This_person
Well-Known Member
It's not working WITH the mandate. Any freedom-loving American citizen would be against the mandate, as you said you are.
But, I agree with you that taking it apart in pieces won't work.
Donald junior's evolving story
- Thread starter Midnightrider
- Start date
It's not working WITH the mandate. Any freedom-loving American citizen would be against the mandate, as you said you are.
But, I agree with you that taking it apart in pieces won't work.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
STILL misses the point.
And if I were to tweet ten thousand times, I am certain you could ALSO find pages of stuff you found objectionable.
But it would be like reading Leon Panetta's email - most of it would be dull.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Not a damn thing.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
And I don't see how that's going to work in any market that even hopes to be competitive.
The problem we all have with health insurance is that unlike other kinds of insurance - you really need to have it. You don't HAVE to have auto insurance because you can always NOT drive.
You don't HAVE to have life insurance, but it's kind of nice. You don't have to have flood insurance - but if you live in a flood plain it's probably a good idea (but it is stupid to compel people who will NEVER experience a flood to buy it also).
Because it's not so much "insurance" as it is a "health plan". And that is partly to blame because of what we've allowed to evolve. No one can afford monthly doctor visits without insurance. I sure can't.
I've SEEN the Explanation of Benefits statements. I can't BELIEVE the costs of medical testing. But they're tests that doctors order because they know they're "free". And the visits cost a fortune because we've allowed it to get that way.
And the doctor's costs are outrageous because he has to cover the cost of several staff who do nothing but work the insurance system of paperwork and regulations.
I for one wouldn't mind SOME kind of oversight similar to what France has - they have an oversight board which regulates the costs of medical expenses going to insurance - to keep them SOMEWHAT standard.
Is there really a reason why a five second blood test costs 500 bucks? Does a doctor really need to charge 100+ bucks for a two minute visit where the rest of his staff do everything else?
Unlike say, fast food or other retail where the market determines who can charge 3 bucks for a burger and who will survive charging 10 - these kinds of things are not expose to ANY kind of market force.
And they need to be. If they can't, they're essentially a monopoly and need oversight.
with a 10 dollar burger you get a nicer table, a waitress and a sugar packet with a phone number
philibusters
Active Member
I think the Democrats will take back the House in 2018. Lets look at the Presidents since Bill Clinton/ 1994--Democrats lost the House. George W. Bush 2002--Republicans lost the HOuse. Obama 2010--- Democrats lost the House. Trump 2018--?? Who knows but the populace seems to prefer a divided gov't.
The Senate is a different story. Republicans only have a 52-48 advantage there, BUT in 2018 the Democrats will have 25 seats they hold up for re-election while the Republicans only have 8 seats they hold for re-election. It would surprise me if one Democrat incumbent and one Republican incumbent lost basically holding things steady at 52-48.
So your short answer then is "Nothing..there is nothing they could do to strengthen that mess".
Besides ..all the talk about lowering insurance premiums will remain nothing but hot air and BS if they keep refusing to deal with the major factors driving health care costs so high. And refuse, they do, too. All of them. Lawyers, big pharma and other powerful provider groups have too much at stake to "allow" anyone to screw around with their rice bowls.
philibusters
Active Member
In terms of strengthening Obamacare it would be hard to do anything with Trump in to White House having veto power. They are not going to have a two thirds majority to override a veto.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
That would be 2006. In 2002, the GOP *GAINED* seats in the House.
The general rule regarding the first mid-terms goes that if the new President came into office with a big win - he will lose seats.
If he came in with a narrow win, he probably won't - and might gain some.
All of course, depending on what happens in office.
The idea is that there are lots of districts where the vote is tight and a popular candidate at the top of a ticket has coattails long enough to pull in people who might NOT normally win -
but by mid-terms - they're on their own. So a Reagan or Obama big win is going to be followed by a big loss mid-term, because the "wave" has passed.
However, if you won your district WITHOUT the help of the man at the top of the ticket, your situation probably won't change.
I don't see much evidence YET that the House will turn, simply by virtue of the fact that the special elections have not gone the other way, despite HUGE efforts to dislodge Republicans.
On the other hand, if Trump can't get enough going with his agenda, there might be less enthusiasm for the GOP no matter what they run on.
I'll bite. Specifically - very specifically - what legislative measures to you believe would "strengthen" Obamacare.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
The necessary actions, players and resolve needed to attack the "Health Care Conundrum" will be impossible to bring until the nation is prepared to address and act on all entitlements, and finance. That will require a serious crisis to wake up everyone and get their attention. It will also require negotiators willing to say, "I can give up this in order to gain that" in Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, et al. It's not gonna happen in my lifetime, I fear.
This_person
Well-Known Member
It's only been five days since you've asked this. Phil must be working on quite the answer.
philibusters
Active Member
In order to strength Obamacare you have to figure out to add stability to the exchanges by making things predictable for health insurance companies so they know how much to charge and can price risk into their policies and you need to figure out a way to address rising health care costs. Neither of those are easy feats, but if they can be accomplished then Obamacare will be the framework for the healthcare system for the next 30 years. If they cannot be accomplished we'll be drawing up something new in the next the 10 years or so.
So you're saying just through more taxpayer dollars at the problem.........
This_person
Well-Known Member
[throw*]
No, I think the point is to regulate it such that there are no surprises for the insurance companies. The way to strengthen it, therefore, is to further increase the costs to all. That will certainly make it "better".
philibusters
Active Member
No.
In regards to the stabilizing the exchanges, they basically need to stabilize the pool (the % of sick people vs. healthy people). Once the insurance companies have this information, they should be able to price their products so as to make a profit.
In regards to rising costs, I can think of a few options though they all seem unappealing (price control certain things or ration care), so you need a creative solution to that.
philibusters
Active Member
If you are saying stabilizing exchanges will make health insurance more expensive--it could. It depends partly on how they are pricing it now, but for any companies to estimated risk low in order to offer the best prices to attract more customers, it would likely increase the premiums.
PsyOps
Pixelated
"It could"?
ACA - The AFFORDABLE Act
Does the word affordable have any really meaning here? How do you fix something that was rooted in a lie. It was NEVER intended to be less expensive, or affordable. You liberals had your chance, and you ####ed it up royally. Now it's time to get out of the way and let someone have at it.
I'll caveat that last statement with... the GOP doesn't seem to be all that interested in getting healthcare costs more affordable either. They simply want government to control it. So, we're screwed no matter what, as long as government feels they have a role in controlling a private market place.