Bipartisan Health Care Effort

[Padres1969]

They could change this rule with a simple majority vote.

There are 5 Republican-nominated justices to 4 Democrat-appointed justices.

And you think that has any bearing on which way they vote?

I’d point you to the most “liberal” justice of the last half century, John Paul Stevens (appointed by a Republican president).

 

[Jeanne_S]

And you think that has any bearing on which way they vote?

I’d point you to the most “liberal” justice of the last half century, John Paul Stevens (appointed by a Republican president).

John Roberts,appointed bybGWB.Thanks to his pretzel logic,Obamacare became the law of the land.

 

[Thorolfr]

We are the United States meaning anything if this nature should be left to the individual states to decide.Not the job of the federal government to take over 1/5 of our economy.Not the job of the federal government to force us into purchasing something we may neither need or want.It isn’t working now and it will fail.That may be the silver lining in these three liberal in republican clothing senators going against their party.Like Trump said,let it implode!

Who do you think is going to get blamed if it implodes?

 

[ProVobis]

And you think that has any bearing on which way they vote?

I’d point you to the most “liberal” justice of the last half century, John Paul Stevens (appointed by a Republican president).

Or Harry Blackmun, author of abortion rights, who was appointed by Nixon, and served until 94.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Who do you think is going to get blamed if it implodes?

Who should get the blame and who will be blamed are altogether different.

 

[ProVobis]

Who should get the blame and who will be blamed are altogether different.

If you’re not going to assume responsibility for what happens under your watch, you shouldn’t run for office.

Trump said so much for Bush, under whose watch 9/11 happened, so Trump can’t dodge any “implosions,” much of which will be caused by his sabotaging of the ACA.

 

[Thorolfr]

If you’re not going to assume responsibility for what happens under your watch, you shouldn’t run for office.

Trump said so much for Bush, under whose watch 9/11 happened, so Trump can’t dodge any “implosions,” much of which will be caused by his sabotaging of the ACA.

There was a good article on CNN last week with the title, “Trump passes the buck – and how it could hurt him going forward”:

Washington (CNN)President Harry Truman famously said “the buck stops here.”

President Donald Trump, faced with the failure of the Senate Republican health care bill, says Obamacare will fail, and he’ll make sure he’s not taking the blame.

“We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it,” Trump said Tuesday at the White House in his first public appearance since the Senate bill fell apart. “I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us.”

All presidents point fingers at the opposing party. But Trump’s attempt to pass the buck on his party’s failure to approve a health care reform bill breaks with the way his predecessors sought to tout the power of the presidency by arguing responsibility stops in the Oval Office – and could contribute to his difficulties facing his administration during its first six months and beyond…

“He was playing with a firetruck and trying on a cowboy hat as the bill was collapsing and he had no clue,” a top Republican told CNN on Tuesday, mocking the President’s “Made in America” week events at the White House on Monday.

cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/trump-the-buck-stops-elsewhere/index.html

With Mr. Trump, the buck always stops elsewhere!

 

[Jeanne_S]

If you’re not going to assume responsibility for what happens under your watch, you shouldn’t run for office.

Trump said so much for Bush, under whose watch 9/11 happened, so Trump can’t dodge any “implosions,” much of which will be caused by his sabotaging of the ACA.

And so it begins…

 

[Sy_Noe]

Let’s not get too smug too soon. It could still happen.

It’s not “control” when you have 52 members in a senate in which many things require 60 votes and the opposition party is utterly determined to defeat anything the slim majority wants to do.

And the Repubs don’t “control” the Supreme Court, either. Gorsuch’s confirmation only returned it to the status quo prior to Scalia’s death.

It’s not over until it’s over.

It could but I must differ on whether it was control in this case. 52 was control when only 50 were needed. Republicans did not need 1 Democratic vote. Democrats passed the ACA without 1 Republican vote.

 

[Sy_Noe]

What happened to simple things like removing the tax on medical supplies or buying across state lines which might bring some bipartisan support? IMO they could get it if they don’t call it “repeal;” but if they insist on “repeal” the Democrats will be determined to defeat anything that falls within its realm. Nothing to scratch your head over.

Under the way McConnell went about this, which McCain didn’t seem to particularly like, in order to might bring some bipartisan support, it probably wouldn’t hurt to actually have had some from the other party in the backroom. He didn’t even allow a couple of Republican women in.

 

[Viki63]

The magnitude of the bureaucracy that would be needed to manage the health care of 350M people spread out over a continental land mass is bigger than anybody understands. It barely works in Canada, which has a 1/10 the population of the US, and which has the benefit of the US as an outlet.

The health care of US citizens is already being managed by individual physicians, therapists, and so on, who would continue to manage it as they are doing now, under expanded Medicare. The idea is for it to be publically funded, but privately delivered.

I’m always astounded why people think single payer is an easy answer to the problem.
Changing who processes your insurance premium check has no impact on the cost of delivering the services. For single payer to work, we would have to make all the healthcare workers govt employees.

I have to disagree with this statement. The bureaucracy needed to apply for insurance, process it, and manage payments is huge, and each MD has to pay several employees just to handle insurance claims. Getting rid of that huge bunch of employees who add no value to healthcare would diminish the cost a great deal.

Add to that the cost of advertising and profits to the insurance companies, and a small rise in taxes would cover it. Patients would no longer have to pay co-pays and deductibles, which would offset the cost of the taxes.

Expanded and improved Medicare is the only system that would reduce costs and provide coverage for everyone.

Take a look at the Physicians for a National Health Program for more information.

.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It could but I must differ on whether it was control in this case. 52 was control when only 50 were needed. Republicans did not need 1 Democratic vote. Democrats passed the ACA without 1 Republican vote.

Which just goes to show what a terrible bill (and law) it has become.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=gnjsdad;14807887]Such a two-tiered system would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. Those who could afford it or desire to access it would opt for the “private” area.

It would mean more golden parachutes for the well-connected. Given how the Democrats are throwing white male union workers under the bus, do you want this?

Seems to me the French are quite satisfied with the quality of care in the “public” sector.

If only I had an euro every time an American thought that Europeans and foreigners liked their health care…without addressing why many folks with “free” health care will pay thousands and thousands to come to America for treatment.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What happened to simple things like removing the tax on medical supplies or buying across state lines which might bring some bipartisan support? IMO they could get it if they don’t call it “repeal;” but if they insist on “repeal” the Democrats will be determined to defeat anything that falls within its realm. Nothing to scratch your head over.

The Democrats are more than willing to ruin healthcare for Americans in order to try and damage President Trump.

It’s selfish and petty.

 

[lmachine]

The Democrats are more than willing to ruin healthcare for Americans in order to try and damage President Trump.

It’s selfish and petty.

What are you talking about? Republicans control the entire government, if they have a better plan they’re free to pass it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Healthcare is complicated as even the “almighty” Donald Trump eventually admitted. But one of the reasons I supported Bernie Sanders was because of his call for universal healthcare or as he has referred to it, “Medicare for all”. And short of that, all I know is I’d like, at the very least, a government option that people at least could try out and test drive. And see how it works for them.

The interesting thing about this debate is that the republicans don’t have a consistent position. There is no real justification for the current system of “Medicare for some” and then be against medicare for all. What people fail to realize is that currently medicare is a giant redistribution scheme, that is its dirty little secret. It is redistribution of the worst kind, from the have nots to the haves.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How about a public option?

Yes, we have that; it is called the Veterans Administration.

We also have a semi-version called the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, we have that; it is called the Veterans Administration.

We also have a semi-version called the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Medicare is also a public option, but nobody wants to get rid of that one, even though it is bankrupting the country. Did you know that 75% of the cost of medicare part B comes from general tax revenues?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Except that it’s working in every other industrialized country in the world, for less money, and with better outcome.

Not really true. [Which countries’ medical systems do you prefer, by the way?]

We have 50 states which were intended to experiment with different approaches.

And we are much larger than the other industrialized countries.

And the other countries evolved from monarchies.

Whereas, versus, The United States started off from the beginning as a republic of states.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Medicare is also a public option, but nobody wants to get rid of that one, even though it is bankrupting the country. Did you know that 75% of the cost of medicare part B comes from general tax revenues?

I am not actually shocked by your report on that.

However, the “system” of choice that I prefer is the Catastrophic High Risk Plan, with cash pay for the small stuff. But, however, it was forbidden where I lived.

We have discussed this a bunch of times in the past. There ARE lower cost plans [much lower cost] available, but the lawyers in the various state legislatures would not generally allow them.