Repealing Affordable Care Act

Was this the biggest "accomplishment" of Trump's presidency so far?

Goose, the "high risk pool" is the same as abandoning preexisting conditions because it goes back to the system pre ACA where sure, you can have insurance, but your premiums wll be so high that it's impossible to maintain it. Why are you selling this junk? I know why TownHall.com is, but you buying it is baffling.

I just don't get why some people in this country are buying what the pubs are saying. Like I said, I wish the Senate would just say fuck it, we'll take the bill as is. Let the pubs own it. These medical bills and care or lack of care will be real. It won't be politicians words anymore. It won't be message board jockey's cheering on one side and holding that train of thought. It will be real medical bills, and real money and the Republicans will either get all the credit or all the blame. If the dems think it's shit, let it go.

DWags, I've worked on political campaigns for Congress for both major parties. The opposing side has to warn their potential voters about the pitfalls of legislation.

If they sit it out and stay silent, next election they face the wrath of voters asking "If you knew, why did you sit on your hands and stay quiet?

That goes for challengers and incumbents.

NigelUno wrote: the biggest "accomplishment" of Trump's presidency so far?  

Epic memes.

GRR, the pubs will have to own this either way. I'll buy their line for now and say "well, they're telling us it will be cheaper, and better". I, like most of the people on this board and elsewhere, have a feeling what's going to happen, and when it does, there will be a party that will have to own it.

Scary opinion.

This better work or we're screwed.

DWags wrote:Scary opinion.

This better work or we're screwed.

If we reincarnated Ted Bundy, and he promised to oppose abortion and cut taxes, he could win the Republican nomination.

DWags wrote:I just don't get why some people in this country are buying what the pubs are saying. Like I said, I wish the Senate would just say fuck it, we'll take the bill as is. Let the pubs own it. These medical bills and care or lack of care will be real. It won't be politicians words anymore. It won't be message board jockey's cheering on one side and holding that train of thought. It will be real medical bills, and real money and the Republicans will either get all the credit or all the blame. If the dems think it's shit, let it go.

The dems should move forth and start the 2020 campaign right now promising to move towards a single payer plan. If they really want to be the party of the working class/middleclass now is the time.

steveschneider wrote:

DWags wrote:I just don't get why some people in this country are buying what the pubs are saying. Like I said, I wish the Senate would just say fuck it, we'll take the bill as is. Let the pubs own it. These medical bills and care or lack of care will be real. It won't be politicians words anymore. It won't be message board jockey's cheering on one side and holding that train of thought. It will be real medical bills, and real money and the Republicans will either get all the credit or all the blame. If the dems think it's shit, let it go.

The dems should move forth and start the 2020 campaign right now promising to move towards a single payer plan. If they really want to be the party of the working class/middleclass now is the time.

But let's be honest. How much of a hot button issue is healthcare really? We keep hearing how this will disrupt healthcare for millions of people. That's a lot of people, but it represents a pretty small percentage of the population. What is it, about 13 million people enrolled in Obamacare, and another 7 million covered under various provisions (medicaid expansion, parents' insurance, etc.)? 20 million out of 300 million people.

How many people here have ever even used the Healthcare Marketplace (Obamacare)? I am technically self-employed, so I have. But most people get healthcare through their jobs. As much as many will talk about compassion for the uninsured, when it comes down to your average person with healthcare through their jobs, it's really not a personal issue for them.

My point is, if you're the Democratic leadership, do you really want to hang your hopes on the average, politically middle of the road people, voting on compassion rather than on issues that impact them personally?

I would say that healthcare is big enough hot button to jam town halls lately.

Employer sponsored plans basically covers 1/2 the population, at of 2015 anyway.  I'm sure that Kaiser is still working on the 2016 numbers.

KFF: Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population

If any of this is true, expect that % to go down.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The dems should move forth and start the 2020 campaign right now promising to move towards a single payer plan. If they really want to be the party of the working class/middleclass now is the time.

But let's be honest. How much of a hot button issue is healthcare really? We keep hearing how this will disrupt healthcare for millions of people. That's a lot of people, but it represents a pretty small percentage of the population. What is it, about 13 million people enrolled in Obamacare, and another 7 million covered under various provisions (medicaid expansion, parents' insurance, etc.)? 20 million out of 300 million people.

How many people here have ever even used the Healthcare Marketplace (Obamacare)? I am technically self-employed, so I have. But most people get healthcare through their jobs. As much as many will talk about compassion for the uninsured, when it comes down to your average person with healthcare through their jobs, it's really not a personal issue for them.

My point is, if you're the Democratic leadership, do you really want to hang your hopes on the average, politically middle of the road people, voting on compassion rather than on issues that impact them personally?

It was the only issue prior to the housing market collapse in 2008. Most people do remember that long ago. I follow politics pretty closely locally and nationally. I think it's a pretty big deal.

Floyd Robertson wrote:I would say that healthcare is big enough hot button to jam town halls lately.

Employer sponsored plans basically covers 1/2 the population, at of 2015 anyway.  I'm sure that Kaiser is still working on the 2016 numbers.

KFF: Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population

If any of this is true, expect that % to go down.

But 20% is Medicaid, so Obamacare being slashed wouldn't impact them either.

This link puts the number at 20 million people that are covered under Obamacare and its' various provisions. Again, out of 300+ million.

https://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

The Current 2016 enrollment numbers: The current enrollment numbers (as of February 2016) are roughly 12.7 million in the marketplace, and very roughly 20 million plus total between the ACA between the Marketplace, Medicaid expansion, young adults staying on their parents plan, and other coverage provisions.

We're only talking about 6% of the population somwhat't the big deal?

If they were any kind of success they wouldn't find themselves in those situations like having birth defects or being women.

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
But let's be honest. How much of a hot button issue is healthcare really? We keep hearing how this will disrupt healthcare for millions of people. That's a lot of people, but it represents a pretty small percentage of the population. What is it, about 13 million people enrolled in Obamacare, and another 7 million covered under various provisions (medicaid expansion, parents' insurance, etc.)? 20 million out of 300 million people.

How many people here have ever even used the Healthcare Marketplace (Obamacare)? I am technically self-employed, so I have. But most people get healthcare through their jobs. As much as many will talk about compassion for the uninsured, when it comes down to your average person with healthcare through their jobs, it's really not a personal issue for them.

My point is, if you're the Democratic leadership, do you really want to hang your hopes on the average, politically middle of the road people, voting on compassion rather than on issues that impact them personally?

It was the only issue prior to the housing market collapse in 2008. Most people do remember that long ago. I follow politics pretty closely locally and nationally. I think it's a pretty big deal.

It's talked about a lot. People say they're concerned about it. A lot of people are compassionate and hate to hear about people uninsured, and want something to be done for them. But for how many is it really a deciding issue for a candidate? It's doesn't personally affect 90% of the country.

I'm not saying that democrats shouldn't make it an issue, but they shouldn't make it the cornerstone of their platform. They need to dig deeper. Appeasing their base isn't going to win them control back. We're stuck with Trump because they severely misread the middle of the road voter, and wasn't that they didn't push healthcare/single payer system hard enough.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

It was the only issue prior to the housing market collapse in 2008.  Most people do remember that long ago. I follow politics pretty closely locally and nationally.  I think it's a pretty big deal.

It's talked about a lot.  People say they're concerned about it.  A lot of people are compassionate and hate to hear about people uninsured, and want something to be done for them.  But for how many is it really a deciding issue for a candidate?  It's doesn't personally affect 90% of the country.  

I'm not saying that democrats shouldn't make it an issue, but they shouldn't make it the cornerstone of their platform.  They need to dig deeper.  Appeasing their base isn't going to win them control back.  We're stuck with Trump because they severely misread the middle of the road voter, and wasn't that they didn't push healthcare/single payer system hard enough.

I can't debate with you the number of people it directly effects (like your last post) because the numbers are what they are. But I would guess that given how changes can impact employer-sponsored healthcare it effects about 75% of the population (not counting Medicare and the uninsured). Obamacare already gave small businesses the option of ditching their plans and forcing employees onto the exchange with some relief in the form of tax credits.  There's no way the GOP is going to reverse the decision that allows small businesses to skip offering insurance.

GRR Spartan wrote:We're only talking about 6% of the population somwhat't the big deal?

If they were any kind of success they wouldn't find themselves in those situations like having birth defects or being women.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension, or are you just stupid? Or perhaps are you just so wrapped up in the "us vs them" world of politics that anything that is said that does not 100% align with your party line, must automatically be the enemy (which qualifies as both bad reading comprehension and being stupid)?

Did you miss the part where I said that I'm part of the 6%? Are you? Do you even know what the Healthcare Marketplace website looks like? When was the last time you shopped for your own health insurance 100% on your own to be paid for by yourself (before or since Obamacare)?

Did you miss the part where I said that my point is if you're the democratic party, do you really want to hang your hopes on an issue that doesn't personally affect 90%+ of the population?

How is it that you take those facts and twist them to the sarcastic bullshit that you tried to put in my mouth, as if I was suggesting that we shouldn't care about that 6%, of which I am a part?

It does affect the other 90% if you believe hospital accountants and comptrollers who will tell you that we are all paying higher premiums because the we all pay more after the unpayables get rolled into the next negotiations on prices.

GRR Spartan wrote:It does affect the other 90% if you believe hospital accountants and comptrollers who will tell you that we are all paying higher premiums because the we all pay more after the unpayables get rolled into the next negotiations on prices.

Ok, I suppose that's true to some extent. But is the amount that gets taken out of their paycheck pre-tax for health insurance, which would always go up year after year before Obamacare as well as after, really be a decisive issue when they're voting that a party's platform should be centered around? Beyond crime, taxes, the economy, wars/terrorism, etc.?

For anyone here who has their insurance through their employer, where does the portion of the premium that gets taken out of your paycheck, rank among the issues that are most important to you when it comes time for an election?

Its true. No extent.

I was told that by a parent who is a VP of Finance for Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids He negotiates pricing with Blue Cross and every insurance accepted at their hospitals.

So Bill is a 20 something invincible who decides he doesn't need health insurance and biffs it in his motorcycle. He gets an aeromed to a local hospital into emergency then to ICU after surgery he's in surgical recovery. Then to weeks, months in therapy.

He's got a $150K+ bill with no way to pay. His bad paper goes into the pot and those losses get worked into the next round of pricing.

You can pay them now or pay them later through higher premiums but we all pay.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:It does affect the other 90% if you believe hospital accountants and comptrollers who will tell you  that we are all paying higher premiums because the we all pay more after the unpayables get rolled into the next negotiations on prices.

Ok, I suppose that's true to some extent.  But is the amount that gets taken out of their paycheck pre-tax for health insurance, which would always go up year after year before Obamacare as well as after, really be a decisive issue when they're voting that a party's platform should be centered around?  Beyond crime, taxes, the economy, wars/terrorism, etc.?  

For anyone here who has their insurance through their employer, where does the portion of the premium that gets taken out of your paycheck, rank among the issues that are most important to you when it comes time for an election?

Actually, I'm going to turn that question around on you since you're the one raising the issue... what do you think they should focus on instead that is more important? Instead of just "not healthcare" what should they be doing instead, what is more impactful? If you just offer me "no I don't like that" without an alternative then you just sound like a republican. (Jk Miami I'm just teasing you and ruffling goose's lack of better ideas feathers. Heh. Goose. Feathers. Heh.)

IMO Healthcare reform is the most important issue right now and it affects 100% of the country in some way. Either in the premiums you pay personally, a sick family member or friend etc.

Considering the rising costs and its portion as one of our greatest tax expenditures, I don't see how anything else could be more important except for maybe campaign finance reform but we know that will never happen so...

GRR Spartan wrote:Its true. No extent.

I was told that by a parent who is a VP of Finance for Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids He negotiates pricing with Blue Cross and every insurance accepted at their hospitals.

So Bill is a 20 something invincible who decides he doesn't need health insurance and biffs it in his motorcycle. He gets an aeromed to a local hospital into emergency then to ICU after surgery he's in surgical recovery. Then to weeks, months in therapy.

He's got a $150K+ bill with no way to pay. His bad paper goes into the pot and those losses get worked into the next round of pricing.

You can pay them now or pay them later through higher premiums but we all pay.

I meant that it's true to some extent that the other 90% are impacted.

But again, you're missing the point. Where does the portion of your premium that you're responsible for rank for you when it comes to deciding who to vote for?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Ok, I suppose that's true to some extent.  But is the amount that gets taken out of their paycheck pre-tax for health insurance, which would always go up year after year before Obamacare as well as after, really be a decisive issue when they're voting that a party's platform should be centered around?  Beyond crime, taxes, the economy, wars/terrorism, etc.?  

For anyone here who has their insurance through their employer, where does the portion of the premium that gets taken out of your paycheck, rank among the issues that are most important to you when it comes time for an election?

Actually, I'm going to turn that question around on you since you're the one raising the issue... what do you think they should focus on instead that is more important? Instead of just "not healthcare" what should they be doing instead, what is more impactful? If you just offer me "no I don't like that" without an alternative then you just sound like a republican. (Jk Miami I'm just teasing you and ruffling goose's lack of better ideas feathers. Heh. Goose. Feathers. Heh.)

Travis, there are some people that are known as "Idea Men".  I am a "Shoot Down Ideas Man".  I offer problems, not solutions.

Seriously, though, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be an issue, I'm just not sure it should be a cornerstone of the platform.  Maybe I misunderstood steve, but I took his comment about the dems starting a push now for 2020 by promising a single payer system, as him suggesting that it should be their cornerstone issue.  I think that's a cornerstone issue for democrats, but dems are going to vote for dems regardless.  The middle is what determines an election (sure, you need the base to turn out, but you can't win without the middle).  The democrats seemed to swing and miss on the mood of many neutrals.  When Bernie won states and/or did very strong in states, they just felt, "well, so some dems liked him, they'll come to Hillary in November", and then they virtually ignored some of those states (especially the midwest).  It's not just party members that vote in a primary.  Bernie, like Trump, resonated with people who were fed up with the status quo in Washington.  While Bernie supported a single payer system (I think), there was a lot more to what people liked about him and Trump.

As far as what the Dems should make their biggest issues, there's always jobs, the economy, foreign policy/terrorism, etc.  But we don't know what the state of those will be in 3.5 years, so I think it's too early to tell.  I mean, I think to a large extent just being anti-Trump should be a big message, but maybe that's my own personal biases.  He's been controversial enough (to say the least), so just having an opponent for him who is not a piece of shit and who does not take traditionally blue states for granted, should go a long way.  Beyond that, I think you have to wait and see what he actually does, and what the results of that are.

AnomanderRake wrote:IMO Healthcare reform is the most important issue right now and it affects 100% of the country in some way. Either in the premiums you pay personally, a sick family member or friend etc.

Considering the rising costs and its portion as one of our greatest tax expenditures, I don't see how anything else could be more important except for maybe campaign finance reform but we know that will never happen so...

Wouldn't the kind of healthcare reform that you're talking about be somewhat of a separate issue from the health insurance? I know they're tied together, but rising costs of healthcare were a concern before and since Obamacare.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:IMO Healthcare reform is the most important issue right now and it affects 100% of the country in some way. Either in the premiums you pay personally, a sick family member or friend etc.

Considering the rising costs and its portion as one of our greatest tax expenditures, I don't see how anything else could be more important except for maybe campaign finance reform but we know that will never happen so...

Wouldn't the kind of healthcare reform that you're talking about be somewhat of a separate issue from the health insurance? I know they're tied together, but rising costs of healthcare were a concern before and since Obamacare.

They're the same issue in my mind. They cannot be addressed separately and still be effective reforms.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Actually, I'm going to turn that question around on you since you're the one raising the issue... what do you think they should focus on instead that is more important? Instead of just "not healthcare" what should they be doing instead, what is more impactful? If you just offer me "no I don't like that" without an alternative then you just sound like a republican. (Jk Miami I'm just teasing you and ruffling goose's lack of better ideas feathers. Heh. Goose. Feathers. Heh.)

Travis, there are some people that are known as "Idea Men".  I am a "Shoot Down Ideas Man".  I offer problems, not solutions.

Seriously, though, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be an issue, I'm just not sure it should be a cornerstone of the platform.  Maybe I misunderstood steve, but I took his comment about the dems starting a push now for 2020 by promising a single payer system, as him suggesting that it should be their cornerstone issue.  I think that's a cornerstone issue for democrats, but dems are going to vote for dems regardless.  The middle is what determines an election (sure, you need the base to turn out, but you can't win without the middle).  The democrats seemed to swing and miss on the mood of many neutrals.  When Bernie won states and/or did very strong in states, they just felt, "well, so some dems liked him, they'll come to Hillary in November", and then they virtually ignored some of those states (especially the midwest).  It's not just party members that vote in a primary.  Bernie, like Trump, resonated with people who were fed up with the status quo in Washington.  While Bernie supported a single payer system (I think), there was a lot more to what people liked about him and Trump.

As far as what the Dems should make their biggest issues, there's always jobs, the economy, foreign policy/terrorism, etc.  But we don't know what the state of those will be in 3.5 years, so I think it's too early to tell.  I mean, I think to a large extent just being anti-Trump should be a big message, but maybe that's my own personal biases.  He's been controversial enough (to say the least), so just having an opponent for him who is not a piece of shit and who does not take traditionally blue states for granted, should go a long way.  Beyond that, I think you have to wait and see what he actually does, and what the results of that are.

I do think that Steve is way off in saying that we should never thinking about 2020. That's nutso at this point. 2018 should be the priority and I do think that healthcare will make a huge impact in those congressional races, and probably deserves to be the focus there.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Its true. No extent.

I was told that by a parent who is a VP of Finance for Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids He negotiates pricing with Blue Cross and every insurance accepted at their hospitals.

So Bill is a 20 something invincible who decides he doesn't need health insurance and biffs it in his motorcycle. He gets an aeromed to a local hospital into emergency then to ICU after surgery he's in surgical recovery. Then to weeks, months in therapy.

He's got a $150K+ bill with no way to pay. His bad paper goes into the pot and those losses get worked into the next round of pricing.

You can pay them now or pay them later through higher premiums but we all pay.

I meant that it's true to some extent that the other 90% are impacted.

But again, you're missing the point. Where does the portion of your premium that you're responsible for rank for you when it comes to deciding who to vote for?

It's not just about premiums. It's about supporting the insurance industry vs. supporting care. I think there's a great opportunity for Dems to paint this as another instance of fat cat repubs screwing the little guy and giving handouts to the rich and powerful. The Populist message is virulent right now. It resonates across all races and creeds (because all of us are getting screwed by the rich). Trump was the default when white folks had no alternative. They will flip if the message continues to be shouted from the rooftops by the dems.

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I meant that it's true to some extent that the other 90% are impacted.

But again, you're missing the point. Where does the portion of your premium that you're responsible for rank for you when it comes to deciding who to vote for?

It's not just about premiums. It's about supporting the insurance industry vs. supporting care. I think there's a great opportunity for Dems to paint this as another instance of fat cat repubs screwing the little guy and giving handouts to the rich and powerful. The Populist message is virulent right now. It resonates across all races and creeds (because all of us are getting screwed by the rich). Trump was the default when white folks had no alternative. They will flip if the message continues to be shouted from the rooftops by the dems.

And that's fine (I was talking about premiums, because that's what GRR was saying in terms of the affect on the majority of people). There are different ways to address it, and that may be one, at least in a general sense, but I think people will still need to be shown more directly how the "handouts to the rich and powerful" are hurting them. As most of you here lean to the left, this seems like a no brainer. It's been a dem talking point for years, so it resonates with you. But don't assume that what resonates with you will resonate with the center.

I am a fiscally conservative socially liberal person.

People who label themselves as "conservatives" in todays world believe in trickle down, only cuts to taxes and expendatures can be considered.

My major changes include changing the way pharmaceuticals are purchased for government programs, keeping the current Medicare surcharge on those making $1M or more a year and moving the charge from having no health care from $795 to $1800 or $2400 so people don't thing they get a pass for a $70/ mth penalty.

GRR Spartan wrote:I am a fiscally conservative socially liberal person.

People who label themselves as "conservatives" in todays world believe in trickle down, only cuts to taxes and expendatures can be considered.

My major changes include changing the way pharmaceuticals are purchased for government programs, keeping the current Medicare surcharge on those making $1M or more a year and moving the charge from having no health care from $795 to $1800 or $2400 so people don't thing they get a pass for a $70/ mth penalty.

That sounds authoritarian to me.

"You're going to DO business with these health care companies whether you want to or not and if you don't want to you ain't getting off easy.... better pay that vig or else you know what's coming."

It's consistent with your wanting to force people into military service, though. So I can't say you aren't a pick and choose authoritarian. You're consistently authoritarian across the board.

xsanguine wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:I am a fiscally conservative socially liberal person.

People who label themselves as "conservatives" in todays world believe in trickle down, only cuts to taxes and expendatures can be considered.

My major changes include changing the way pharmaceuticals are purchased for government programs, keeping the current Medicare surcharge on those making $1M or more a year and moving the charge from having no health care from $795 to $1800 or $2400 so people don't thing they get a pass for a $70/ mth penalty.

That sounds authoritarian to me.

"You're going to DO business with these health care companies whether you want to or not and if you don't want to you ain't getting off easy.... better pay that vig or else you know what's coming."

It's consistent with your wanting to force people into military service, though. So I can't say you aren't a pick and choose authoritarian. You're consistently authoritarian across the board.

But aren't we forced to have auto insurance? And the reason we're forced to have auto insurance is because if we didn't, then it puts a big cost on someone else if we are at fault for an accident. Similarly since doctors/hospitals have to treat people for emergency situations, even if they don't have healthcare, then it can be a huge expense on the hospital to treat someone that doesn't have insurance.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That sounds authoritarian to me.

"You're going to DO business with these health care companies whether you want to or not and if you don't want to you ain't getting off easy.... better pay that vig or else you know what's coming."

It's consistent with your wanting to force people into military service, though. So I can't say you aren't a pick and choose authoritarian. You're consistently authoritarian across the board.

But aren't we forced to have auto insurance?  And the reason we're forced to have auto insurance is because if we didn't, then it puts a big cost on someone else if we are at fault for an accident. Similarly since doctors/hospitals have to treat people for emergency situations, even if they don't have healthcare, then it can be a huge expense on the hospital to treat someone that doesn't have insurance.  

If you choose to drive a vehicle on the government's roads, yes, you're forced required to get auto insurance.

Edit: Auto insurance is less problematic as the owner of said infrastructure can implement whatever rules they see fit... it is your choice to participate. It is also your choice not to participate (like Bob with his bicycling).

xsanguine wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
But aren't we forced to have auto insurance?  And the reason we're forced to have auto insurance is because if we didn't, then it puts a big cost on someone else if we are at fault for an accident. Similarly since doctors/hospitals have to treat people for emergency situations, even if they don't have healthcare, then it can be a huge expense on the hospital to treat someone that doesn't have insurance.  

If you choose to drive a vehicle on the government's roads, yes, you're forced required to get auto insurance.

Edit: Auto insurance is less problematic as the owner of said infrastructure can implement whatever rules they see fit... it is your choice to participate. It is also your choice not to participate (like Bob with his bicycling).

You can choose to stop breathing, then you won't need health insurance, and won't be charged a penalty for not having it.

Seriously, though, that's a fair point on the difference with auto insurance, because you're not required to own a car.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

If you choose to drive a vehicle on the government's roads, yes, you're forced required to get auto insurance.

Edit: Auto insurance is less problematic as the owner of said infrastructure can implement whatever rules they see fit... it is your choice to participate. It is also your choice not to participate (like Bob with his bicycling).

You can choose to stop breathing, then you won't need health insurance, and won't be charged a penalty for not having it.

Seriously, though, that's a fair point on the difference with auto insurance, because you're not required to own a car.

Health insurance is extremely smart to have. I will think you're not all there in the head not to have it. I just have a problem with a group of people forcing you into a business relationship with another individual or individuals.

I also think all these people riding motorcycles without helmets are idiots... but I don't think they should be pulled over and forced to wear one either by fine or threat of arrest.

I am the center motherfucker. Don't you forget it.

Rocinante wrote:I am the center motherfucker. Don't you forget it.

I'd eat another human in a survival situation.

xsanguine wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You can choose to stop breathing, then you won't need health insurance, and won't be charged a penalty for not having it.

Seriously, though, that's a fair point on the difference with auto insurance, because you're not required to own a car.

Health insurance is extremely smart to have. I will think you're not all there in the head not to have it. I just have a problem with a group of people forcing you into a business relationship with another individual or individuals.

I also think all these people riding motorcycles without helmets are idiots... but I don't think they should be pulled over and forced to wear one either by fine or threat of arrest.

And you and I pay for every freedom loving person who opts to ride without a helmet every time one is involved in an accident. We pay for the high cost of their care, their possible recovery and any legal filings that clog up the courts.

You want to argue political nuance about the "forced minimum"? So long as everyone is guaranteed treatment (that's already an authoritarian idea that is practiced) what is the issue with of having individuals over 26 (under current ACA rules) who are no longer covered by a parent's plan or those whose parents also have no coverage be required to purchase minimum high deductible health insurance?

If you are one who pays the pittance of a penalty and plans on stiffing the doctors and hospitals, step back and look at what you are costing the sysyem.

The Finance VP from Spectrum Health and the doctors who work at their hospitals are much better off to have you on the hook for the $10K with your high deductible plan and having Blue Cross or Priority Health or Aetna cover the remaining $100K plus for getting your neck or knee repaired and the therapy after surgery.

X, as a businessman is it wise to be on the hook for worst case $12,500 or risk personal and business bankruptcy? Because people who aren't lucky and get hospitalized cost all of us.

In America, I just think we're born and bread to be as individualistic as possible. The whole insurance thing takes a mindset that understands group pay and looking out for each other. Because we're not ever going to buy into the "everyone for everyone" attitude, we need to ask those wealthy people to pay more.

I don't have an answer to this shit. It sucks that we have peopel who fuck the system and our rates go up. I know that many more people are going to be fucked under Trump care, honestly, if I was the pubs I'd just have repealed and not replaced. I honestly think they'd get less grief. This thing is going to get bad for a shit ton of people, and they're going to blame the guys who muscled this through. Good luck with that.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Travis, there are some people that are known as "Idea Men".  I am a "Shoot Down Ideas Man".  I offer problems, not solutions.

Seriously, though, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be an issue, I'm just not sure it should be a cornerstone of the platform.  Maybe I misunderstood steve, but I took his comment about the dems starting a push now for 2020 by promising a single payer system, as him suggesting that it should be their cornerstone issue.  I think that's a cornerstone issue for democrats, but dems are going to vote for dems regardless.  The middle is what determines an election (sure, you need the base to turn out, but you can't win without the middle).  The democrats seemed to swing and miss on the mood of many neutrals.  When Bernie won states and/or did very strong in states, they just felt, "well, so some dems liked him, they'll come to Hillary in November", and then they virtually ignored some of those states (especially the midwest).  It's not just party members that vote in a primary.  Bernie, like Trump, resonated with people who were fed up with the status quo in Washington.  While Bernie supported a single payer system (I think), there was a lot more to what people liked about him and Trump.

As far as what the Dems should make their biggest issues, there's always jobs, the economy, foreign policy/terrorism, etc.  But we don't know what the state of those will be in 3.5 years, so I think it's too early to tell.  I mean, I think to a large extent just being anti-Trump should be a big message, but maybe that's my own personal biases.  He's been controversial enough (to say the least), so just having an opponent for him who is not a piece of shit and who does not take traditionally blue states for granted, should go a long way.  Beyond that, I think you have to wait and see what he actually does, and what the results of that are.

I do think that Steve is way off in saying that we should never thinking about 2020. That's nutso at this point. 2018 should be the priority and I do think that healthcare will make a huge impact in those congressional races, and probably deserves to be the focus there.

Of course you have to push for 2018 as well. Trump launched his first campaign ad for the 2020 election at the 100 day mark.