OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[RockRaines]

At what point do we realize those companies should be serving the people instead of shareholders and profits?

[Brian]

At what point do we realize those companies should be serving the people instead of shareholders and profits?

 

30 years ago?

[ptatc]

Should insurance/HC companies be allowed to be as profitable as they are? Should they be able to conduct themselves in such a way to make them a Fortune 100 company? Should pharma companies be able to charge whatever they want to increase profits on everyday medication?

 

There are so many issues/other avenues to bring down costs for people outside of scrapping the ACA, but we cannot even think about doing that since our politicians are bought and paid for. And Washington is doing a great job having the people fight over a bill that was originally designed to help them, and now only serve as a distraction from the real issues that would help. It's sad.

Should lawyers be allowed to be as profitable as they are? How about Apple or IBM? It's not fair to limit one group just because one groups deems it unfair.

[ptatc]

At what point do we realize those companies should be serving the people instead of shareholders and profits?

Never. They are companies created to make money. Someone started those businesses to do just that.

[StrangeSox]

The economic system should serve humanity, not the other way around.

[ptatc]

The economic system should serve humanity, not the other way around.

In utopia, I would agree. however, in reality it will not happen.

[RockRaines]

Should lawyers be allowed to be as profitable as they are? How about Apple or IBM? It's not fair to limit one group just because one groups deems it unfair.

Not sure Healthcare and human rights fit into the same category as computers. Lawyers do have non-profit and court appointed arms already.

[ptatc]

Not sure Healthcare and human rights fit into the same category as computers. Lawyers do have non-profit and court appointed arms already.

These are not the same thing. Human rights are very different from insurance companies. Limiting how much profit a company makes is not in the same category as limiting human rights.

[caulfield12]

But won't the cost to society/families be even greater long-term if tens of millions lose insurance?

 

Uninsured going to emergency rooms...higher premiums passed on to those who can afford insurance, greater polarization and inequality in society, not to mention illegal immigrants driving up costs as well.

 

It's an economic theory called negative externalities/social costs. A cigarette company might be profitable, but the eventual costs borne by society (government and private) are 4-5x greater. Same with chemical factories that pollute the environment, or coal production of electricity.

 

Now we can argue that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (at least creating those conditions) is guaranteed to all citizens, and health insurance is part of that. It's not so obvious as the right to bear at since health care insurance simply didn't exist in 1789.

 

But let's throw that out and make an economic argument that the costs of not covering 1/7th of the US population leads to 50-75% higher costs to society and economic productivity/sick days is greatly impacted in particular. What are the costs to society to raise children in foster care when parents die from opiod addiction....or die prematurely due to cancer or heart disease that could have been prevented?

 

Wouldn't you do everything possible to be proactive rather than reactive?

[Texsox]

These are not the same thing. Human rights are very different from insurance companies. Limiting how much profit a company makes is not in the same category as limiting human rights.

When a business models needs to limit human rights there is a conflict that needs to be addressed. We already have laws that limit allowable interest on loans. Just one example.

[caulfield12]

When a business models needs to limit human rights there is a conflict that needs to be addressed. We already have laws that limit allowable interest on loans. Just one example.

 

This reminds me of the children's lawsuit against the Trump administration about not protecting the environment for future generations.

 

Corporations and proprietary algorithms are more important to the Supreme Court than the future of the planet. Citizens United, anyone?

[Balta1701]

When a business models needs to limit human rights there is a conflict that needs to be addressed. We already have laws that limit allowable interest on loans. Just one example.

When the ACA was passed, some guy named Tex wondered why there wasn't some balance that could be struck for this country - creating a system in the United States where we still kept private insurers, we kept what people say are the good things about the private sector, but we got rid of the innovative ways to "avoid paying to treat people" and the true, heartless evil that we'd encouraged.

 

It wasn't my perfect bill, especially when the Supreme Court allowed Republican States to opt out of the Medicaid Expansion and threw 15 million people off of health insurance, but that bill was 95% of what Tex asked for. It was that. It was a way to keep health insurance in the private sector without killing people for being poor or sick. If you wanted to keep private insurance, you couldn't have done better at the time.

Not really.

 

But its true the ACA could be so much better. And the correct thing to do for the people that voted these people into office would be to take on the rising costs and improve ACA to serve the people better. Instead we are going to make life harder on poor people, middle class people and people who are already sick. In return we are giving retroactive tax breaks to the rich and people who dont really need them. Thats what this bill is doing.

 

Also most medical associations are against this bill, so not sure what doctors you are referring to.

With the experience of 2014-2017, there are 2 changes that needed to be made. The subsidy level for a silver and bronze plan needed to be something like 10-20% higher, and the tax penalty for not purchasing needed to be multiplied by a factor of 2.

 

It was a kluge. It was a weird way of keeping things in the private sector that the government itself could possibly do better. But outside of the states that turned down Medicaid, it ended the idea of dying because you can't get health care. It ended the idea of people suffering because they couldn't see a doctor. It was a uniquely American way of solving this problem. Would it have worked better or worse long term than what France and Germany have done? I don't know. Which is a remarkable statement from a person who thinks the government could handle this better.

 

But I do know that one party immediately decided that anyone who isn't worth enough money doesn't deserve to live if they get sick and anyone who has voted for them in the last decade at the Congressional Level has at worst said they don't care about that. And congratulations. 50% of the births in this country are paid for by medicaid that won't exist by 2020. So congratulations. You killed a lot of babies, but they were poor.

[Balta1701]

This is an excellent post. I agree with you. We're all getting cancer from the byproducts and we're also f***ed because of cell phones. You can't tell me holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years isn't AUTOMATIC brain cancer. Yes we're being poisoned every single day.

Holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years is not automatic brain cancer. Jesus Christ cell phones have been common since the 1990s. Brain cancer rates haven't changed in ~30 years.

[Balta1701]

Think bigger picture man! Get away from those talking-point statistics for a minute. Just try. Just try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Maybe even google "why the ACA hurts poor people". I've never done it but I bet you'll find some interesting points.

 

The poor are poorer because of the ACA, and it's going to get way worse if something isn't done. It basically said, you will forever be poor. Is that really better than some bulls*** health insurance that a majority of doctors (The good ones) don't even want to accept?

 

"Hey Joe Poor, you can come be an apprentice and make a couple bucks more an hour, but you'll lose most of your health subsidies, so you'll actually make less money. Or you can stick with your under 30 hours a week because your boss only has 1000 part-timers now job. You pick. Meanwhile, vote Democrat and demand a $15 minimum wage so your small-business owner boss has to lay off more people, probably you, to compensate for his increased material and labor costs. And make sure you thank me for that $6 loaf of bread in 2020. But hey go see your Medicaid doctor for free for 5 minutes." -Obama

"If the poor are able to afford bread, then bread prices will spike to $6 a loaf. The solution therefore...is to make sure the poor cannot eat. It is what Jesus would have done"

[caulfield12]

When the ACA was passed, some guy named Tex wondered why there wasn't some balance that could be struck for this country - creating a system in the United States where we still kept private insurers, we kept what people say are the good things about the private sector, but we got rid of the innovative ways to "avoid paying to treat people" and the true, heartless evil that we'd encouraged.

 

It wasn't my perfect bill, especially when the Supreme Court allowed Republican States to opt out of the Medicaid Expansion and threw 15 million people off of health insurance, but that bill was 95% of what Tex asked for. It was that. It was a way to keep health insurance in the private sector without killing people for being poor or sick. If you wanted to keep private insurance, you couldn't have done better at the time.

 

With the experience of 2014-2017, there are 2 changes that needed to be made. The subsidy level for a silver and bronze plan needed to be something like 10-20% higher, and the tax penalty for not purchasing needed to be multiplied by a factor of 2.

 

It was a kluge. It was a weird way of keeping things in the private sector that the government itself could possibly do better. But outside of the states that turned down Medicaid, it ended the idea of dying because you can't get health care. It ended the idea of people suffering because they couldn't see a doctor. It was a uniquely American way of solving this problem. Would it have worked better or worse long term than what France and Germany have done? I don't know. Which is a remarkable statement from a person who thinks the government could handle this better.

 

But I do know that one party immediately decided that anyone who isn't worth enough money doesn't deserve to live if they get sick and anyone who has voted for them in the last decade at the Congressional Level has at worst said they don't care about that. And congratulations. 50% of the births in this country are paid for by medicaid that won't exist by 2020. So congratulations. You killed a lot of babies, but they were poor.

 

Check out the Medicaid-involved births in Trump states...it's horrific not only from a human rights perspective, it's terrible (and illogical) politics for Trump that got pushed on him by the Paul Ryan's and Mick Mulvaney's of the GOP.

 

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicato...22:%22asc%22%7D

Edited June 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

When a business models needs to limit human rights there is a conflict that needs to be addressed. We already have laws that limit allowable interest on loans. Just one example.

 

Try to rebut this quote:

 

"It's too dangerous to trust our future to market forces, because these forces invariably do what's good for the market rather than what's best for America, humankind or the world. The hand of the market is blind as well as invisible, and left to its own devices (and with further deregulation looming), capitalism might fail to do anything at all about health care (happening now), the threat of global warming (happening now) or the dangerous potential of increasing artificial intelligence and reliance on complex quantum-computer generated algorithms to substitute for humanistic decisions (soon to occur)"

 

Yuval Noah Harari

 

Parenthetical statements are my contribution...

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpo...alth-care-bill/

 

Five GOP Senators now firmly against...

Paul, Lee, Heller, Johnson, Cruz

 

Not counting Murkowski, Collins, etc. Portman, Capito, Gardner, Cassidy....those six will be very tough to convince as well.

Edited June 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

Try to rebut this quote:

 

"It's too dangerous to trust our future to market forces, because these forces invariably do what's good for the market rather than what's best for America, humankind or the world. The hand of the market is blind as well as invisible, and left to its own devices (and with further deregulation looming), capitalism might fail to do anything at all about health care (happening now), the threat of global warming (happening now) or the dangerous potential of increasing artificial intelligence and reliance on complex quantum-computer generated algorithms to substitute for humanistic decisions (soon to occur)"

 

Yuval Noah Harari

 

Parenthetical statements are my contribution...

 

What's to rebut? That clearly supports my position.

[caulfield12]

What's to rebut? That clearly supports my position.

 

So you agree it should be largely (centralized) government-run, tax revenue funded and subsidized?

 

That's where the philosophical problems always begin, which is why I'm to the point where I would prefer to see all the states experiment with their own plans of attack and figure out within 3-4 years what is working so that the best elements can be incorporated into a national plan.

 

And you agree with under 26 provision, no denying for pre-existing conditions, essential health benefits, ceilingson how much you can charge elderly or those with Pre-existing, community rating, mandated fines for non-participation? That last one really drives the GOP nuts, but the House plan directly gives those monies to insurance companies by heavily penalizing those who quit coverage and want to return when sick again.

[Balta1701]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpo...alth-care-bill/

 

Five GOP Senators now firmly against...

Paul, Lee, Heller, Johnson, Cruz

 

Not counting Murkowski, Collins, etc. Portman, Capito, Gardner, Cassidy....those six will be very tough to convince as well.

They'll pass it 51-50 this week. Heller has claimed one of the no votes. The rest are putting on a good show for people who are willing to believe them.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly. They're all wording it as "I can't vote for it as written" or "I can't vote for it without changes." McConnell intentionally left some of these things out so that they can "negotiate" these amendments and use that as cover for voting for what is certainly the worst piece of public policy in my lifetime.

[caulfield12]

They'll pass it 51-50 this week. Heller has claimed one of the no votes. The rest are putting on a good show for people who are willing to believe them.

 

 

Flake is pretty vulnerable in Arizona. Ted Cruz, to a lesser extent.

Right now, 14 Dems sweating it out, maybe Heller and Flake the ones in some danger on the right.

 

Hard to imagine Planned Parenthood gutting not causing Collins and Murkowski to have a serious quandary.

Edited June 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[Quin]

Flake is pretty vulnerable in Arizona. Ted Cruz, to a lesser extent.

Right now, 14 Dems sweating it out, maybe Heller and Flake the ones in some danger on the right.

 

Hard to imagine Planned Parenthood gutting not causing Collins and Murkowski to have a serious quandary.

 

Collins and Murkowski will likely get in line.

[Reddy]

Now there's a mandate?? You can't script this s***.

[Quin]

Now there's a mandate?? You can't script this s***.

 

Where at?