Senate Repeals Obamacare

[bhsmte]

So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.

Obama care has some positive components to it, but it doesn't go near as far as needed, to solve the healthcare issues.

You have to remember, there was a mad dash to get something passed, while the dems still had control of the house.

 

[lupusFati]

Obama care has some positive components to it, but it doesn't go near as far as needed, to solve the healthcare issues.

You have to remember, there was a mad dash to get something passed, while the dems still had control of the house.

You should never rush a law. You expect me to judge idiots less harshly?
Especially when they're so disconnected from the poor and middle class so as to fine them for not having insurance at all? I only pay 172 and that's half my monthly paycheck. I have to do this or I'll be 'fined'. Also? That's not even a full plan. I don't feel I'm adequately covered, especially seeing as how I can go maybe to only two places.

So, I don't have to remember anything other than that it needs severe changes. Beneficial changes.

 

[bhsmte]

You should never rush a law. You expect me to judge idiots less harshly?
Especially when they're so disconnected from the poor and middle class so as to fine them for not having insurance at all? I only pay 172 and that's half my monthly paycheck. I have to do this or I'll be 'fined'. Also? That's not even a full plan. I don't feel I'm adequately covered, especially seeing as how I can go maybe to only two places.

So, I don't have to remember anything other than that it needs severe changes. Beneficial changes.

I would agree, rushing a new law with such wide reaching impact, should not be rushed.

With that said, we are talking about politics here.

 

[lupusFati]

I would agree, rushing a new law with such wide reaching impact, should not be rushed.

With that said, we are talking about politics here.

No excuse.

 

[dogs4thewin]

ah good old republicans, not caring about the poor since inception.

We care we are just in favor of personal responsiably.

 

[Green Sun]

Well, the counter could be pretty simple a 2/3 vote in both houses would do.

Simple in concept, not in practice. They couldn't get a supermajority in the Senate vote alone, they won't get it in both houses to prevent the veto.

 

[A2SG]

So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.

Pretty much, yeah. Although, to be fair, Mitt Romney did institute a version here in Massachusetts that works more or less well. Of course, there are differences, like the fact that Mass. has a public option for those who can't afford private health insurance (MassHealth). But, as a means toward allowing everyone access to health care, depending on the fairness of the private for-profit health insurance industry may not have been the best way to go, no.

-- A2SG, though it's worth noting that the ACA is firmly based on solid market-based conservative principles.....

 

[lupusFati]

Pretty much, yeah. Although, to be fair, Mitt Romney did institute a version here in Massachusetts that works more or less well. Of course, there are differences, like the fact that Mass. has a public option for those who can't afford private health insurance (MassHealth). But, as a means toward allowing everyone access to health care, depending on the fairness of the private for-profit health insurance industry may not have been the best way to go, no.

-- A2SG, though it's worth noting that the ACA is firmly based on solid market-based conservative principles.....

What works on a state level might not work on a national level, however. It's easier to implement things like this over a smaller population, but not always a larger one.

 

[cow451]

Political posturing for next year's elections. Nothing new to see here.

 

[A2SG]

What works on a state level might not work on a national level, however. It's easier to implement things like this over a smaller population, but not always a larger one.

Very true. But the lack of some form of public option (even an expansion of medicare serving in that capacity) is a definite factor. By not giving people an alternative to expensive health insurance, it puts everyone more and more at the mercy of the private for-profit health insurance industry....which generates BILLIONS of dollars in profit every year.

-- A2SG, heck, Mass. has only non-profit insurance carriers, and they still manage to make money hand over fist, even enough to pay one outgoing CEO millions in bonuses and severence....

 

[lupusFati]

Very true. But the lack of some form of public option (even an expansion of medicare serving in that capacity) is a definite factor. By not giving people an alternative to expensive health insurance, it puts everyone more and more at the mercy of the private for-profit health insurance industry....which generates BILLIONS of dollars in profit every year.

-- A2SG, heck, Mass. has only non-profit insurance carriers, and they still manage to make money hand over fist, even enough to pay one outgoing CEO millions in bonuses and severence....

Considering that they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, which was a source of cheap and affordable care to women and men everywhere (Yes, they offer services for men, too!), I don't think their main concern is affordable insurance for citizens. So yeah there should be some kinda alternative insurance that is actually good and decent, but I'm pretty sure most politicians are bought anyway. I mean how else would corporations be considered people?

 

[A2SG]

Considering that they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, which was a source of cheap and affordable care to women and men everywhere (Yes, they offer services for men, too!), I don't think their main concern is affordable insurance for citizens. So yeah there should be some kinda alternative insurance that is actually good and decent, but I'm pretty sure most politicians are bought anyway. I mean how else would corporations be considered people?

The irony is that the entire framework of "Obamacare" is a conservative, market-based plan that rewards private for-profit insurance companies, but because democrats instituted it, the GOP decries it.

-- A2SG, just look at their stated reasons, by the way: "death panels," "socialism," "government take over of health care"....all lies.....

 

[[serious]]

Turn about is fair play. If the Domocats insisted that we do not know what was in theirs until it passed turn about for the Republicans doing the same thing is fair play.

As long as we keep the same standard:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590
SEP 17, 2009 Introduced
**21 days**
OCT 8, 2009 Passed House

NOV 19, 2009 Text Published for Senate
**35 days**
DEC 24, 2009 Passed Senate with Changes

DEC 24, 2009 Text Published for House
**89 days**
MAR 21, 2010 House Agreed to Changes

 

[[serious]]

ignore abuse?

Let's say someone takes your soda from the break room fridge. How much money do you spend to attempt to retrieve the soda?

 

[DaisyDay]

So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.

One of the rules of Obamacare is that for a plan to qualify, it must pay out a certain percentage of the premiums in benefits. The insurance companies must also justify proposed increases.

 

[DaisyDay]

It seems to me we have some options: Obviously, those people who cannot afford health care do not deserve it.

I think we all can agree with that.

Of course, people with life threatening illnesses or injuries who cannot afford medical care should not be made to suffer through the illness or injury. This is where I think Republicans had the right idea with "death panels". Doctors should be able to decide whether a patient's finances can cover the cost of treatment, and if not the doctor would just shoot them. Or hang them, or suffocate them; whatever is deemed the most humane.

Whoa, hold up there, buddy. This is a Christian site.
Suffering purifies the soul and builds character. Obviously, they were meant to suffer or they would have been rich. Dona, dona.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the lives of the poverty stricken and poor is worth the financial burden to upstanding citizens.

Agreed.

The more humane and economical solution of course, is to simply delete the poor and poverty stricken entirely.

Humane, perhaps, but not more economical because there must be some economic incentive to do the scut work of society - it has not all been mechanized yet. You "humanists" have no foresight.[/sarcasm]

 

[Vylo]

Single payer or universal healthcare is used by every single nation that beats us in healthcare quality. You have to be literally brain-dead not to not see it works better. You set up a private supplemental system behind it. It works.