CDZ Maybe Those "Evil" Rich People Will Save Us?

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

It's interesting because that's actually an age old argument - helping the poor vs enabling them. I just finished a good book in fact (A Square Meal - Jane Ziegelman, Andrew Coe - Hardcover) that touched on that and the arguments on both sides. Because poverty has diverse causes I'm reluctant to apply one size fits all "solutions".

But access to healthcare, imo, is - if not a right - then pretty darn close to it in this day and age. Too many jobs no longer include benefits such as healthcare - or they are part time with people working multiple part time (no benefit) jobs to make ends meet. Preventative healthcare is relatively inexpensive compared to emergency room costs - and studies have shown if they can't afford it, they won't see a doctor until it becomes an emergency room visit or the emergency rooms get used instead of a doctors office. The public pays one way or another. I support subsidizing healthcare for those that can't afford it - particularly working people.

 

[RodISHI]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

It's interesting because that's actually an age old argument - helping the poor vs enabling them. I just finished a good book in fact (A Square Meal - Jane Ziegelman, Andrew Coe - Hardcover) that touched on that and the arguments on both sides. Because poverty has diverse causes I'm reluctant to apply one size fits all "solutions".

But access to healthcare, imo, is - if not a right - then pretty darn close to it in this day and age. Too many jobs no longer include benefits such as healthcare - or they are part time with people working multiple part time (no benefit) jobs to make ends meet. Preventative healthcare is relatively inexpensive compared to emergency room costs - and studies have shown if they can't afford it, they won't see a doctor until it becomes an emergency room visit or the emergency rooms get used instead of a doctors office. The public pays one way or another. I support subsidizing healthcare for those that can't afford it - particularly working people.

That is when government sponsored health clinics could come into play but instead of just making them long term government owned clinics help those who have the ability to get through medical school but not the finances and then encourage them with incentives to work in areas throughout the country where they are needed. For those type clinics limit patient liability and insure them with a fully operated government agency.

 

[Foxfyre]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.

Absolutely. I personally know quite a number of people who absolutely were unable to deal with things without help. But I have seen much more useful help given at the local level for most of those people and very few of them remained permanently dependent--most were lured or led out of their personal dilemmas and became productive members of society. That is something that one size fits all government programs don't do nearly as effectively.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.

Absolutely. I personally know quite a number of people who absolutely were unable to deal with things without help. But I have seen much more useful help given at the local level for most of those people and very few of them remained permanently dependent--most were lured or led out of their personal dilemmas and became productive members of society. That is something that one size fits all government programs don't do nearly as effectively.

I do agree with that - there needs to be a good balance between federal and local levels - to much control at the local level has led to funds being misused for example.

 

[RodISHI]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.

Absolutely. I personally know quite a number of people who absolutely were unable to deal with things without help. But I have seen much more useful help given at the local level for most of those people and very few of them remained permanently dependent--most were lured or led out of their personal dilemmas and became productive members of society. That is something that one size fits all government programs don't do nearly as effectively.

I had some super mentors. Some help just a little and others helped a lot.

 

[Foxfyre]

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.

Absolutely. I personally know quite a number of people who absolutely were unable to deal with things without help. But I have seen much more useful help given at the local level for most of those people and very few of them remained permanently dependent--most were lured or led out of their personal dilemmas and became productive members of society. That is something that one size fits all government programs don't do nearly as effectively.

I do agree with that - there needs to be a good balance between federal and local levels - to much control at the local level has led to funds being misused for example.

My observations though is control at the local level is likely to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less than we ever see from the federal level. At the federal level a huge percentage of the funds will be absorbed by the massive infrastructure and bloated bureaucracy. Each level on down from the top takes another bite out of it so that there isn't all that much left for the people who really need it. Those wonderful federal programs with noble or righteous sounding names too often help the folks who administer them much more than those they are supposed to help. The books don't look like that though--they would make you think the 'poor' or 'needy' actually get all that money.

When I was personally administering charitable funds at the local level, for instance, all the money that was contributed to help people in need got to the people in need. We had other sources to cover our overhead and administrative costs. And except for a tiny grant--at most less than a hundred dollars--of federal money we received through United Way, we raised all our funds from local benefactors.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:

The status quo serves them personally much better than actually doing something.

How so?

The permanent political class in Washington exists for its own benefit, not ours. They arrive in Washington usually moderately well to do. When they leave, they are mostly 1 percenters. They use their office to increase their personal influence, power, and personal wealth. And they maintain the status quo so that nothing interferes with their ability to be self-serving. Somebody like President Trump who actually wants to accomplish something good for the country threatens their very existence.

They throw us just enough bones to keep us voting for them. The only difference in Republicans and Democrats for the most part are the bases that they serve and therefore they throw different kinds of bones to their base.

But, if the big money guys they depend on to maintain their lifestyles and ambitions give them problems, and that should catch on, they might have to start doing their jobs and become public servants. What an effing nightmare!!!!! Yes?

The permanent political class in Washington exists for its own benefit, not ours.

I have news for you: the members of "permanent political class" of individuals in Washington aren't elected. The individuals who comprise the "permanent political class" are the "movers and shakers" behind the scenes.

• They are the legislative aides who move from one Congressional office to the next.
• They are the lobbyists, PR specialists and political consultants whose names few "regular" people outside of Washington know.
• They are the federal judges who'll never be quoted in any newspaper.
• They are the rich individuals who are particularly generous with their checkbooks.
• They are the C-level (or nearly so) and other businesspeople who have "phone-call" access to any member of Congress, department appointee or WH employee with whom they care to have a conversation.
• They are the directors and other senior leaders of a small cadre of non-profits and think tanks.

Members of Congress are merely the visible instruments of the "permanent political class." Moreover, being elected, there's nothing permanent about their membership in the political class.

They arrive in Washington usually moderately well to do. When they leave, they are mostly 1 percenters.

You should bother to confirm what share of members of Congress were indeed not members of the "one-percent" with regard to net worth prior to taking office. I realize that's not particularly easy to do, but it's something one must do in order to credibly make the assertion you have. (Obviously, one can believe whatever the hell one wants, without regard to whether it is indeed true and without regard to whether one has confirmed one's belief.)

I don't know of any specific researchers who have, with an assuredly high degree accuracy, done so, but I'm aware of a document with which one can start such inquiry, but it's just a place to start, not a source of conclusive measurement. Some other sources of information that will either corroborate or refute your assertion (I don't know which; I haven't analyzed the data found in the noted documents/sites) include the following:

• Wealth of Congress Index
  
• Millionaires’ Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Personal Finances

Though I don't know what a rigorous analysis of the available data will reveal, I do know that given what's presented above, one'd need to do a member-by-member year-over-year measurement and then "somehow" objectively determine what share of any increase or decrease is materially attributable to each individual's tenure in Congress. The second part of the thus describe analysis is both harder and more important to do than is the first part if one is to credibly assert that members of Congress arrive moderately well off and leave as "one percenters." It is more important because (1) that they arrive without being members of the "one percent" must be established and (2) there are plenty of ways, besides winning a federal election, for upper middle and upper income people to get rich. [1] After all, when one makes $175K/year or more in salary along with their MRA allowance and other paid benefits, and has no actual expenses for things like housing, transportation, meals, etc., it's not very hard to get wealthy rather quickly without having to do "shady" things..

The fact of the matter is that members of Congress get their money from all over the place. Darrell Issa made his money through managing his company, but he has since moved most of his wealth into the bond market. David Purdue was the CEO of Dollar General before becoming a U.S. senator. Others, like Senator Jay Rockefeller and Representative Joseph Kennedy III, are heirs to significant family fortunes. California Representative Gary Miller’s real-estate portfolio accounts for 94 percent of his wealth. McCaul’s wealth is entirely connected to his wife’s family fortune—he does not have a single asset listed in his name in his financial disclosure. Senators John McCain and Claire McCaskill also draw more than 94 percent of their wealth from spouse-owned assets.

Am I suggesting that no federal elected representatives have unfairly availed themselves of their office to get rich? No. I'm merely saying that I've not seen from you or others any sound, thus credible, evidence and analysis that supports the premise you put forth, thus, the conclusion you've presented is unfounded.


Note:

1. For instance, each of my closest friends, people whom I've known at least since college and some before, have over the course of their lives/careers seen their net worth rise from about several thousand to tens of thousands dollars coming out of college to millions today, and none of them has held elective office. Admittedly, I don't know my friends' precise net worths because I don't know how much debt they carry, but I can see what major assets they own -- homes, other real property, boats, businesses, etc. -- and infer that given a reasonable estimate of their active income from their job, it's not a stretch to presume that if they manage money halfway decently, they are worth at least tens of millions of dollars.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So now we have the super rich, mega donor crowd chiming in. And they threaten to close the donor bank if Congress doesn't get off its rear end, repeal Obamacare, and reform taxes. They know full well there is a limited time to do that before the 2018 campaign is in high gear.

And all I can say to that is "right on!"

While you may say "right on," people who recognize that money is what drives much, too much actually, of all policy actions and positions will see the announcement as just one more indicator of the corrupting influence money has in the American political and legislative process. People of principle and integrity who decry the political influence of "big money" will object to money's controlling influence regardless of whether it is used to advance matters they support or those they oppose; thus they will also not espouse a "right on" view of the the mega-rich's ultimatum/quid pro quo of which you write.

As Peter Schweizer's book EXTORTION brilliantly demonstrated, it works both ways. Big business in America pays off the Congress to maintain the status quo--Congress dangles attractive legislation and suggests its passage depends on big money donors or it dangles harmful legislation and suggests that taking it off the table depends on big money donors. They don't say that in so many words of course, but everybody knows how the game is played. That is why so many of the big businesses contribute to both parties.

Those who benefit more from big government and government programs give more to Democrats. Those who benefit from less government interference give more to Republicans. But don't pretend they aren't aware of what government is doing and how it will affect them.

And now we may have a game changer if this new trend of patriotic rich start demanding that Congress do what is right or else.

If it catches on we might actually regain our government of the people and start electing more true public servants who are less susceptible to being 'bought'.

I agree that the process is circular. There's plenty of the "left hand washing the right" and vice versa.

Those who benefit more from big government and government programs give more to Democrats. Those who benefit from less government interference give more to Republicans.

I don't know whether that's factually so, but I do know that I don't care whether it is because I'm among the group that thinks the whole sordid mess is long overdue for to being brought to an end, regardless of whose money it is and who receives it.

many of the big businesses contribute to both parties.

Of course they do. They don't care which party's members enact the policies they want enacted. Seeing the policy brought to fruition will yield far more than whatever they spend to coddle legislators who vote for it. When that's not so, businesses make a educated gamble and support members of one party or the other based on which is more likely to enact the desired legislation.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.

Absolutely. I personally know quite a number of people who absolutely were unable to deal with things without help. But I have seen much more useful help given at the local level for most of those people and very few of them remained permanently dependent--most were lured or led out of their personal dilemmas and became productive members of society. That is something that one size fits all government programs don't do nearly as effectively.

I do agree with that - there needs to be a good balance between federal and local levels - to much control at the local level has led to funds being misused for example.

My observations though is control at the local level is likely to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less than we ever see from the federal level. At the federal level a huge percentage of the funds will be absorbed by the massive infrastructure and bloated bureaucracy. Each level on down from the top takes another bite out of it so that there isn't all that much left for the people who really need it. Those wonderful federal programs with noble or righteous sounding names too often help the folks who administer them much more than those they are supposed to help. The books don't look like that though--they would make you think the 'poor' or 'needy' actually get all that money.

When I was personally administering charitable funds at the local level, for instance, all the money that was contributed to help people in need got to the people in need. We had other sources to cover our overhead and administrative costs. And except for a tiny grant--at most less than a hundred dollars--of federal money we received through United Way, we raised all our funds from local benefactors.

federal money we received through United Way

??? The United Way is not a government organization.

 

[task0778]

All I know is we can't afford to pay for Medicaid's future growth; the cost of the program is expected to rise to $890 billion by 2024, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as things are now under the ACA. And more after that. Throw in the rising costs of Medicare, Social Security, and the other safety net programs, and then throw in the rising costs of interest payments on the national debt and well, we got us a problem. Sooner or later somebody is going to have to sit the American public down and tell them the facts of life - namely that there ain't no free lunch. We are living beyond our means as a society and we are passing the bill to our kids and grandkids and the generations to follow for them to deal with. If you want free health care then you're going to have to pay for it, all of us. And judging by other countries it won't be cheap.

Look guys, we have always had uninsured people in this country, it ain't nothing new. Who the hell decided that all of a sudden we gotta correct that problem right now, especially when we ain't got the effing money? If anybody thinks the rich guys can pay for it all, they got plenty of money. Well guess what fellas, first of all they ain't got that much money and second of all there are consequences when you raise taxes by as much as some libdems want to. Especially if you want to make even a dent in the growing debt and deficits. Nope, with respect to our health care situation we're going to have to fix the real problem, which is a dysfunctional health care system. We need to significantly cut the costs of health care itself by creating a new delivery system, maybe with some kind of Physician Assistants program that you see first and address some health problems without seeing a doctor. Whatever, HCI is not really the problem, we need to fix the system itself.

 

[jwoodie]

While you may say "right on," people who recognize that money is what drives much, too much actually, of all policy actions and positions will see the announcement as just one more indicator of the corrupting influence money has in the American political and legislative process.

This is why government should be kept as small as possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have to say something on this particular point:

With almost no objective publicity re what the Republicans are proposing, I am not surprised that so many Americans have no idea what they are proposing but believe the negative press.

Ahead of the ACA, Obama and others spent a considerable amount of time going around the country and explaining it to the people. Have the Republicans done the same?

This might be part of the problem with "objective publicity" - it's hard to be "objective" when it's all in secret - even from their own party members. ACA wasn't crammed in 4 short months, it was over a year in development.

Explaining it to people? If they had done that, the legislation would never have passed because most people would have demanded that heads roll first. Instead they completely lied about what the legislation would do and what people would expect.

1. Like your plan? You can keep your plan.

2. Like your doctor? You can keep your doctor.

3. Premiums will go down.

4. Premiums will go down at an average of $2,500.

5. Deductibles will go down.

6. The healthcare.gov website will work.

7. The healthcare.gov website will be secure.

8. Emergency room visits will go down.

9. The 23 healthcare cooperatives will be the end-all, save-all, be-all.

All lies. HUGE lies.

 

[task0778]

My problem is that the same people who told us these lies listed above about ObamaCare are telling us how great a Single Payer system would be, even though we can see how poorly run the VA run healthcare for the veterans and how SP didn't work in Vermont. Gotta be a better way than SP, the ACA, the GOP Plan, or what we had before. But getting all sides to cut the crap and stop the political games and actually implement something that IS better won't be easy.

 

[Foxfyre]

My problem is that the same people who told us these lies listed above about ObamaCare are telling us how great a Single Payer system would be, even though we can see how poorly run the VA run healthcare for the veterans and how SP didn't work in Vermont. Gotta be a better way than SP, the ACA, the GOP Plan, or what we had before. But getting all sides to cut the crap and stop the political games and actually implement something that IS better won't be easy.

I believe the ACA was specifically designed to move us to a single payer system. I can't prove it. But President Obama made his intentions very clear before he ever became President though he didn't intend that we the people know about his intentions.

These two clips I think pretty well illustrate how a professional politician expresses his opinion based on who he is talking to.





I do agree if whatever the Republicans come up with is simply Obamacare lite, they shouldn't pass it because it will also fail and the GOP will get stuck with ALL the blame for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will say as an addendum to my previous post that President Trump has also shifted positions on this or that because he is one of those types that generally speaks it as he sees it at the moment--all strongly extroverted people tend to do that--and then amends his/her position as he/she thinks about it or different information becomes available. But I have detected no intentional guile in President Trump or any intention to deceive or mislead his audience.

He is often guilty of misspeaking or hyperbole at times, but that seems to be just him being a person and not a politician.

So far as healthcare goes, he gets slammed for supporting repeal and replacement of Obamacare and he gets slammed for not being specific about what should be in it or not giving the GOP sufficient support. And he is constantly negotiating to see what the best deal he can get will be. That's who he is. He's not an 'all or nothing' kind of guy or one who says he tried but the other party wouldn't allow it so that's that. He may move to Plan B, C, D, etc. but he doesn't quit easily.

 

[task0778]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

 

[Foxfyre]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

 

[RodISHI]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

 

[RodISHI]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

I do not think congress has any right to interfere with a person's choices involving the personal services industry. Insurance is a personal service supposedly offered by professionals. I agree that there needs to be an avenue for catastrophic medical coverage in certain situations. However, there again, who decides who qualifies and who does not. Will it be a dog chasing its own tail or a cat? Perhaps it should be a horse instead of a cow, regardless someone will pay big money and favors to line their own pocketbooks to be the one who decides who qualifies. If we start by cleaning up agencies like FDA, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and other agencies like this who are not only enabling but are aiding and abetting health problems for many that would be a good start.

 

[Foxfyre]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

I do not think congress has any right to interfere with a person's choices involving the personal services industry. Insurance is a personal service supposedly offered by professionals. I agree that there needs to be an avenue for catastrophic medical coverage in certain situations. However, there again, who decides who qualifies and who does not. Will it be a dog chasing its own tail or a cat? Perhaps it should be a horse instead of a cow, regardless someone will pay big money and favors to line their own pocketbooks to be the one who decides who qualifies. If we start by cleaning up agencies like FDA, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and other agencies like this who are not only enabling but are aiding and abetting health problems for many that would be a good start.

Who qualifies for catastrophic medical insurance should be the same as those who qualify for catastrophic flood or earthquake insurance. If you want it you would have the option to buy it. I don't need either where I live but I could buy it if I wanted it just the same. Many/most mortgage companies require it before they will provide a loan to buy a house or other structures if you live in higher risk areas. It is purely voluntary, but it is available for those who need it.

And, because the standard homeowner's/business policy is not required to cover flood and earthquake damage, homeowner's/business insurance is affordable for everybody, both for those who live in high risk areas and those who do not.

That's how a government provided medical umbrella for catastrophic illness or accident should be.

You do have to buy flood and/or earthquake insurance before you know you will need it though. You can't wait until the damage has already occurred and then run out and buy a policy. That is the fallacy of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--the person can wait until he/she is already sick before buying health insurance. And because of that, the risk is not spread and that drives up insurance costs enormously.