given how long it's been talked about, that we had actually implemented some form of block grants at some point in time. Apparently, that wasn't the case. Again though, that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.



Yeah. A block grant system would give the states more leeway in terms of what they cover and how. I get that the reaction to this is always "OMG! They're going to cut my coverage!!!", but the total initial dollars would be the same. The difference is the same thing conservatives always try to insert into these sorts of programs: competition and comparison. When every state uses the exact same federal requirements for funding, there's no way to tell if there is a better way of doing things. When you have 50 states, and each can develop their own guidelines, then each state can look over the fence at the others and see what works and what doesn't. Over time, all 50 states can gravitate to systems that actually work better, while keeping costs down (or at least decreasing cost increases over time, which amounts to the same thing).

Assuming that if control of spending was in the hands of state authorities rather than federal that this would magically result in a loss of your benefits is pure fearmongering. Why assume that? The federal bureaucracy is just as likely to do dumb or harmful things as the state. Again, the difference is that if the federal government makes a decision that screws you over, you have no recourse. If the state does, you can always move to a different state, have more voting power to affect decisions in your state, etc. There are advantages to a republican system of government, and that's one of the big ones.



Sure. Again though, you have no reason, other than sheer fear and speculation, to assume that your care will get worse as a result of any currently proposed change. The commitment to provide for disabled and retired Americans is not going away.



Do you understand that a large part of that is precisely because the federal government determines what is and isn't covered? Instead of assuming that a block grant system would remove your benefits or diminish them in some way, why not be optimistic instead? It's entirely possible that once unshackled from federal restrictions, the state you live in could implement coverage that matches those of the private employee health plans, and you'll find yourself getting better care than you are currently.

Obviously, this is all speculation at this point, but there's no reason to assume that speculation in one direction is fact, and ignore speculation in the other direction. Again, the underlying theory behind this (and frankly, a lot of Conservative proposals) is that when you allow choices to be made at a smaller and more local level, while it certainly allows for the possibility of some bad choices, over time, more good choices will be made as each region can adjust their spending choices to what works and away from what doesn't. I happen to think it's a pretty valid theory. It's certainly more likely to result in positive outcomes than a gigantic one-size-fits-all federal methodology.

Why not give is a chance and see what happens?



Ironically, this is another thing that becomes more common with the "small/local" model. Doctors become less restricted in their choices as well, as regulations from on high cease to be as strict. When you give health care providers wiggle room, they tend to use it to help their patients. When you tie their hands, they're kinda stuck. Again, I'm not saying that block grants are the solution to all problems, but they do at least present a possibility of better care. And that's only one change on the list of things being considered. It may not even happen, and then you'd be all alarmed for nothing.

Edited, Jan 16th 2017 5:42pm by gbaji

This is why I get all my news from Bernie Bros. Also, CNN, Fox, USA Today, WSJ, local rags(for local stuff) and Twitter. Because Twitter is a great source of unbiased news.

I get all my economic news from the price of baby skulls. It's a better economic indicator than the Dow.

My favorite is "Silver is currently selling for below its rate of production -- you're buying silver on sale! Buy now!"

That's why you'll never understand conservatives.

"America is now great, but is it as great as it could be?"

Maybe it is closer to the truth than I thought!



I know this is edited for the sake of humorous value, and that is why I am posting it!

It made me laugh, and I hope to share the laughter!

Bar of silver would be nice after the werewolf apocalypse.