|
empty whippet box posted:Supporting any healthcare plan at all seems likely to hurt anyone who does so politically, may as well support the right one. If you are, go for an opt-in Medicare For All plan and advocating for the government to negotiate drug prices for their healthcare plans.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:They have no other strategy What if they ran on reinforcing and expanding the Affordable Care Act, taking advantage of its popularity and the already demonstrated grassroots passion for the bill, building it towards a multipayer flavor of UHC... as opposed to scrapping it to start from scratch with a Single Payer idea that would require all three branches of government to implement and isn't possible in even the wildest fever dreams of the 116th congress? empty whippet box posted:Supporting any healthcare plan at all seems likely to hurt anyone who does so politically, may as well support the right one. Anything other than fullthroated support of Medicare is political suicide. Neither chamber holds a large enough majority to gently caress up a Medicaid expansion for only a portion of the country, that's been around for less than a decade. Red State Dems like Heitkamp and Manchin felt zero pressure to cross the aisle for bills that reduced Obamacare's subsidies. It turns out that only healthcare plans that radically alter the status quo are political suicide. This is either due to regulatory capture and general corruption, or because most people believe they are receiving good-to-great care & coverage and are skeptical about any plans to change that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
So is the plan to repeal dead because of in fighting because that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
They could still repeal if they feel crazy, but they have nothing to replace it with and even Republicans aren't that dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:They could still repeal if they feel crazy, but they have nothing to replace it with and even Republicans aren't that dumb. *the majority* of republicans aren't that dumb. About 10, 15% are!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:So is the plan to repeal dead because of in fighting because that would be great. The path forward is murky, but yes it seems that the mixture of infighting and Dem unity has killed the current bill and will make any other changes far more challenging. A bill can't pass the house without dunking on Planned Parenthood, reducing subsidies and rolling back the expanded Medicaid entitlements. That same bill can't pass the senate while defunding Planned Parenthood, increasing rural healthcare costs, and loving over medicaid-expanded states. awesmoe posted:*the majority* of republicans aren't that dumb. About 10, 15% are! Those same 20ish congressmen and halfdozen senators stopped Obama from GrandBargaining away Social Security and Medicaid, so there's an argument that they've done more for the progressive movement than the conservative one!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
The only thing that is saving a majority of Americans from slow death from lack of healthcare is basically the fact that Republicans want them to die real fast. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
has anyone done any content awareness polling on aca post ahca failure? i assume not, but it would be interesting to see, because for all the faults of the aca, the republicans, through the various eviscerations they proposed, actually did a pretty good job of educating the public about its benefits (ehb, subsidy structure, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Phase 2 of Trump's healthcare plan is to use HHS' regulatory powers to "blow it up". Pretty sure the only thing they can really blow up is the individual market. Which is not cool but nowhere near blowing up the entirety of ACA. Even if Price tried it, I presume he'd get bogged down in a ton of lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:has anyone done any content awareness polling on aca post ahca failure? i assume not, but it would be interesting to see, because for all the faults of the aca, the republicans, through the various eviscerations they proposed, actually did a pretty good job of educating the public about its benefits (ehb, subsidy structure, etc.) KFF is the only outfit that does healthcare polling with any depth and regularity. Here's a recent one: http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-5-misconceptions-surrounding-the-aca/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Phase 2 of Trump's healthcare plan is to use HHS' regulatory powers to "blow it up". Pretty sure the only thing they can really blow up is the individual market. Which is not cool but nowhere near blowing up the entirety of ACA. Even if Price tried it, I presume he'd get bogged down in a ton of lawsuits. The plan, AFAIK, is to grant waivers releasing people from the tax penalties associated with not having insurance, i.e. removing the individual mandate. Assuming the White House actually publicizes this and insurers take it into account while pricing plans, this should cause an immediate spike in premiums and deductibles. The side effect of this is that PPACA will now become much more expensive for the government due to subsidies going up; remember that subsidies take into account both your income level and how expensive the second cheapest silver plan in your state is. Fiscal responsibility strikes again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The plan, AFAIK, is to grant waivers releasing people from the tax penalties associated with not having insurance, i.e. removing the individual mandate. Assuming the White House actually publicizes this and insurers take it into account while pricing plans, this should cause an immediate spike in premiums and deductibles. The side effect of this is that PPACA will now become much more expensive for the government due to subsidies going up; remember that subsidies take into account both your income level and how expensive the second cheapest silver plan in your state is. Fiscal responsibility strikes again! Did Congress specifically say that the Executive can grant waivers for the individual tax penalty? Wouldn't that be a huge overstep of executive powers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Did Congress specifically say that the Executive can grant waivers for the individual tax penalty? Wouldn't that be a huge overstep of executive powers? Yes. No. There are good reasons for a waiver but the criteria for granting a waiver is not statute. Trump could EO "Grant all waiver applications" today and that's that. https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/aca-individual-shared-responsibility-provision-exemptions
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Yes. No. There are good reasons for a waiver but the criteria for granting a waiver is not statute. Trump could EO "Grant all waiver applications" today and that's that. boy it's a good thing Trump didn't order HHS to gently caress up PPACA two months ago They're granting all waivers to the maximum extent allowable under the law. But guess what? quote:Any applicable individual for any month if the applicable individual’s required contribution (determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross income for any portion of the required contribution made through a salary reduction arrangement. quote:In the case of plan years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting for “8 percent” the percentage the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines reflects the excess of the rate of premium growth between the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income growth for such period. It'd be ridiculously transparent, but, letter of the law, HHS could say that you deserve an exemption if you had to pay for insurance at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Just had a great talk with a more conservative minded individual. Sold him on enrollment into Medicaid. Points to take into account. - best health care in the world... if you can afford it. - insurance companies don't play fair. They profit off human misery, that's their goal. period. - Applecare(WA state public plan) is reasonable. - Employer s pay a ton of YOUR salary into awful plans that don't cover poo poo. - giving up cutting edge cancer treatment(that isn't covered unless your net worth is above a million anyway) is worth not going into collection s over a broken arm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The plan, AFAIK, is to grant waivers releasing people from the tax penalties associated with not having insurance, i.e. removing the individual mandate. Assuming the White House actually publicizes this and insurers take it into account while pricing plans, this should cause an immediate spike in premiums and deductibles. The side effect of this is that PPACA will now become much more expensive for the government due to subsidies going up; remember that subsidies take into account both your income level and how expensive the second cheapest silver plan in your state is. Fiscal responsibility strikes again! I don't see how that's going to benefit Trump and the Republicans. If premiums skyrocket, isn't that just going to make any Republican replacement like the ahca look worse because it caps the subsidies? He ran on having a secret plan to replace Obamacare that will totally work and be everything you want, because he's a smart businessman who knows how to do the business. If people start losing their insurance because he has no plan they are going to blame the people in power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
So now we look to Price et al. to see if they begin to sabotage things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I don't know what Price and co.can actually do to sabotage things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:So now we look to Price et al. to see if they begin to sabotage things. Dems need to hammer this home. As in "Trump and the GOP wanted to take your healthcare away and failed, now they want to sabotage it on purpose to drive up your premiums."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Sabotaging the ACA seems like a good way to spark a recession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I don't know what Price and co.can actually do to sabotage things. A bunch of things. They're already working on it. See my politico link from upthread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I don't know what Price and co.can actually do to sabotage things. Price could do a lot of things. Not that they will survive the legal challenges. If you want a take from the right wing nutjob: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/03/25/the-best-thing-politically-is-to-let-obamacare-explode/ quote:First, the House of Representative’s challenge to the payment of cost-sharing reductions returns to the fore. Last month, HHS and the House jointly moved to stay proceedings in the D.C. Circuit until May 22, 2017, “to allow time for a resolution that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action.” The D.C. Circuit granted that motion. quote:Second, Trump could terminate illegal subsidies being provided to members of Congress and their staff. quote:The third approach to make Obamacare “explode” would be illegal–suspend enforcement of the individual mandate and Essential Health Benefit requirements. In short, these actions were purportedly part of the vaunted “Phase 2” of the repeal-and-replace strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:Sabotaging the ACA seems like a good way to spark a recession. Same can be said of most of Trump's domestic agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Do you guys think this is actually true? http://thehill.com/homenews/house/325865-report-ryan-pleaded-on-one-knee-for-obamacare-repeal-vote  quote:At one point, the paper said, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) got down on one knee to plead with Rep. Don Young of Alaska – the longest-serving Republican in Congress -- to support the bill. (He was unsuccessful.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you guys think this is actually true? I have to give Ryan credit for working hard for his dream, guy sold himself to make it happen. I bet he used his teeth. :bigtran:
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you guys think this is actually true? No, but a man can dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Blow up the ACA at your own peril - AHIP wanted and got concessions when it comes to cracking down on the qualified life events and other things that insurers were bitching about. Trying to disrupt an infant individual insurance market to score points is not a wise move and makes you an enemy of 20% of this country's GDP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you guys think this is actually true? upon bended knee god emperor forsakes me this, my last resort
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you guys think this is actually true? I think it's probably a case of this being an old guy who has difficulty getting out of his chair and is hard of hearing, so Ryan kneels down to talk to him. Although it's certainly amusing to imagine Paul Ryan on his knees begging please sir vote for my bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
So I have a question about getting a "Medicare for All" bill passed. When Obama ran for president in '08 he had UHC as one of his top priorities but after he got elected realized that trying to expand Medicare for everyone would have been filibustered in the Senate and certain centrists Democrats would have opposed it. So he dropped that and they had to hash out ACA. If Bernie or another Democrat that campaigns heavily around Medicare for everyone, they get elected, what could they do about getting the votes necessary to get that bill passed? If Bernie was president now, and lets say the bill gets passed in a Democratic majority House but the Senate is composed the way it is today, there's no way that bill would be passed. It'll be worthless to get Bernie in if he doesn't have a majority of Democrats that would vote for the bills he wants passed. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So I have a question about getting a "Medicare for All" bill passed. When Obama ran for president in '08 he had UHC as one of his top priorities but after he got elected realized that trying to expand Medicare for everyone would have been filibustered in the Senate and certain centrists Democrats would have opposed it. So he dropped that and they had to hash out ACA. I think the main argument is that 2020 will not be 2008. The second argument is the old Winston Churchill quote about how you can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else. Every one agrees health care is still broken; Obamacare was a bandage not a cure. A hypothetical anti Trump progressive wave election could possibly expand Medicare or Medicaid further. At this point it looks like health care benefits are a one way ratchet: each increase is politically nonrevokable, so we just have to keep ratcheting by expanding benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Medicare for all is (afaics) the democratic version of repealing obamacare. It's a great thing to champion while you're the minority, but political realities would make it extremely difficult (not impossible) to get it passed. so, short answer: Confounding Factor posted:Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Medicare for all is (afaics) the democratic version of repealing obamacare. It's a great thing to champion while you're the minority, but political realities would make it extremely difficult (not impossible) to get it passed. Extremely difficult to implement, or extremely difficult to pass, because Dem lawmakers will refuse to do it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Extremely difficult to implement, or extremely difficult to pass, because Dem lawmakers will refuse to do it? Yeah, this. It's totally doable. It might even be simpler and cheaper than the current system, in much the same way that a GMI is simpler than a need based program. That's the difference: Medicare for All would actually work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you guys think this is actually true? I see no reason to not. Ryan abandoned dignity long ago, if he was desperate for this to pass I think he'd do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So I have a question about getting a "Medicare for All" bill passed. When Obama ran for president in '08 he had UHC as one of his top priorities but after he got elected realized that trying to expand Medicare for everyone would have been filibustered in the Senate and certain centrists Democrats would have opposed it. So he dropped that and they had to hash out ACA. Either they abolish the filibuster (not unreasonable, given that it has evolved from used only in extreme circumstances to a de facto 60 vote requirement for everything and there's been muttering about that for some time), they do it through reconciliation, or they hope that 2020 is the mother of all wave elections and they get 60 votes (they would need to win 12 and they can win like, two in 2018, maybe three if Ted Cruz is unpopular enough even if 2018 is a huge wave). There are no other options. There is zero chance of a single Republican vote short of a crackup in the party that means its virtually unrecognizable compared to today's party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Either they abolish the filibuster (not unreasonable, given that it has evolved from used only in extreme circumstances to a de facto 60 vote requirement for everything and there's been muttering about that for some time), they do it through reconciliation, or they hope that 2020 is the mother of all wave elections and they get 60 votes (they would need to win 12 and they can win like, two in 2018, maybe three if Ted Cruz is unpopular enough even if 2018 is a huge wave). My fingers are crossed that the Supreme Court rules in favor of that partisan gerrymandering case coming up, that would be yuuuuuuuge. Have you been following that at all? That'll help Democrats a lot in their 50 state strategy. Hieronymous Alloy posted:At this point it looks like health care benefits are a one way ratchet: each increase is politically nonrevokable, so we just have to keep ratcheting by expanding benefits. Yeah that's a great point, that's why I thought Republicans were hosed on trying anything regressive on healthcare. Progressives might hate incrementalism but in this instance it's extremely effective in that it's pretty much impossible to rollback. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
It is possible you could get the votes for a smaller-scale step though, either expanding Medicaid further or lowering the medicare age. Those sort of ratchets aren't as politically sensitive and you might be able to swing 60 votes for more small-scale improvements. It's not as good as going all the way to full UHC, but it does have the advantage of likely being doable a lot sooner. And the more people already on government UHC, the less scary it will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Let military families sign up for Tricare, like with USAA. Three generations later and the whole country is eligible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:10
|
|