Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[dblack]

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.

You're (deliberately again, I assume) conflating existential freedom with political freedom. The question is whether we should use force of law to limit our choices further - whether people should be punished for making choices government doesn't approve of.

 

[Koios]

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.

It's not about freedom. Indeed it's the opposite.

Consumer protection specifically limits the freedoms of the unscrupulous who would gladly take your money and leave you hanging when you got sick.

Thus our freedom to elect insurance commissioners to protect us from that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's your freedom to be protected from the evil capitalists by electing a dunce to Dullard so you dont get dunderheaded.

******* brilliant, i tell ya.

 

[dblack]

It's sort of funny. But also sort of creepy and depressing to realize how many people in this country think that way.

 

[Koios]

It's your freedom to be protected from the evil capitalists by electing a dunce to Dullard so you dont get dunderheaded.

******* brilliant, i tell ya.

Ideally, no. Do not elect a dunce, nor dunces (Teas/Reps)

 

[dblack]

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.

It's not about freedom. Indeed it's the opposite.

This much we agree on.

 

[Koios]

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

It's not about freedom. Indeed it's the opposite.

This much we agree on.

Probably not. If we did, you'd not have to quote me out-of-context.

Are you getting that?

 

[dblack]

It's not about freedom. Indeed it's the opposite.

This much we agree on.

Probably not. If we did, you'd not have to quote me out-of-context.

Are you getting that?

I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page when it comes to freedom.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

One of the things removed was the option to show financial responsibility in lieu of buying insurance. Personally, I thought that was a good idea.

 

[dblack]

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.

one of the things removed was the option to show financial responsibility in lieu of buying insurance. Personally, i thought that was a good idea.

lol

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's not about freedom. Indeed it's the opposite.

This much we agree on.

Probably not. If we did, you'd not have to quote me out-of-context.

Are you getting that?

Get used to it because he'll wear you out misquoting you, putting words in your mouth and ignoring what you actually write.

 

[Immanuel]

There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?

You all were jumping for joy when it passed. Tell us what's wrong with it.

It doesn't do enough to bring down costs.

So let's revisit the idea of a public option.

It does not do anything to bring down costs. It was a frigging scam and nothing more than a step towards full government control of the health insurance market.

Immie

 

[Koios]

This much we agree on.

Probably not. If we did, you'd not have to quote me out-of-context.

Are you getting that?

I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page when it comes to freedom.

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

 

[Koios]

There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?

You all were jumping for joy when it passed. Tell us what's wrong with it.

It doesn't do enough to bring down costs.

So let's revisit the idea of a public option.

It does not do anything to bring down costs. It was a frigging scam and nothing more than a step towards full government control of the health insurance market.

Immie

Correct; but merely at our option. So full government control would only occur if government outperforms private insurance in the minds of consumers. Kinduva freer market thingy.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Translation: You really don't have a choice...So sit down, STFU and take what you're given, peasant!

 

[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.

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.

Translation: You really don't have a choice...So sit down, STFU and take what you're given, peasant!

How do you get dressed in the morning? Utterly astonishing.

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't do enough to bring down costs.

So let's revisit the idea of a public option.

It does not do anything to bring down costs. It was a frigging scam and nothing more than a step towards full government control of the health insurance market.

Immie

Correct; but merely at our option. So full government control would only occur if government outperforms private insurance in the minds of consumers. Kinduva freer market thingy.

Wrong, full government control comes by force not efficiency.

Immie

 

[dblack]

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business.

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Translation: You really don't have a choice...So sit down, STFU and take what you're given, peasant!

How do you get dressed in the morning? Utterly astonishing.

I certainly do it without a gubmint bureaucrat picking out my wardrobe for me, comrade.