Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[Annie]

What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.

Which is why no fixes should be bothered with. Let it swim or sink on its own. Oh yea, there is no sinking for the bill, just for the citizenry, oh well.

 

[Koios]

What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.

Keep "thinking" that, if it works for ya. Meanwhile ...

... I think you have a little something there: is that a koolaid stain?

 

[francoHFW]

They'll be tinkering with ACA forever. Woe betide Pubs if they try to do away with it once it starts up in 2014 and people realize what liars Pubs are...

What happened to the national exchange they were so excited about, or tort reform? Totally FOS...

 

[Rozman]

The government shoul just take the industry over completely, conscript doctors and give all forms of healthcare for free.

Then Government should take over the housing market.
Who better then Government to make these decisions.
Let Government own all forms of housing and then we can apply for
a place to live...

By the way when you look for that direct deposit of your paycheck into your checking account...Don't bother.You be given a book of government issued vouchers to be used for clothing,food,and transportation...

Good luck to us all...

 

[Locke11_21]

Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).

What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?

We will have to pass correcting the flaws before we find out what is in addressing fixing the flaws.

 

[Greenbeard]

What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?

The ACA was never meant to be a final product. The key was laying a foundation on which to build and taking a somewhat scattershot approach, trying lots of different ideas at once. But implicit in the notion of trying lots of things or fostering different approaches is that you're going to evolve and learn from them.

Most of this happens in the states, so they're the ones with the primary responsibility for evaluating what is and isn't working and making the necessary course corrections. Some changes in the federal framework can be made without Congress, in places like the CMS Innovation Center or other pieces of the executive branch. But there may also be places where Congress will need to step in and act as we see what is and isn't working.

At the moment, it's not entirely clear the degree to which Congress is up to the challenge. For instance, the ACA authorized grants for states to help them get to work retooling their tort laws. Like much of the rest of the law, the philosophy was that letting 50 flowers bloom would reveal the best paths forward (though the idea of tort reform grants was actually borrowed from Republican legislation). To date I don't believe the House has actually appropriated the funds to make those grants happen so no state tort laws have yet been impacted. So if they're not even willing to start the experiments where their actions are still needed--even in areas they ostensibly support, like tort reform--that doesn't bode well for the chances of them building on the successes and correcting the failures of other ongoing experiments.

It's going to be a pretty wild decade. But a fascinating one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your claim was that it was not a problem.

The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away. That's a problem. And you claim it never happened.

And if you can't see how turning someone in need of immediate life saving care away can kill the, you're just straight up a moron.

EDIT - and while you've been fruitlessly trying to pickiaway at the evidence I offer for my opinion - you offer ZERO for your own. I guess you think that merely your claim that it is true is sufficient

Dear OPPD:
1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.

Especially if it is true that all the electoral/popular votes for Obama equate to support of ACA, then there should be plenty of the population who support this FREELY to pay for it.
If you are saying that the other half who voted no to Obama "don't matter," then we shouldn't be required to pay for ACA to make it work either! You can't have it both ways. It's called "no taxation without representation." And if you are saying that too many of the half that voted yes can't pay their share THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BILL = DUH!!!

If the bill is so effective, it should be able to cover health care with the people participating voluntarily and freely.

2. for example, there are plenty of ministries and nonprofits doing spiritual healing outreach that have PROVEN these methods SAVE LIVES. People with inoperable cancer, with incureable schizophrenia, permanently cured with spiritual healing. And yet these methods are FREE. They ONLY work when they are voluntarily accepted by people to go through the steps, like AA does not work by compelling or forcing people. You can't force someone to forgive in order to heal, it only works by choosing by free will. Because these methods are so cost-effective, there is no issue with providing access to them freely and VOLUNTARILY. People NATURALLY give to support good solutions that work. So the same with the ACA bill.

3. Also, a more political example if that one is too religious or spiritual for you. People who believe in prolife support to "save lives" of babies and also of women who are suicidal after abortions or related abuses, are expected to FUND their solutions VOLUNTARILY -- not by mandates forcing "everyone to help pay for this." And these are very successful, based on voluntary donations and outreach. Without legislation mandating that people give to these groups that "save lives" there is plenty of charitable and voluntary support for these programs to provide services freely and to participate in them freely.

Please be consistent.

If you would not want to be forced by law to pay for a program you don't believe in, that other people can fund voluntarily who do, and if you would rather have equal freedom to fund a policy you do believe in, then grant others the same respect and freedom under law.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hi OohPah:
1. I don't mean LEGALLY what is the difference.

I mean in consequence, if you are going to have your property seized because you disagree religiously about the limits of federal govt, how is that "NOT PUNISHING" you? For your BELIEFS? That you either believe you have the right to decide your own health care coverage, with or without insurance, or you believe these mandates are outside federal jurisdiction and belong to the states or to the people.

Its not punishing someone to take what they owe by law and give it to the party they owe it to. If you owed me $10,000 and I went to court to seize $10,000 in bank assets from you plus my legal expenses - that's not punishing you.

2. Thanks for responding to this as one of the key questions I had.

Did the bill get amended to remove the religious exemption or is it still in effect:

"According to the Culpepper, VA Star-Exponent,

in the midst of this sweeping new legislation is the “Religious Exemption,” Section 1501(b), which states: “The term ‘applicable individual’ … shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.”

The bill then defines a “health care sharing ministry” to be any 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since at least 1999 whose members “share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.”

If this is still in the bill, I argue that other people "independent of religious beliefs" should have the same freedom to choose alternative means of covering health care for themselves and others, especially since even this federally mandated program doesn't cover all people.

Alternative to what? You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

So if liberal advocates push NOT to punish either drug use or abortion as choices, then why punish the choice not to buy private insurance? That is even LESS harmful of a choice than drug use or abortion, so why jump on this and let the others go?

In your opinion people shirking on their personal responsibility to buy health insurance is less harmful than abortion. I've no duty to constrain my arguments to your opinions.

 

[Koios]

Dear OPPD:
1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.

Especially if it is true that all the electoral/popular votes for Obama equate to support of ACA, then there should be plenty of the population who support this FREELY to pay for it.
If you are saying that the other half who voted no to Obama "don't matter," then we shouldn't be required to pay for ACA to make it work either! You can't have it both ways. It's called "no taxation without representation." And if you are saying that too many of the half that voted yes can't pay their share THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BILL = DUH!!!

If the bill is so effective, it should be able to cover health care with the people participating voluntarily and freely.

2. for example, there are plenty of ministries and nonprofits doing spiritual healing outreach that have PROVEN these methods SAVE LIVES. People with inoperable cancer, with incureable schizophrenia, permanently cured with spiritual healing. And yet these methods are FREE. They ONLY work when they are voluntarily accepted by people to go through the steps, like AA does not work by compelling or forcing people. You can't force someone to forgive in order to heal, it only works by choosing by free will. Because these methods are so cost-effective, there is no issue with providing access to them freely and VOLUNTARILY. People NATURALLY give to support good solutions that work. So the same with the ACA bill.

3. Also, a more political example if that one is too religious or spiritual for you. People who believe in prolife support to "save lives" of babies and also of women who are suicidal after abortions or related abuses, are expected to FUND their solutions VOLUNTARILY -- not by mandates forcing "everyone to help pay for this." And these are very successful, based on voluntary donations and outreach. Without legislation mandating that people give to these groups that "save lives" there is plenty of charitable and voluntary support for these programs to provide services freely and to participate in them freely.

Please be consistent.

If you would not want to be forced by law to pay for a program you don't believe in, that other people can fund voluntarily who do, and if you would rather have equal freedom to fund a policy you do believe in, then grant others the same respect and freedom under law.

Since OPPD is my new hero, hopefully he/she will not mind my butting in.

1. Me either; however, I have a huge problem with ignoring the basic healthcare needs of our People to the point that something minor escalates into an emergency situation, not only creating costs that are a multiple of basic care, but also making our People less healthy and thus less able to produce and contribute to the society. Not to mention, it sucks to be unhealthy to the degree we need emergency care. Everyone loses.

2. Many services, including faith-based, provide quite a lot of help. But that's because we as a society are not sufficiently meeting the health needs of our people. And it's far from a solution, or even one we can bank on. Thus, willy-nilly, let's hope some good samaritan(s) picks up the slack for us, is little more than being hugely irresponsible.

3. I haven't the slightest idea of where you're headed with that diatribe. WTF?

 

[Oddball]

Figures that an unhinged demagogue would be your new hero.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dear OPPD:
1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.

Hey why don't we just let people pay whatever they want in taxes? I don't wanna pay any, gimme all of mine back please.

Jeez you're a silly little girl

 

[Koios]

Figures that an unhinged demagogue would be your new hero.

Still, substance beats the heck out of empty rhetoric. So there's that.

You feel me, my wigga?

 

[dblack]

You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

You're free to buy any comprehensive plan offered.

 

[dblack]

Hi OohPah:
1. I don't mean LEGALLY what is the difference.

I mean in consequence, if you are going to have your property seized because you disagree religiously about the limits of federal govt, how is that "NOT PUNISHING" you? For your BELIEFS? That you either believe you have the right to decide your own health care coverage, with or without insurance, or you believe these mandates are outside federal jurisdiction and belong to the states or to the people.

Its not punishing someone to take what they owe by law and give it to the party they owe it to. If you owed me $10,000 and I went to court to seize $10,000 in bank assets from you plus my legal expenses - that's not punishing you.

Are you really this dense? I don't think you are. I think you're full of shit and you're deliberating obfuscating the issues (which is how PPACA was passed in the first place, so I guess it's appropriate). You don't "owe" the money. It's not a debt for services rendered. It's a penalty levied to punish those who don't obey. Fuck you for lying again.

 

[Koios]

You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

That's a state-level deal and why voters elect insurance commissioners to watch our back and make sure the policies being offered are not snake oil.

Therein is why the Tea/Rep imbeciles are being played for suckers (child's play, really) and carrying the water for snake oil "insurance" lobbyists by saying that selling it across state lines is a good idea, which it isn't. In fact, it's retarded and would allow the snake oil "insurance" selling folks to bypass our duly elected insurance commissioners.

Are you seeing?

 

[Oddball]

You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

You're free to buy any comprehensive plan offered.

Translation: You're free to "choose" from the "choices" presented to you by your corporate masters.

You can have any color Mao jacket you want, as long as it's gray.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

You're free to buy any comprehensive plan offered.

Translation: You're free to "choose" from the "choices" presented to you by your corporate masters.

You can have any color Mao jacket you want, as long as it's gray.

Your choices are constrained by whatever is available to choose from in every single facet of life. So by your logic not only do we not have freedom of choice - its not even physically possible to have it

Also, there is no law requiring the health care be provided by a corporation. Any partnership or sole proprietorship may also sell it.

 

[dblack]

You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.

Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.

You're free to buy any comprehensive plan offered.

Hehe.. So, you're free to do as you're told or be punished? That's one fucked up conception of freedom.

 

[Koios]

Translation: You're free to "choose" from the "choices" presented to you by your corporate masters.

You can have any color Mao jacket you want, as long as it's gray.

Attaboy, Oddie. When you cannot retort what was said, pretend they said something else. That's the ticket!

Hey; I think you got a little something there: is that a koolaid stain?