|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Why all the talk of this being DOA in Senate? Sorry, I know nothing despite the reading I've done There's probably at least three diehard give me what i want or nobody gets anything conservatives who will vote against it for not being pure enough and taking away enough healthcare from poor people (Paul, Cruz, and Lee), as well as probably at least three "moderates" who aren't down with the medicare cuts and/or the Planned Parenthood defunding. Three defections kills it because Republicans only have 52 votes + the tiebreaker. If both groups hate it, there is no way to satisfy one without the other one hating it even more.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
quote:“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” quote:Scott Pelley: Universal health care? Lol remember this? I almost want to believe Republicans fooled Trump into thinking everyone is going to be covered on their "replacement" plan, so he's supporting it. This is one of those occasions where I wish Trump would bully the gently caress out of them. The bill doesn't make any sense, even if I was a conservative I'd wonder why it even exists. 7 years and this is all they bring to the table. What a joke. But hey if the rich get their tax cuts and less poors getting a government "entitlement".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
The 30% premium is hilarious. It's basically just a slightly different form of a mandate, except it goes to the insurance companies instead of the government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:This is a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate limits discussion on those, meaning there is no filibuster. Supposedly, but I don't understand how this bill doesn't exceed the scope of the reconciliation process (which is supposed to just be 'spend more/less on X')
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Supposedly, but I don't understand how this bill doesn't exceed the scope of the reconciliation process (which is supposed to just be 'spend more/less on X') Obamacare itself was passed partly through reconciliation
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:The 30% premium is hilarious. It's basically just a slightly different form of a mandate, except it goes to the insurance companies instead of the government. It also does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to. The current mandate encourages people without insurance to get insurance. This new monstrosity encourages people without insurance to...continue to not have insurance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
blackmet posted:[smartphone chat] A nice smartphone is about $600 and lasts at least 2 years. So theoretically the healthcare you give up updating your iphone for should be $25/month or less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Obamacare itself was passed partly through reconciliation It was mostly passed through normal procedures. What passed through reconciliation was a patch to tweak enough to make the House happy with it. The overwhelming majority of the bill passed with 60 votes before they lost the 60th seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Obamacare itself was passed partly through reconciliation Yes, there was a final reconciliation bill that tweaked expenditures but all the statutory parts like the individual mandate were passed as regular legislation and get 60 votes in the senate. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obamacare-was-not-passed-reconciliation It's too bad that this urban myth persists but I think that ship has sailed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? Only if Trump makes the pitch
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If that bill fails due to defections though, there's no redo, right? There's no reason to expect a different outcome if the bill is immediately put back up for a second vote, votes are cast based on political calculus and won't change until the surrounding circumstances change. It would be like re-filing a lawsuit you just lost. Although, if any administration would actually try doing that, its this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:It also does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to. The current mandate encourages people without insurance to get insurance. This new monstrosity encourages people without insurance to...continue to not have insurance? It's awful. Does anyone who isn't Paul Ryan like that idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? I dunno. My immediate reaction is negative (that is to say, I wouldn't want it) but that's because at least two of the doctors I see regularly don't take Medicaid and one of the two doesn't take Medicare either. In that circumstance, if I could have government-funded insurance, private insurance companies have even less incentive not to be horrible, but not having private insurance would leave me worse off than I am now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
If Dems put up Medicare for All as a counter-proposal, how many GOP senate members would have to jump across the line to pass it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If Dems put up Medicare for All as a counter-proposal, how many GOP senate members would have to jump across the line to pass it? 3. But that would never pass the House or Trump's desk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If Dems put up Medicare for All as a counter-proposal, how many GOP senate members would have to jump across the line to pass it? Two thirds, to override a presidential veto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? It's saleable but a bad idea for other reasons, not least because it runs up against people with company or union insurance being basically satisfied with that, the difficulty of funding it, the presumption that universalizing it won't be an enormous expenditure, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Two thirds, to override a presidential veto. Why are we assuming Trump would veto it? He loves putting his name on poo poo, he already said he'd like to cover everyone in some fashion by "making a deal" during the campaign, and if he managed to actually do medicare-for-all, he'd be remembered extremely fondly by pretty much everyone. I think he could be tempted into it. Getting it past his handlers, and also Congress... those would be the difficult parts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? Possible but it'd just be easier to pick at the market segments that private health insurance have abandoned. We've largely been successful doing that. Started with Medicare/Medicaid. Then the Medicaid expansion. Next step is a public option for the individual market. As private health insurance gets out-competed on cost by a public option, add in time, a mish-mash of public health insurances that can reformed into one budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why are we assuming Trump would veto it? He loves putting his name on poo poo, he already said he'd like to cover everyone in some fashion by "making a deal" during the campaign, and if he managed to actually do medicare-for-all, he'd be remembered extremely fondly by pretty much everyone. I think he could be tempted into it. Getting it past his handlers, and also Congress... those would be the difficult parts. I mentioned a few weeks ago that Bernie should start publicly saying he would like to try and work with Trump on health care, but I got laughed at. Now is not a bad time for Bernie to have an Uncle Jesse moment with Baby Trump about how he shouldn't let people die. Trump seems to respect Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I mentioned a few weeks ago that Bernie should start publicly saying he would like to try and work with Trump on health care, but I got laughed at. Trump respects that Sanders is a fantastic way to keep the Democrats divided internally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I mentioned a few weeks ago that Bernie should start publicly saying he would like to try and work with Trump on health care, but I got laughed at. No he doesn't. He likes trying to keep driving the wedge between hillary people and berniebros.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NickReisman/status/839230489080778753 Even if Cuomo just gets this passed as a launchpad for a presidential run...as a resident of NY I'll take it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:https://twitter.com/NickReisman/status/839230489080778753 The Democrats don't hold the state senate despite having a majority, because a third of the loving democrats caucus with Republicans. If Cuomo was on board he'd be out in front of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Not good, because the Rand types are just doing political theater and will end up coming around imo Nah, this thing aint going anywhere in its current form. Mechafunkzilla posted:Do you guys think medicare-for-all is a saleable idea for the American people? Medicare for all is a slogan, not an actual policy proposal. Something a lot of people don't seem to entirely grasp is how loving monumentally difficult it is to overhaul a 1 trillion dollar industry, even if you have all the stakeholders on board which isn't close to the case. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a third of the loving democrats caucus with Republicans. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:how is... my brain... that doesn't... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/nyregion/independent-democratic-conference-republicans-state-senate.html?pagewanted=all quote:The Independent Democratic Conference, whose collaboration with Republicans in the State Senate has allowed that party to control the chamber despite being outnumbered by Democrats, added an eighth member on Wednesday. quote:As he has before, Mr. Lipton blamed the rift largely on one man: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who Mr. Lipton said had not campaigned aggressively enough for other Democrats in November. “This goes back to the governor’s decision to sit on his hands last fall,” he said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:The 30% premium is hilarious. It's basically just a slightly different form of a mandate, except it goes to the insurance companies instead of the government. It's not even a good mandate. If I need an organ transplant that might cost 1 million + then jacking my premium from 450 to 600 is still a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:It's not even a good mandate. If I need an organ transplant that might cost 1 million + then jacking my premium from 450 to 600 is still a bargain. And when you think about it the percentage is meaningless overall if I'm reading this correctly. If I'm healthy (and dumb) I can skip health insurance for 10 or 20 years until something comes up. And that 30% for the first year is dwarfed by the savings in not paying premiums for decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
quote:And when you think about it the percentage is meaningless overall if I'm reading this correctly. If I'm healthy (and dumb) I can skip health insurance for 10 or 20 years until something comes up. And that 30% for the first year is dwarfed by the savings in not paying premiums for decades. The dumb part would still be necessary because the risk calc of not having insurance ignores all the thousands of minor things that aren't organ transplants that can still wipe out all your savings and/or bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.  Even simple bloodwork will run you a grand at cash-payer price these days--mine was just $953 before insurance adjustments down to $3.72. 
Sundae fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:
I think of it more as a bill title. It's totally possible to expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover all americans. It would require other improvements also, chiefly increases in payment rates, but it's completely doable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Sundae posted:The dumb part would still be necessary because the risk calc of not having insurance ignores all the thousands of minor things that aren't organ transplants that can still wipe out all your savings and/or bankrupt you if you don't have insurance. Well, a lot of Americans these days are functionally operating on the assumption that at some point they will go bankrupt, and just trying to forestall that day as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/08/519170657/the-affordable-care-act-medicaid-and-divorce Unfortunately, no transcript. The TL;DR is this: Under ACA, Medicaid no longer looks at assets to qualify. So more couples in Medicaid expansion states are not divorcing! What, how does that make any sense? Consider a couple in their 50s and one comes down with an incurable disease (dementia, cancer, etc). They would have to spend all of their life's savings in the vain attempt to save the spouse and only after exhausting their savings, qualify for Medicaid. The recommended financial advice was to DIVORCE, splitting those assets so one of the spouses could qualify for Medicaid. So let's go back to that. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
You'll also have to sell your house and use up all that money first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Yes, sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have: You'd have to exhaust all assets before qualifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Every day I find it hilarious and sad that people in the US, people fight tooth and nail to deny themselves Universal Health Care that every other first world country has.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
They buy into the horror-stories about other country's health care. My dad's favorite talking point is that apparently the British system doesn't cover knee replacements for the elderly. Which apparently is bullshit because the NHS website claims that most knee replacements are performed on people between 60 and 80 years old. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Knee-replacement/Pages/Kneereplacementexplained.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:They buy into the horror-stories about other country's health care. My dad's favorite talking point is that apparently the British system doesn't cover knee replacements for the elderly. They do "ration" out care for non-essential procedures if you want the procedure to be free and you aren't in an age group or medical state where it would be critical. So, if you are 48 and have a bad knee, it could hurt all day every day, but it won't kill you and you are not likely to die from slipping. The NHS would schedule you 6 months out if they have hundreds of more critical patients who need knee surgeries first. Then you can wait or you can pay someone else to get it done immediately. (Note: I'm not sure how Knee Surgeries are specifically defined under the NHS, but this is the case for many surgeries that deemed not medically essential) Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
My 90 year old grandpa got a knee replacement here in Canada, thankfully the death panel showed mercy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:48
|
|