McConnell Sets Plans For Full Repeal As Murkowski and Capito Stand In The Way

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
McConnell Sets Plans For Full Repeal As Murkowski and Capito Stand In The Way

“For the information of all senators, at the request of the President [Trump] and Vice President [Pence] and after consulting with our members, we will have the vote on the motion to proceed to the ObamaCare repeal bill early next week,” McConnell said from the Senate floor on Tuesday night.
...
By some crazy happenstance, we have Mitch McConnell agreeing to a repeal vote. Honestly, what do Republicans have to lose? Whether they vote to repeal or leave Obamacare in place to fail, Americans (and arguably as important, the media) will hold them to blame for any health care catastrophes from here on out
.​
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,941
17,418
Finger Lakes
✟7,425.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honestly, what do Republicans have to lose? Whether they vote to repeal or leave Obamacare in place to fail, Americans (and arguably as important, the media) will hold them to blame for any health care catastrophes from here on out.
Pretty much, but complete repeal with no replacement will leave millions of Americans uninsured and the insurance markets in shambles. This will cost hospitals a ton of money as well as patients won't be able to pay their bills and expanded Medicaid won't be reimbursed.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
IMO, they should repeal everything except the two things that are actually popular: letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer and no discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Pick those two kernels out and flush the rest of it until they can come up with their own plan.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,996
Seattle
✟895,313.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
McConnell Sets Plans For Full Repeal As Murkowski and Capito Stand In The Way

“For the information of all senators, at the request of the President [Trump] and Vice President [Pence] and after consulting with our members, we will have the vote on the motion to proceed to the ObamaCare repeal bill early next week,” McConnell said from the Senate floor on Tuesday night.
...
By some crazy happenstance, we have Mitch McConnell agreeing to a repeal vote. Honestly, what do Republicans have to lose? Whether they vote to repeal or leave Obamacare in place to fail, Americans (and arguably as important, the media) will hold them to blame for any health care catastrophes from here on out
.​
jiminy-cricket.png
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
IMO, they should repeal everything except the two things that are actually popular: letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer and no discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Pick those two kernels out and flush the rest of it until they can come up with their own plan.
How does one keep the "no-discrimination against pre-existing conditions" part of Obamacare when it is one of the biggest cost drivers? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don’t believe politicians on either side are willing to repeal and completely redesign a healthcare system that will be acceptable to everyone; that’s way more work and responsibility than they signed on for. So, that leaves the status quo and only two ways to keep it going... #1 is to cut Medicaid or #2 is raise everyone’s deductible. Guess which way it will go?
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
How does one keep the "no-discrimination against pre-existing conditions" part of Obamacare when it is one of the biggest cost drivers? :scratch:

Keep it until they come up with an alternative. In fact, I think they could keep it permanently if they actually started deregulating things a bit and brought in tort reform to not make doctor's insurance so insanely high. The practice of 'defensive medicine' is a huge problem for the industry.

Forbes also noted a survey by Jackson Healthcare, which is the third-largest health care staffing agency in the U.S. Based on their analytics, a stunning 75 percent of doctors claim that they order more tests and procedures that are not medically necessary for the sole purpose of avoiding lawsuits.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
IMO, they should repeal everything except the two things that are actually popular: letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer and no discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Pick those two kernels out and flush the rest of it until they can come up with their own plan.
The pre-existing conditions doesn't work without the personal mandate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Keep it until they come up with an alternative.
LOL ... that's an interesting point to contrast.
In fact, I think they could keep it permanently if they actually started deregulating things a bit and brought in tort reform to not make doctor's insurance so insanely high. The practice of 'defensive medicine' is a huge problem for the industry.

Forbes also noted a survey by Jackson Healthcare, which is the third-largest health care staffing agency in the U.S. Based on their analytics, a stunning 75 percent of doctors claim that they order more tests and procedures that are not medically necessary for the sole purpose of avoiding lawsuits.
Deregulation should bring down the cost of such testing by 90% or more. In the current high-tech world it's ridiculous to order tests individually when a full battery of tests can be run for little cost increase.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Keep it until they come up with an alternative. In fact, I think they could keep it permanently if they actually started deregulating things a bit and brought in tort reform to not make doctor's insurance so insanely high. The practice of 'defensive medicine' is a huge problem for the industry.

Forbes also noted a survey by Jackson Healthcare, which is the third-largest health care staffing agency in the U.S. Based on their analytics, a stunning 75 percent of doctors claim that they order more tests and procedures that are not medically necessary for the sole purpose of avoiding lawsuits.
I do believe tort reform could help, but not the way I've seen it presented. Instead of capping damages, the bar for what actually is malpractice should be higher, probably much higher.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
LOL ... that's an interesting point to contrast.

Deregulation should bring down the cost of such testing by 90% or more. In the current high-tech world it's ridiculous to order tests individually when a full battery of tests can be run for little cost increase.

My idea was to keep them as it'd provide enough votes to get rid of the rest of the crap, and then let them have a chance to move on to more pressing matters like tax reform before returning to it later. That's just me armchairing, though.

No it doesn't. Do you drive? Do you remember the story about the guy who refused to buy fire coverage?

That's a terrible analogy. To begin with, there is a difference between the inherent powers of the state and what is allowed by the federal government via the constitution. Secondly, the insurance is only required in order to protect other drivers, hence the ability to purchase liability only. Finally, driving is optional and/or a privilege. Insurance is required to be in good standing with the US Government or you are fined.

Here's a piece that probably explains it better than I do:

Blog: Health insurance mandates vs. Auto liability requirements - a false analogy
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Two random thoughts about this decision--

1. The idea of having repeal but no replacement is greeted with horror by many, as though everything would undone with nothing to take its place, but every repeal proposal has had a phase-in period anyway, sometimes stretching well into the 2020s.

2. If some replacement bill does finally come to a vote--doubtful as it seems now--I sure hope that the sweeteners that had been included for the sake of Alaska aren't part of it. Why would they be, if Sen. Murkowski is determined to vote against everything?
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My idea was to keep them as it'd provide enough votes to get rid of the rest of the crap, and then let them have a chance to move on to more pressing matters like tax reform before returning to it later. That's just me armchairing, though.



That's a terrible analogy. To begin with, there is a difference between the inherent powers of the state and what is allowed by the federal government via the constitution. Secondly, the insurance is only required in order to protect other drivers, hence the ability to purchase liability only. Finally, driving is optional and/or a privilege. Insurance is required to be in good standing with the US Government or you are fined.

Here's a piece that probably explains it better than I do:

Blog: Health insurance mandates vs. Auto liability requirements - a false analogy


Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate.
Ill-relevant. State vs Federal is not an issue.

However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk.
Which is exactly the same for health insurance. When you're sick, you go to see the doctor, not Blue Cross.

The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.
Aside for the hyperbole fallacy, so does health insurance.

That's just one paragraph.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Ill-relevant. State vs Federal is not an issue.

Yes, it is. The Federal Government is not given the right to do such things.

Which is exactly the same for health insurance. When you're sick, you go to see the doctor, not Blue Cross.

No, it's completely different.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jardiniere
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is. The Federal Government is not given the right to do such things.
The supreme court disagrees.


No, it's completely different.
Not at all. Whine all you like, but health insurance does nothing other than help cover health care costs.
 
Upvote 0

CitizenD

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2017
915
1,431
44
San Francisco
✟100,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
MO, they should repeal everything except the two things that are actually popular: letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer and no discrimination against pre-existing conditions.
If that's the case, scrap all of it. Personal mandate violates the constitution.

Markets exist to efficiently allocate resources in what we've come to believe as a society, is a relatively fair manner. The individual insurance market's nominal existence is to allocate health care.

It doesn't work. We've seen it not work. We've had decades of it not working. Retroactive cancellation through rescission by the insurer, denial of coverage through pre-existing conditions, incredible cost increases in coverage without commensurate increases in care or health outcome.

The ACA was one attempt to fix the individual insurance markets. It did so through the three-legged stool: Guaranteed issue, the individual mandate, and subsidies. Removal of any one of these policy positions would break the market for individual insurance.

Now you're claiming that the personal mandate is inherently unconstitutional.

So what's the alternative here? It's not like the ACA came out of nowhere. Things were massively broken before, and we tried the most hands-off solution already, the one that stayed relatively within the bounds of capitalism as we know it. But really, what's the alternative if you take the market (patch) solution off the table?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,941
17,418
Finger Lakes
✟7,425.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
IMO, they should repeal everything except the two things that are actually popular: letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer and no discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Pick those two kernels out and flush the rest of it until they can come up with their own plan.
Removal of annual and lifetime caps on payouts are also pretty popular - and not being able to cancel someone's coverage because they make a claim (which is related but not the same as pre-existing conditions). Tying the amount of benefits paid out to the amount of payments taken in is also popular with those aware of it.

I'm surprised that requiring that the insurance actually be worth something isn't more popular.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
The supreme court disagrees.


Not at all. Whine all you like, but health insurance does nothing other than help cover health care costs.

SCOTUS approved it by claiming that it was a tax when it wasn't. Even Kennedy was trying to get Roberts to have a little testicular fortitude and admit that it was not constitutional. Also, the Court once claimed that forced sterilization was legal, so that is a pretty weak argument.
 
Upvote 0