Repeal of Obamacare

[peggy]

Yes, I've heard that. Can't remember where.....

Or maybe they are just plain stupid!
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...degrasse-tyson

And O'Reilly is supposed to be the SMART one at Fox!

[peggy]

That's what that Yossarian guy was pushing on the old forum. Basic universal care, either through a single payer system, a voucher/subsidy arrangement or a tax credit for opting out, but preserving the private market for services above the basic level. The fear is of course the basic level keeps getting increased unitl it crowds out the private market so all we have left is the postal service running healthcare. You'd like to think we're smarter than that but....

Yes, basic health care for everyone. That's all we want. A level start. Everyone pays so every one's premiums are lower as you have the power of group. Get basic health care away from jobs as in don't tie it to a particular job, or tie the business owner's hands. That makes it better for the independent business owner who is simply self employed. Gives him the benefit of a group plan as well.
And yes, keep the free market plans (as if they would go away) for those who want them. If you want to be ensured a private room in a private hospital, then you can pay for that. But we could all rest better at night knowing there is at least a safe, comfortable medical ward for everyone who needs it. And no, overall health care would not suffer for it, that's just an insult to all the doctors and nurses out there. They really don't use rusty scalpels in the city hospitals.
(waving the flag) This is the greatest country on earth. There is no reason we can't make it even better! Every painful step forward we have made, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc...has come with dire warnings about it being the death bell for America, the sky is falling doom! doom! doom! And every step has made us a better nation.
We are the government and the government is us. We can do this. We have the start with the reform we got. Now let's tweak it to be just the right fit.
I'll start. First and foremost, I'm liking being able to keep my young adult children on our plan (which we PAY for, as it turns out) till they turn 26. Whew! Our youngest just graduated and of course isn't employed yet, but has been having thyroid problems.

[Mangano's Gold]

Back to the most basic of policy questions... Is there any reason expanding Medicare would not accomplish almost all of the goals of healthcare reform, probably for less cost? I'm starting to like pcooley's suggestion regarding a basic universal plan.

No, there just wasn't enough support for this type of single-payer option. There was even talk about dropping the Medicare age down to 55 but it couldn't get through the Senate.

Here is a key (but not only) sticking point: Under Obamacare, and I'm simplifying a little, the increased tax burden on the public is limited to the incremental cost of getting nearly everyone covered. The bulk of insurance premiums will still be paid for by employers and employees and individual purchasers. Under Medicare-for-all, those premiums largely disappear and are replaced by some sort of tax. So the "cost" of the legislation would go from ~$100 billion annually to maybe $800 billion annually.

Although this swapping of private payments for taxes would be a wash to most Americans, it would be politically impossible to sell. Obamacare cleverly accomplishes nearly the same thing, though, but at much less of a "cost".

[kib]

My simplistic sticking point continues to be this: If I understand it, under the current scheme we're being forced to pay for profit insurers for both our own insurance and that of the uninsured. Every time I think about this my jaw drops. The mandatory insurance clause was only truly relevant if we were talking about single-payer, and somehow that part got kept when single-payer disappeared? Good grief and please pass the sandpaper.

Under the single-payer option, we'd still be liable for the well being of all citizens whether we want to be or not, but with the profit motive (theoretically) removed. Straight up, would I prefer to give my money to a government (theoretically) held to financial culpability with (theoretical) NFP standing, or a third party who will pocket as much as they can? No brainer, personally. Not only does this legislation seem unconstitutional on face, it gives profiteering insurance companies legal power to hold our lives for ransom. Awesome. I will hold out hope that this will encourage competition between companies that contains cost, but what I think is a lot more likely is an agreement among companies of where to set rates so they all make a nice fat profit off us.

ETA: with a gun to my head I'd choose this over allowing people to be dropped, turned away and otherwise unable to obtain healthcare. But ... it still sucks. My 2 cents.

[Zigzagman]

By a vote of 245-189, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the new healthcare reform law, a long-expected action that is seen as largely symbolic since leaders of the Democratic-controlled Senate have vowed to block repeal.

The vote was preceded by a day and a half of debate on the measure, known as the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The two-page bill would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- signed by President Obama in March 2010 -- and all other laws changed by the reform law "as if such Act had never been enacted." It would also repeal the healthcare provisions in the companion bill, known as the reconciliation act, that altered some parts of the main law.


It will be interesting where we go from here. Is this merely a political ploy by the right or will we improve healthcare for everyone? I hope so - it would sure be a good start to really working together for the American public.



I think the idea of repealing without some sort of legitimate replacement will be a "BIG" negative for most Americans.


Peace

[bae]

Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

[freein05]

Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

+1

[creaker]

Maybe it was the media, but it didn't seem like the House has done anything yet beyond waiting to push this bill through. And it sounds like they have no agenda beyond making Obamacare fail.

We've had a similar system in MA for a while now (Romneycare?) So far it's working - 97% covered under health insurance - and for me at least (employer provided healthcare), completely transparent.

[flowerseverywhere]

Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

no, it will serve to get these people re-elected which is what it is all about. Who cares that my Health insurance premium increased 68% last year? Who cares that all day long TV had ads from attorneys urging people to call about nursing home abuse, drug law suits etc and malpractice premiums are so high physicians have to cover that expense? Who cares that dedicated really smart people go to medical school and after years of hard work end up with $200,000 or more of loans just to get educated.

The whole system stinks.

[Gregg]

Yup, really nothing but CYA and jockeying for position. Hey, less than 2 years till November!