Oh, they have multiple parts of plans... they need to come up with a single workable plan that they can agree on and then move forward with that. Otherwise you have the extreme right wing wackos that simply want to end Obama without any replacement; you have thinking republicans who know they can't end ACA without something that addresses the many good parts of ACA that the majority of people like; and you have the worried republicans who would rather just put things off indefinitely and hope they can keep blaming Obama.
I have already challenged you to explain how any of the plans you list by author address important components like expanding coverage, lowering cost, and protecting the millions (including people with pre-existing conditions) that were able to get health care coverage thanks to ACA. You are the one saying there are better plans... we are asking you for proof of that. And... where did you get the stats on how many people had health insurance and what % of those people were happy with their plans. Since I know health care and insurance costs were rising rapidly and dramatically prior to ACA, so very curious who said they like their current insurance.
nope. they have presented full plans. which one they agree upon is being negotiated. As it should be if we learned anything from the Obamacare debacle. Those crazy wackos who want to go back to when 85% of the population had insurance and 90% liked it. Personally, I would like to seem some replacement to drive down healthcare costs (something Obamacare doesn't do obviously), but pretending pre-Obamcare was some sort of apocalypse is stupid
A plan that works is better than one that doesn't work even if you can't give away as much in order to make it work. If you could come up with a plan that isn't fundamentally flawed like Obamacare was that would actually work to lower costs then it would be better even if the coverage isn't as widespread.
OK, so how do they specifically address extending coverage, reducing costs, and continuing to cover the millions who added coverage through ACA (especially those with pre-existing conditions). Since they have presented full plans, it should be easy to describe how they will succeed. Again I ask, what is the source of your "85% of population had insurance and 90% liked it" stats. Seems premiums were increasing rapidly and access was declining before ACA.
The Republicans have had seven or so years to work up alternatives to the Affordable Care Act. Now they have their shot and don't have a replacement on deck. I know all of this isn't "presto, change-O!", but, still, lots of smack-talk but no nerds actually proposing a solution.
lowering costs would be handled by creating competition in the market place. this is done by allowing purchases across state lines, decoupling insurance from employment, and decreasing regulation. as far as insurance covering people with pre-existing conditions, that should never happen. that's not what insurance is. who is 'we'? who are you speaking for? its poilitfact who are super leftwing, but they are kind enough to list out numerous polls for you http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/ you could of just googled just like your first question, but you are too lazy. Again for the 100th time. Republicans have offered dozens of replacements......
to each of your points -i believe the main reason it failed, i am no expert, is the lack of young healthy adults signing up through the exchanges along with the higher than originally thought enrollment of unhealthy people....insurance companies underestimated this and soon, some of them began losing money, which is why they're pulling out. Ok, so what do we do? Once again, the GOP is in control, they have years of data, they have numerous "plans", they are smart people, come on GOP, convince me you're smarter than the liberal snowflakes -Never a reason to agree until now? Why not? To me it would have shown the willingness of the GOP to fix healthcare, not being able to agree as a party shows the current split within -We already looked at homeboys "plans", I want to see THE PLAN -From my understanding, even though healthcare costs increased, they did so at a lesser rate than before the ACA, and more people got insured, personally i think that is some form of success
how many of their plans have you read? why would any of them compromise when nothing could be passed? I want their plan and i want it NOW (temper tantrum). Why do you want a plan now and not by the end of the year? its just longer you get to keep your sweet ass Obamacare. healthecare costs increased at the same rate. number of insured is a stupid ass metric as it doesn't speak to the quality or cost of healthcare (the only things that matter). Again, non of this matters as 'keeping obamacare' is not an option. It is broken.
If you can't explain something you quote...don't quote it. Particularly if it seems to contradict what you are saying. I'm pretty sure the Court didn't see my question, and craft a response directly to me, or to you. So, don't hide behind that...the Court isn't participating in this discussion, and as such didn't make an argument about my question to you. And the Court screws things up all the time, particularly economic/market cases. Ok, that may be. See, that wasn't so hard. Except we don't all get sick..only some of us. If we all got 'sick', insurance wouldn't be needed, as we'd all be paying anyway, and it wouldn't be any extraordinary burden on anyone. Insurance is there to cover extraordinary costs, by sharing the risk of such expenses out amongst many. The paradigm doesn't work for things everyone needs...if everyone needs it, there is no 'risk', and hence no need to cover the risk, which is all insurance does. ↑ Yes, if we were to continue Medicaid/Medicare, ALL of our taxes would need to go up. We have unfunded liabilities around those that equate to several times the GDP of everyone on Earth. Think about that for a minute....if everyone on earth were to contribute towards paying just for these two programs, just for us in the United States, it would take every penny everyone on earth makes for several years to take care of it. So, yes, indeed, all of our taxes would go up. Is the solution to that adding even more cost into the system, or taking steps to reduce the costs?
Of course ACA was going to fail, because it doesn't control costs. Single Payer is happening the sooner the better.
First, we are actually the poorest nation that has ever existed. Our debt and future obligations far exceeds our ability to pay for them, making us the most indebted country that has ever existed. Debt being the opposite of wealth. Second, so, you think government should provide food for everyone? That was the analogy, don't parse it out. Should, or should not, the government provide all of our food to us? The comparison being made was that everyone needs health care, so the government should provide it for everyone. Well, everyone needs food, too. So, should the government provide that for everyone? If you aren't willing to go there, well, the government does currently provide health care, too....so what is the problem them? We have the VA, Medicaid, Medicare...the government already provides LOTS of health care. Finally, interesting that even though you parsed the analogy out, you still included 'along with charities'. Ie, these things get taken care of completely without government assistance, too. Meaning we don't need government to solve all of our problems, do we?
That's why people said that they passed the ACA knowing it was complete and total garbage that would fail hoping that they could con people into single payer after that because they knew there was almost no support for it at the time. It's funny how that's exactly how it's played out.
What on earth are you talking about "may be"? That was the exact language the court used in support of ACA when the mandate came-up. You are parsing, I don't need to explain it you because the court already did. I contradicted nothing, the court said that healthcare is different(set apart) as it is something we will ALL consume, you can choose to not drive a car or buy a home. I get that you have an ideological axe to grind but you are going about it by arguing with me on whats already been settled by the SC.
in your opinion why has no state implemented single payer? Also whats your view on Bernie's single payer plan costing 2.5 trillion a year? The American working class just took a dump on the democrats a couple months ago, how do you think they would react to their taxes going up 3 fold? Here is the TPC on the cost of Bernie's single payer (32 trillion for 10 yrs): Here is the Urban Institute Here is where you can read about Vermont trying to implement single payer and giving up because it costs too much To sum this all up. You are nuts if you think single payer is a good idea. You are talking about tripling everyone's taxes and still running up the national debt. its ****ing insane. Single payer would die/fail just as quickly as Obamacare.
No, you are being obtuse and willfully so as I recognize you are intelligent/well read even if I dont' agree with your logic or ideological stance. Debt is an entirely different discussion, debt is not keeping the wealthy from being wealthy nor is it slowing down GDP to make us "the poorest nation that has ever existed". Now, I realize that you subscribe to the unfunded liabilities figure that a particular economist, and I don't recall his name but I've read the article, with respect to medicare/SS and how the number is much larger than the GAO is letting on to. That is another argument and isn't germane to the concentration of wealth this nation enjoys now, not 100 years into the future. Yes, I do believe that the Government should assist those who need it, its a pittance in the budget which you well know(food stamps, etc). I included charities as even with government assistance, charities fill in the gaps where government leaves off but cannot possible do it on their own. I agree with you, government doesn't need to solve all of our problems nor should it try. Where we differ is that I don't believe that government is the SOURCE of all our problems simply for being "government". Im fine with Medicare for all, you make a great point!
List the plans.... because they have not presented a ton of plans. If it's not the option the next which of the ton of plans do you find more appropriate?
