Washington Times: Obama's plan is to destroy America's private health care industry

[Joykins]

Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A2SG]

You need to remember all of this as2g is posting is propaganda and misdirection, meant to divert attention away from the actual issue. OBAMACARE is an unmitigated disaster, and as stated in the article an intentional one crafted to destroy the private health care system.

In the writer's opinion. Let's not forget, it was an opinion piece.

Neither the Heritage Foundation nor any Republican back in 1993 ever had that in mind.

The economic ideas the writer criticized came from the Heritage Foundation. That's a fact.

The democrats deserve blame for implementing the law, sure, but they didn't come up with the idea.

-- A2SG, place credit or blame where it's due...

 

[A2SG]

We aren't speaking of books, that analogy doesn't line up.

Republicans came up with a plan, and in fact that basic plan was put into action in one state. Democrats then took that plan, and put into action nationally. If the plan was unsound, the democrats shouldn't have used it. If they didn't know it was unsound, that ignorance is the fault of their own lack of due diligence.

Granted.

But the opinion piece cited criticized the ideas behind the plan, and those weren't created by the Democratic party or the GOP. Those ideas came from the Heritage Foundation.

The author comes up with the idea and writes it down, the publisher puts it out for the world. Criticize the publisher, or the lawmakers for the law, that's valid; but if you want to criticize the idea, that came from the author.

It is fine to look back at the republicans that crafted the framework for this plan (many are still in office) and fault them for making a bad plan, but that does not in any way absolve the democrats for putting that plan into action.

No, it doesn't.

Just because they didn't have something in mind doesn't mean it wouldn't be the result. Plenty of projects and programs go sideways when put into application.

True enough. But the opinion writer suggested that the very ideas behind the law were unsound, so it seemed to me that criticism should be directed to the ones who originated those ideas.

-- A2SG, believe me, there's enough criticism to go around....

 

[A2SG]

Ideas are one thing, voting for them are another.

Granted.

-- A2SG, as you know, I've been more than vocal with my problems with the law....

 

[A2SG]

Digging rejected ideas out of somebody else's trash bin doesn't make it so Democrats can pin the blame on Republicans. The idea that Democrats are claiming was behind Obamacare, was rejected for a reason; maybe Democrats need to learn to stop digging through other people's trash bins.

When was it rejected, exactly? No one in the GOP criticized the Heritage Foundation plan at all until it was adopted by Democrats....Newt Gingrich himself was in favor of an individual mandate as late as 2009.

Just because the law didn't pass doesn't mean they rejected it. In fact, the plan continues to use principles still supported by the GOP, included market based solutions and using private industry rather than public funds to solve societal problems. Those have been and continue to be conservative ideals.

The biggest problem I have with the ACA is that, in fact. It doesn't fix the biggest problem with health care in the US, private for-profit health insurance, it cements it in place.

-- A2SG, but, you know, Obama!!

 

[A2SG]

I see lots of back and forth on who to credit or who to blame for the ACA, but no one is refuting the OP's position that Obama wants to destroy the private health care industry in the US, so the only choice is a public health care aka single payer.

You can't refute an opinion.

-- A2SG, they're like hemmoroids, I hear...

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks almost extinct. I've heard that before, just wasn't sure it was what you meant.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You can't refute an opinion.

-- A2SG, they're like hemmoroids, I hear...

You can when that opinion is presented as fact. You can't refute, "the sky looks green to me", but you can refute, "Obama was born in Kenya".

 

[A2SG]

You can when that opinion is presented as fact. You can't refute, "the sky looks green to me", but you can refute, "Obama was born in Kenya".

What you presented wasn't fact, but opinion couched in such apocalyptic terms, it sounded like a 1970s era Jack Kirby comic.

Granted, I didn't read the entire article, so maybe if you presented specific facts, we can see where they stand.

-- A2SG, specifics are nice, specifics are good....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Here are some of the corroborating facts I posted in another thread (that you are in):

How Obamacare will change employer-provided insurance - CBS News

Employer-Provided Health Plans Scaling Back Under Obamacare Tax « CBS DC

Business Insider - Why You May Not Keep Your Health Plan, Even If You Like It

 

[SnowCal]

You can when that opinion is presented as fact. You can't refute, "the sky looks green to me", but you can refute, "Obama was born in Kenya".

I can sure as heck argue against somebody who claims the sky looks green to them. It's as easy as arguing against silly claims that Obama isn't an American.

The OP is absurd too. Obamacare doesn't violate economic laws. Of all the healthcare proposals I've seen it's the one that pays the closest attention to them. It's amazing how some people consider themselves experts on economics by nearly failing the 101 course, rethinking their degree, switching to journalism, and learning some useless talking points in the process.

Basic critical thinking should tell you this argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Go to this thread and read what I posted tonight.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7786876-13/

 

[A2SG]

Here are some of the corroborating facts I posted in another thread (that you are in):

I meant facts in the opinion piece you cited in this thread.

What facts there do you need refuting?

-- A2SG, you have but to ask....

 

[SolomonVII]

That individual's opinion aside....If there are problems with the ideas behind the ACA, perhaps it would be best to blame that on the ones who came up with those ideas.

-- A2SG, just sayin'....

This is the Republican idea that all Democrats supported and all Republicans did not support.

That is the case you are making.

 

[jayem]

How so?

It would be organized on a statewide, (or regional group of neighboring states) basis. All the private insurers in a state or region form a non-profit consortium to sell a high-deductible, catastrophic policy to everyone in that state or region. All residents must buy it, and no one can be denied coverage. The carriers can then compete to sell optional supplements to people who want expanded coverage (like for the deductible, or experimental treatments, etc.) It's a modified one-payer system--basic + supplemental--which follows the Medicare model. It has numerous benefits: It provides as least a basic level of health insurance to as much of the population as possible. It frees employers from the burden of being health insurance providers. It dovetails nicely with HSAs, which can be used to buy a supplement, or pay deductibles. Being organized as a state or regional enterprise avoids a huge, federal government bureaucracy. And, though it changes the business model of private health insurance, it keeps it in the private sector. It is collective, but it's not socialist, strictly speaking. Though all insurance is collective, by its very nature.

 

[SolomonVII]

I see lots of back and forth on who to credit or who to blame for the ACA, but no one is refuting the OP's position that Obama wants to destroy the private health care industry in the US, so the only choice is a public health care aka single payer.

Amazing. Obama should be impeached at a minimum.

If he was a CEO in private industry, a fraud of this magnitude is comparable to Bernie Madoff.

 

[MachZer0]

It would be organized on a statewide, (or regional group of neighboring states) basis. All the private insurers in a state or region form a non-profit consortium to sell a high-deductible, catastrophic policy to everyone in that state or region. All residents must buy it, and no one can be denied coverage. The carriers can then compete to sell optional supplements to people who want expanded coverage (like for the deductible, or experimental treatments, etc.) It's a modified one-payer system--basic + supplemental--which follows the Medicare model. It has numerous benefits: It provides as least a basic level of health insurance to as much of the population as possible. It frees employers from the burden of being health insurance providers. It dovetails nicely with HSAs, which can be used to buy a supplement, or pay deductibles. Being organized as a state or regional enterprise avoids a huge, federal government bureaucracy. And, though it changes the business model of private health insurance, it keeps it in the private sector. It is collective, but it's not socialist, strictly speaking. Though all insurance is collective, by its very nature.

How do you get someone who has no money to buy the insurance? And don't forget that Medicare, the model, is supported by taxes

 

[jayem]

How do you get someone who has no money to buy the insurance? And don't forget that Medicare, the model, is supported by taxes

For those who are Medicaid eligible, the state and federal governments would share the premium for the basic coverage. (Many Republicans have proposed that Medicaid beneficiaries be put into private plans.) And the federal government would pay the premium for those who are Medicare eligible (which is essentially the same as Paul Ryan's voucher proposal.) There will need to be means-tested subsidies for others. The best funding for which would be an additional state or regional sales tax. This way, everybody will pay something into the system. So for some people, their health insurance premiums will be tax supported. But the government does not become an insurance company, which pays providers directly.

 

[A2SG]

This is the Republican idea that all Democrats supported and all Republicans did not support.

I don't know about all, but enough, certainly.

And the GOP had no problem supporting it right up to the moment the democrats did, too. But, abandoning their ideas the instant democrats agree with them has kinda become the GOP thing these days.

That is the case you are making.

Not really. I'm saying it's perfectly valid to blame the politicians who voted for a law, but if you want to criticize the IDEAS behind the law, you need to go to where those ideas came from.

For whatever reason the Democratic party choose to support them, the ideas behind the ACA are based on conservative market-based ideas on reforming the health care industry posed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

-- A2SG, sure, it turned out to be a boondoggle, but that's what happens when you agree to conservative ideas....

 

[USincognito]

It was never about healthcare, it was a power-grab designed to seize control of 1/6th of the economy.

Well, it didn't seize any of the economy. I think it is a bit of paranoia at work with this statement.

Based on the NBC article, it looks like I'm not being paranoid.

I didn't see anything in there about seizure of any part of the economy.