The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[boyst]

 

You are an idiot

this gets you mocked. At least meathead forms a response to his viewpoint. So many are incapable of replying due to beint complete morons its not even worth replying to this stuff.

[Meathead]

 

I have hopes that something better will be passed, but I have my doubts that it will actually come about.

 

We have a dysfunctional political society that is filled with political agitators from both sides of the aisle.

 

It's sort of like Hamas. Hamas exists because there is conflict with Israel. Without the conflict, there is no cause and without a cause there is no existence for them. So it is in their benefit to always stir up opposition and hysteria.

 

Same things with talk radio, the media hucksters, mainstream media etc. Without conflict, there is no cause. It benefits CNN to always be opposed to Conservative orthodoxy, it is in the interests of Hannity to always be in opposition to Democrats or Levin, Ingraham, Breitbart and Rush to rail on the so-called establishment at every turn.

 

The environment is toxic. Those that have a real interest in getting things done are in the wrong business. Politics is for actors and provocative demagogues.

 

 

yes, its gotten very, very bad

 

im actually pretty deeply disheartened about all of it. i keep waiting for something really bad to happen

 

i seriously hate talk radio. i used to listen to it all, then when the right wing on fox got too extreme i just listened to CNN and MSNBC (who used to be reasonable, no more), but then both of those got tainted and now i cant listen to any of it. i spend most of my time screaming at the tv/radio. its not worth it

 

ppl are getting brainwashed in their echo chambers. we create those echo chambers with our social media so that the ONLY voices we hear are those similar to ours. and when we hear a voice thats different, we grab all our friends to go shout them down viciously. we see it all the time in this forum

 

weve managed to get the crime rate to slowly come down in most areas. its almost like we need something else to fill the void so we create conflict elsewhere. idk. its pretty sick

[IDBillzFan]

 

I have to agree with meat on this one. Every bad ACA outcome from now on will be blamed on Trump & GOP because they're obviously the impediment to the great law's success. Doesn't make it right, but that's how the spin is now doctored.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I understand how it's being spun.

 

But Obamacare is not Trumpcare. In fact, none of this would be happening if Obamacare wasn't passed in the first place.

 

Unfortunately, this is where the left shines. They take one of their mistakes and make it someone else's fault. That's all I was railing against. When an entire political party is against personal responsibility, it's too much to ask they admit their errors, and the gators and meatheads of the world are all too easy to comply with demands to repeat a narrative that is clearly false.

Edited March 15, 2017 by LABillzFan

[Azalin]

 

When an entire political party is against personal responsibility, it's too much to ask they admit their errors.....

 

That pretty much sums it up quite nicely.

[B-Man]

Freedom’s fallen entirely out of the health-care debate

By John Podhoretz

 

The debate over the health-care bill in the House of Representatives has come to center on a single topic: How many Americans will be covered under its auspices.

 

For the left, the answer to this question has always been: Every single American.

 

The right’s riposte has always been: The cost of such a policy would be larger than this country can bear unless the government literally runs all of national health care directly in what’s known as a “single payer” system.

 

The left’s answer: Yeah, so? We should have single-payer but you guys won’t stand for it.

 

The right’s reply: Single-payer nationalizes health care, which is philosophically inimical to the American experiment and would as a practical matter be destructive. It would drive the best people out of medicine, retard the medical innovations that are improving our lives every year and create a horrifying system of rationing.

 

The left’s rejoinder: We already have rationing — rich people get the best care and the poor don’t. A national health-care system ensures fairness in the distribution of health and socializes the cost across 320 million people far more efficiently.

 

The right’s response: Our political system isn’t designed to ensure parity of outcome. It exists to enshrine the freedom of the individual from coercion by the state and to provide for the working of a free society outside government control. And aside from the threat single-payer poses to these bedrock principles, government management of one-sixth of the economy will be inefficient, corrupt and arbitrary.

 

 

Let’s leave the debate stage and return to practical political reality. The current health-care bill was dealt a terrific blow by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated on Monday that by 2026, 24 million fewer people will have health-care coverage.

 

The consensus headline: “24 Million Will Lose Coverage.”

 

As a simple matter of fact, that isn’t right. The verb “lose” suggests these 24 million will unwillingly be booted out of the system. No: The CBO says that most of those people will not be covered because they will not buy an insurance policy when it’s no longer the law of the land that they must do so.

 

In other words, they’ll be exercising their freedom of choice as adults to opt out of the system — and should they try to get back in only when they get sick, they will have to pay a 30 percent penalty for their effort to game the system.

 

Also as a matter of fact, the people who now have coverage under ObamaCare who did not before it was passed are in a degenerating system.

 

{snip}

 

The case for liberty is in desperate straits. The left opposes it, and now the right is splitting over it. Barack Obama and the Democrats may have lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016, but they may be winning the most important argument they’ve ever made.

[HappyDays]

In other words, theyll be exercising their freedom of choice as adults to opt out of the system and should they try to get back in only when they get sick, they will have to pay a 30 percent penalty for their effort to game the system.

That's not "freedom of choice." That's like me saying when I pass a multimillion dollar mansion, I am "freely choosing" to not buy it. Trust me, I'd buy it if I could afford it. That isn't liberty, that's pure capitalism in a literal life and death market.

 

If the GOP really just cared about liberty, they would simply remove the individual mandate. But the liberty argument is just an excuse. The truth is there's still a vocal wing of the party whose philosophy is basically "let poor people die" and that wing won't accept compromise. It has nothing to do with choice, it has everything to do with cost. They want to get rid of the mandate AND make it impossible for certain income levels to have healthcare. In this economy, that's a quick way to lose your voter base in 2 years.

[Magox]

 

The case for liberty is in desperate straits. The left opposes it, and now the right is splitting over it. Barack Obama and the Democrats may have lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016, but they may be winning the most important argument they’ve ever made.

 

 

I was actually going to post virtually this same argument, that even though Democrats took substantial political losses and that the bill they crafted was extremely flawed that at the end of the day, they had won the argument. Which is that in the conscience of the American public, in order for healthcare to be considered a success, overall coverage has got to be at the forefront of any healthcare system. I see it not just with Democrats or independents but many Republicans as well.

That's not "freedom of choice." That's like me saying when I pass a multimillion dollar mansion, I am "freely choosing" to not buy it. Trust me, I'd buy it if I could afford it. That isn't liberty, that's pure capitalism in a literal life and death market.

 

If the GOP really just cared about liberty, they would simply remove the individual mandate. But the liberty argument is just an excuse. The truth is there's still a vocal wing of the party whose philosophy is basically "let poor people die" and that wing won't accept compromise. It has nothing to do with choice, it has everything to do with cost. They want to get rid of the mandate AND make it impossible for certain income levels to have healthcare. In this economy, that's a quick way to lose your voter base in 2 years.

 

That's not necessarily true. Every person who doesn't get coverage because of removing the mandate aren't created equally. If you are priced out of coverage because of the bill, then you'd be right, but make no mistake there are plenty of people who can afford it who would rather not obtain insurance.

[B-Man]

ObamaCare enrollments miss the mark again — for the last time?

 

 

 

 

 

Politico’s story on Trump sabotaging Obamacare is a mess

[Meathead]

personally im fine with the mandate. seems to me ppl that dont contribute are freeloaders. every single person alive gets sick eventually and often times its extremely expensive to try to fix something at that point that could have been avoided. its much better to have preventative health care throughout and be contributing to the system

 

still to date, nobody has ever explained why opening up medicare to all would be a problem. its a baseline of coverage that isnt great but its far better than nothing. but if youre on it believe me you will want something better if you can get it. im disabled but i pay an extra premium for a better policy, i think a ton of ppl would. so let the insurance companies supply those rider policies for ppl that can afford it. the massive insurance market would shrink but who cares, everybody would be covered and those that can afford it would get better and better policies. i dont see why that wouldnt be an excellent solution

[TakeYouToTasker]

The basic concept of taxation is immoral, as such, great pains should be taken to limit taxation to the bare minimums necessary to maintain a sovereign nation, and to protect the freedoms of the individuals who comprise the nation.

 

Health care doesn't rise to this standard.

 

I want a government who rejects the notion that it has the authority to force me, at the barrel of a gun, to purchase something I do not want.

 

Anything less is a rejection of freedom, and a rejection of fundamental American values.

[HappyDays]

That's not necessarily true. Every person who doesn't get coverage because of removing the mandate aren't created equally. If you are priced out of coverage because of the bill, then you'd be right, but make no mistake there are plenty of people who can afford it who would rather not obtain insurance.

Sure but the GOP could placate those people by simply removing the mandate. They have every branch of the government locked down, wouldn't be a challenge. But my understanding (which admittedly is very limited and probably mistaken) of the bill is that the mandate was necessary to pay for it. Maybe there are other avenues, God knows I'm not an economics expert.

Edited March 15, 2017 by HappyDays

[B-Man]

CHARLES HURT: Democrats need to help fix the Disastercare they created.

 

Mr. Trump has noted that the politically expedient thing for Republicans to do right now would be just to stand back and watch Obamacare collapse and keep reminding voters that this is what happens when you put stupid, dishonest and power-hungry Democrats in charge.

But there is a wiser middle-ground approach to fixing the Obamacare debacle that Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress should chart instead.

Yes, put together Republicans’ more market-based plans for salvaging Disastercare. Even include their crazy new tax credit entitlement program that should cause any decent conservative to break out in hives.

But —

and this is crucial

— demand that Democrats in Congress come to the table and support this rescue mission to fix the disastrous mess they created. Mr. Trump should play hardball with vulnerable Democrats and threaten to campaign against them if they do not support this plan.

 

 

[Azalin]

That's not necessarily true. Every person who doesn't get coverage because of removing the mandate aren't created equally. If you are priced out of coverage because of the bill, then you'd be right, but make no mistake there are plenty of people who can afford it who would rather not obtain insurance.

 

This is something that I've been wondering about - of the 24 million people who are said to be losing coverage under the proposed Republican plan, how many of those only have coverage now because they were compelled to purchase it against their will?

[Magox]

 

CHARLES HURT: Democrats need to help fix the Disastercare they created.

 

Mr. Trump has noted that the politically expedient thing for Republicans to do right now would be just to stand back and watch Obamacare collapse and keep reminding voters that this is what happens when you put stupid, dishonest and power-hungry Democrats in charge.

But there is a wiser middle-ground approach to fixing the Obamacare debacle that Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress should chart instead.

Yes, put together Republicans’ more market-based plans for salvaging Disastercare. Even include their crazy new tax credit entitlement program that should cause any decent conservative to break out in hives.

But —

and this is crucial

— demand that Democrats in Congress come to the table and support this rescue mission to fix the disastrous mess they created. Mr. Trump should play hardball with vulnerable Democrats and threaten to campaign against them if they do not support this plan.

 

 

 

 

 

This should be the approach.

[IDBillzFan]

But my understanding (which admittedly is very limited and probably mistaken) of the bill is that the mandate was necessary to pay for it. Maybe there are other avenues, God knows I'm not an economics expert.

 

The concept makes sense, in theory. In order for the Obamacare scheme to work, they needed everybody in.

 

However, you don't need to be an economics expert to see where the DNC made two really obvious, stupid mistakes.

 

Mistake #1: No problems with pre-existing conditions. By itself, not such a hindrance. Except for...

 

Mistake #2: The penalty for not having coverage was exceedingly less expensive than your premium.

 

So let's recap: You must buy insurance for $12,000/year and if you don't, we're going to fine you $500/year. Oh, and you can sign up any time and never be refused, so if you don't have coverage and choose to pay the fine, and THEN get sick, you get your coverage so you don't have to face bankruptcy.

 

It genuinely took a majority of Democrats to come up with that schitstorm of a plan.

[Magox]

 

This is something that I've been wondering about - of the 24 million people who are said to be losing coverage under the proposed Republican plan, how many of those only have coverage now because they were compelled to purchase it against their will?

 

Let's just assume that their baseline numbers are correct and that 24 million people would be losing coverage, which I think is off. I think they overestimate the impact of the mandate, in our MGA's experience if I had to calculate our customers motives for purchasing healthcare through the ACA, most are purchasing it because it is so cheap with the subsidy they receive that it is a virtual no brainer for them. People are getting gold plated low deductible policies in some cases for $0 premiums. Crazy. I would venture to guess that at most a 1/3 that are on the exchange are motivated by the mandate, probably closer to 20%. Which puts that number around 3-4 million.

 

Out of that 24 million the majority of those come off from medicaid. The average medicaid enrollee's health plan costs the government $6000 in premiums. The average advanced tax credit under the ACHA (Ryan's/Price's) plan for those making a little over the medicaid threshold is approximately $3000. So the drop off is profound. That is where the majority of the loss of coverage that is being calculated by the CBO is coming from. That and the over 50's with incomes below $40,000. They also are going to receive a huge premium increase under the ACHA than what they were receiving under the ACA. If they could increase that advanced tax credit number along with designing high deductible plans that are rich with doctor, rx, specialist, diagnostic testing and ER copays, I think they could create plans with premiums on average of only $4000 annually which would come close to enrolling all these people who lost their Medicaid coverage.

 

The design of the plans is going to play a huge role in my opinion in expanding those coverage numbers. Of course that isn't something that the government will decide, that is something that the carriers would have to determine.

[Azalin]

 

Let's just assume that their baseline numbers are correct and that 24 million people would be losing coverage, which I think is off. I think they overestimate the impact of the mandate, in our MGA's experience if I had to calculate our customers motives for purchasing healthcare through the ACA, most are purchasing it because it is so cheap with the subsidy they receive that it is a virtual no brainer for them. People are getting gold plated low deductible policies in some cases for $0 premiums. Crazy. I would venture to guess that at most a 1/3 that are on the exchange are motivated by the mandate, probably closer to 20%. Which puts that number around 3-4 million.

 

Out of that 24 million the majority of those come off from medicaid. The average medicaid enrollee's health plan costs the government $6000 in premiums. The average advanced tax credit under the ACHA (Ryan's/Price's) plan for those making a little over the medicaid threshold is approximately $3000. So the drop off is profound. That is where the majority of the loss of coverage that is being calculated by the CBO is coming from. That and the over 50's with incomes below $40,000. They also are going to receive a huge premium increase under the ACHA than what they were receiving under the ACA. If they could increase that advanced tax credit number along with designing high deductible plans that are rich with doctor, rx, specialist, diagnostic testing and ER copays, I think they could create plans with premiums on average of only $4000 annually which would come close to enrolling all these people who lost their Medicaid coverage.

 

The design of the plans is going to play a huge role in my opinion in expanding those coverage numbers. Of course that isn't something that the government will decide, that is something that the carriers would have to determine.

 

I appreciate the detail of the info. I always have trouble accepting anything coming out of Washington as truth, no matter who it is that's saying it. Everything is spin, and then the news outlets spin it even further. I recognize that number of 24 million who are said to be losing their coverage as another potential ploy to gin up outrage over the new plan, and am suspicious of the claims. Thanks for helping to clarify it for me.

[IDBillzFan]

 

I appreciate the detail of the info. I always have trouble accepting anything coming out of Washington as truth, no matter who it is that's saying it. Everything is spin, and then the news outlets spin it even further. I recognize that number of 24 million who are said to be losing their coverage as another potential ploy to gin up outrage over the new plan, and am suspicious of the claims. Thanks for helping to clarify it for me.

 

That was front lede story in the LA times yesterday: 24 MILLION TO LOSE PLAN, REPORT SAYS!!!

[Azalin]

 

That was front lede story in the LA times yesterday: 24 MILLION TO LOSE PLAN, REPORT SAYS!!!

 

Ah - I see I was justified in my skepticism.

[grinreaper]

 

That was front lede story in the LA times yesterday: 24 MILLION TO LOSE PLAN, REPORT SAYS!!!

Was that on the same page as Republicans Are Throwing Grandma Off The Cliff?

[B-Large]

 

The concept makes sense, in theory. In order for the Obamacare scheme to work, they needed everybody in.

 

However, you don't need to be an economics expert to see where the DNC made two really obvious, stupid mistakes.

 

Mistake #1: No problems with pre-existing conditions. By itself, not such a hindrance. Except for...

 

Mistake #2: The penalty for not having coverage was exceedingly less expensive than your premium.

 

So let's recap: You must buy insurance for $12,000/year and if you don't, we're going to fine you $500/year. Oh, and you can sign up any time and never be refused, so if you don't have coverage and choose to pay the fine, and THEN get sick, you get your coverage so you don't have to face bankruptcy.

 

It genuinely took a majority of Democrats to come up with that schitstorm of a plan.

 

I don't think that's entirely true- there is a enrollment period, and you can buy coverage on with qualifying event. We bought ACA plan in Maine because I left my job, and bought plans in Colorado when we changed residence-both of these changes were out of the annual enrollment period, but we're qualified events. There was also a month or two delay to when the policy was active even though we were paying.

 

Now if a sickness causes a job loss, then yes that is correct.

[boyst]

 

I don't think that's entirely true- there is a enrollment period, and you can buy coverage on with qualifying event. We bought ACA plan in Maine because I left my job, and bought plans in Colorado when we changed residence-both of these changes were out of the annual enrollment period, but we're qualified events. There was also a month or two delay to when the policy was active even though we were paying.

 

Now if a sickness causes a job loss, then yes that is correct.

how long ago did you do this?

 

if you're like me, you're actually still enrolled. i get an email a month talking about my enrollment in the aca from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

the trick is i am still enrolled in the aca plan, which i could not opt of out when i called, i just decline to use their coverage system

[B-Large]

how long ago did you do this?

 

if you're like me, you're actually still enrolled. i get an email a month talking about my enrollment in the aca from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

the trick is i am still enrolled in the aca plan, which i could not opt of out when i called, i just decline to use their coverage system

A few years- I recall paying COBRA for 2-3 periods before our coverage kicked in, 1250/mo. What really sucked was when I covered adecitble in Maine for 6k mid year, then started over for a new one in Colorado mid year... then another the next enrollment period... theoretically 18k in decicle in 1.5 years.... that's when I decided to go back to work!!!!

[Meathead]

The basic concept of taxation is immoral

 

horseshit

 

You must buy insurance for $12,000/year and if you don't, we're going to fine you $500/year. Oh, and you can sign up any time and never be refused, so if you don't have coverage and choose to pay the fine, and THEN get sick, you get your coverage so you don't have to face bankruptcy.

 

 

march 16, 2017. the day i agreed with lab. mark it down. see you next year

 

 

This should be the approach.

 

it has to be the approach

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

horseshit

 

Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways:

 

1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned.

 

2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave.

 

Neither of these are moral arguments.

 

That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral.

[ExiledInIllinois]

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Ahhhh....New Yorker sensibilities that's not really much of a contribution.

[Hank II]

Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways:

 

1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned.

 

2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave.

 

Neither of these are moral arguments.

 

That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral.

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

[Tiberius]

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

Or sewer systems? Ya, taxes suck. Sewage is much worse

 

If we didn't have taxes we wouldn't have government. Without government no one would print money so taxes wouldn't matter anyway

[TakeYouToTasker]

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

If one is not an anarchist, and believes that the concept of a "nation state" is the optimal way for humanity to organize itself, then one must submit to the notion that some degree and form of taxation is a necessary evil.

 

With that said, that is an acknowledgement that it is still an evil; and as such, taxes should only be collected in the least morally offensive way possible (a tax on consumption, which allows individuals to decide their own level of taxation through their purchasing decisions), and only to provide for the protection of the nation state in question, and the natural rights of it's citizens.

[Tiberius]

If one is not an anarchist, and believes that the concept of a "nation state" is the optimal way for humanity to organize itself, then one must submit to the notion that some degree and form of taxation is a necessary evil.

 

With that said, that is an acknowledgement that it is still an evil; and as such, taxes should only be collected in the least morally offensive way possible (a tax on consumption, which allows individuals to decide their own level of taxation through their purchasing decisions), and only to provide for the protection of the nation state in question, and the natural rights of it's citizens.

We had that taxation and rejected it as a nation. We made a decision, through the democratic process, which you probably have no idea about and adopted taxation through income. That debate already took place. Read up on the history of taxation

[ExiledInIllinois]

We had that taxation and rejected it as a nation. We made a decision, through the democratic process, which you probably have no idea about and adopted taxation through income. That debate already took place. Read up on the history of taxation

Please don't bother him, he's driving to work.

[Tiberius]

Please don't bother him, he's driving to work.

On roads paid for by taxes?

[Magox]

The horse trading has begun.

 

Some of the proposals to where they could bridge the gap are here, that's encouraging.

 

“It’s up for us, moderates and conservatives, to come together,” said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, coming out of a Wednesday evening meeting. “We’ve had conversations with moderates on what is important to them, and then we’ve look at what is important to conservatives, and I think it we can work out something that accommodates” both.

Meanwhile, GOP leaders and their top allies debated which changes they should make to the bill. Sources told POLITICO that Republican leaders were open to nixing a 30 percent penalty on individuals who went without insurance for two months, though it's unclear whether they would replace it with another measure to nudge people to sign up for coverage.

Others sources suggested that Republicans are seriously considering a plan to provide more generous tax credits to Americans nearing age 65, who are facing sharply higher premiums under the current proposal. Republicans have faced significant pressure from advocates for older Americans, including AARP, over estimates suggesting that Americans just under 65 could face substantially higher premiums.

Conservatives have also asked GOP leaders to consider allowing governors to require healthy Medicaid beneficiaries to work — or seek work — in order to qualify, another idea GOP leaders and the White House are pondering.

 

The White House has also leaned into conservatives' request to phase out the Medicaid expansion in early 2018 instead of at the close of 2019, which the current version of the bill would do. House GOP leadership has strongly resisted that move, worried that it could lead more centrist Republicans to flip from a lean-yes to a lean-no. But senior GOP sources said it was still in the mix as a potential amendment, and Vice President Mike Pence told Republican Study Committee members Wednesday that the administration was open to the earlier phase-out.

Pence also visited with the moderate Tuesday Group on Wednesday, and while he didn’t try to sell members on specific moves to the right, he warned them changes were coming.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise skipped out on his own weekly meeting with his whip team to join Pence at the centrists’ gathering, a move signaling just how important he felt it was to gauge their concerns. Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) said members expressed worries about rumors that the period in which people can enroll in expanded Medicaid programs could be shortened. He also indicated that centrists feel the current bill provides insufficient tax credits for some people who could find it hard to afford insurance under the proposal.

Appearing at the full GOP conference meeting Wednesday night, Pence tried to rally all Republicans to get excited about repealing the health care law — despite the clear challenges ahead. He opened the conference by holding up his pointer finger and his thumb one inch apart and declaring: “We are this close to history!”

 

[Meathead]

AMA urges GOP to go 'back to the drawing board'

 

The head of the American Medical Association (AMA) delivered a sharp warning Thursday to congressional Republicans, telling them to go “back to the drawing board” on their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill and warning that the bill's current version would take needed coverage away from people.

ObamaCare has provided coverage to 20 million new people, Gurman noted, and “the AMA’s highest priority is to ensure that these individuals maintain their coverage.” Gurman also warned against large cuts to Medicaid under the House GOP bill and said the new tax credits should be based on income to give more help to low-income people. The tax credits in the bill are currently based on age, not income.

Officials from the heart, cancer and diabetes groups also warned against Republican plans to weaken ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” which require insurers to cover a range of certain healthcare services. (mh - definitely!)

“The mantra is that people who don’t have insurance live sicker and die younger,” Gurman said. (mh - which is why you need the essential health benefits)

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/324304-american-medical-association-urges-gop-to-go-back-to-the-drawing-board

my morality says we should be concerned about our brothers and sisters like we are concerned about ourselves

my morality says the richest nation in the history of the modern world should cover everyone with health care so that everyone can get the preemptive attention that prevents them from getting serious diseases that cost a ѕhitload to treat later

my morality says oh by the way, it also keeps our brothers and sisters healthy so they dont have to suffer unnecessarily from things we can EASILY treat and often fix if we werent so damned selfish and petty

my morality says we should compete as humans on many levels, but access to real and quality health care should NOT be one of them

my morality says we should all chip in, with those blessed to make much more contributing much more. my morality said this even when i used to make well over a hundred thousand annually. and it sure as fk says it now that im broke and disabled

my morality says that taxes are one obligation to our commitment to watch out for each other as enlightened beings, even if some of us still have a long road to travel to get there

my morality says give ceasars things to ceasar and god's things to god

conclusion: stop worshiping money like its a god. money is a tool, nothing more. worship your commitment to recognizing your default relationship with all ppl. if you can do that everything else works A LOT better

Edited March 16, 2017 by Meathead

[ExiledInIllinois]

On roads paid for by taxes?

Linked to mpg, fuel consumption taxes.

 

Did I mention, he was driving his bicycle.

 

;-)

[Magox]

 

 

 

Officials from the heart, cancer and diabetes groups also warned against Republican plans to weaken ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” which require insurers to cover a range of certain healthcare services. (mh - definitely!)

 

 

 

They are going back to the drawing board and will go further towards expansion of coverage once it gets to the Senate.

 

Having said that, the "essential health benefits' is one of the most paternalistic overreaches I have ever seen from the US government. How in the hell are you going to mandate that a 62 year old have maternity coverage or a children's dental pediatric plan along with their coverage?

 

It's preposterous.

[row_33]

Grateful Canada went with the single payer system when it was optimal to do so...

[Spurna]

https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/842209771457462272

 

Looks like POTUS is distancing himself from the bill

[Meathead]

can they split stuff like that out? idk what the relative costs are but i would think eventually its a wash. paternity might swing it tho, since thats so expensive all on its own. i cant think of an equivalent male medical expense that would be that consistently high

 

when i talk about minimum benefits i just mean for routine stuff, like mamograms and/or colonoscopys, etc. stuff that saves lives in the long run. but i do think it has to be pretty comprehensive to cover a wide range of standard conditions. yeah, its going to cost a lot but it has both moral and long term cost benefits

if they could make a list of stuff to split out of 'mandatory minimums' for specific ppl thats fine, but that seems incredibly complex - on top of whats already incredibly complex