Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 8:03:34 GMT -5
As a political junkie, I would like to know what you guys think about Obamacare.
First of all, I believe that Obamacare isn't going anywhere. The critics have cherry picked the problems (like they did with outrageous over exaggeration of the problems in VA healthcare) with Obamacare. For example, although there are states with very large increases in healthcare premiums in certain states (due to lack of participation of the young), overall, the increase in premiums across the country have slowed under Obamacare. At this point, the Republicans have not come up with any alternatives as there are disagreements within the party as to what shape a new plan would take. It would take more than a year to dismantle the system.
My take-Obamacare isn't going anywhere.
What do you think??
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Nov 11, 2016 9:32:38 GMT -5
The only way Obamacare makes it to 2018 is if Paul Ryan (or his replacement) try to go too far. This is possible, since he seems to already be pushing the idea that obamacare repeal needs to be tied to privatizing Medicare, which might create problems for the GOP, but it's still more than likely that Obamacare is gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 10:54:03 GMT -5
Thanks for your post. I am going to out on the ledge and make a few predictions 1. The Iran deal will NOT be torn up 2. Obamacare will still be here in 2018 3. Trump will NOT move our embassy to Jerusalem 4. Coal miners' job will be dependent on one thing only; the demand for coal
Time will tell
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Nov 11, 2016 14:07:00 GMT -5
1. I absolutely believe that ObamaCare gets tossed. You need to take Republicans at their word - they say they want to repeal it the first day, they are probably going to do it. Maybe they let it die in 2019 to protect themselves from the midterm elections like a bunch of cowards, but they're absolutely going to repeal it. If they say they're going to try to privatize Medicare too, they're probably going to do that too, and every elected Republican is going to go along with it. Frankly, I'm not sure how you'll be able to stop it.
2. Universal health care and exchanges move to the state level. I'm just going by Wikipedia here, but MA, VT, CT, ME, OR are probably all somewhat shielded here because of state level health care laws. I have to think that list is expanded quite a bit in 2018/2019, because there will be a push in states like MD, DC, VA, WA, RI, NY, NJ, CA, and NM - and maybe some of the red states too.
3. Climate change - elections have consequences, Florida and North Carolina. We're doing nothing to stop climate change, we're going to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 15:07:38 GMT -5
This is my reasoning. Right now there are between 20 and 30 million people who wouldn't have been able to afford health insurance or had pre-existing conditions. If Obamacare is just tossed, you will have millions of extremely unhappy citizens without any health insurance. So they are going to need a replacement for it. That, I believe will be a real challenge since the Republicans have never been able to agree on anything related to healthcare. Time will tell. Maybe I will be wrong.
I think you are correct on climate change. As I learn more about the science, I am becoming more alarmed.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Nov 11, 2016 17:36:54 GMT -5
Well, Trump apparently wants to keep the "pre-existing condition" provision from Obamacare, but get rid of the mandate. I'm sure that won't a cause costs to skyrocket at all...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 11, 2016 20:06:56 GMT -5
I believe Obamacare will be tossed and replaced by a new system that gives every person the opportunity to obtain coverage. The new system will include many of the features of Obamacare like pre-existing conditions, but will not include a mandate, only an opportunity. I also believe it will remove the discretion now existing where the implementation is too broadly left up to the Secretary of HHS where she has attacked religious groups in her directives. She also has included in coverage many items not needed in a mandated system. For example, why can't I have insurance that does not have maternity care, contraceptives or drug counseling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 23:11:22 GMT -5
The problem with that Ed, is that without the mandate (requiring young healthy adults to purchase insurance), the costs of such a system would be astronomical. What it sounds like you are proposing is essentially what we had before Obamacare, but insurance companies could not decline those with pre-existing conditions. What do you do with those who cannot afford the premiums. The mandate is what keeps costs under some control. In addition, why are you against contraceptive counselling?? Would you rather have more unplanned pregnancies which would be much more expensive. Bottom line, Ed, what you are proposing would be prohibitively expensive.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 12, 2016 5:46:07 GMT -5
The problem with that Ed, is that without the mandate (requiring young healthy adults to purchase insurance), the costs of such a system would be astronomical. What it sounds like you are proposing is essentially what we had before Obamacare, but insurance companies could not decline those with pre-existing conditions. What do you do with those who cannot afford the premiums. The mandate is what keeps costs under some control. In addition, why are you against contraceptive counselling?? Would you rather have more unplanned pregnancies which would be much more expensive. Bottom line, Ed, what you are proposing would be prohibitively expensive. Jerry: I think Ed's point is that we shoehorn consumers into policies that provide coverage they will never, ever need. If you are over 55 or so, the need for contraceptive care or counseling is nil. Kind of like selling a fish car insurance. But under the current construct consumers are forced to buy a plan with coverages they will never need or use. We all know that it is designed to get a consumer like Ed to pay for coverages he won't need but someone on a subsidy will. In many ways it resembles cable tv and we all know what a rip-off that is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 7:12:17 GMT -5
Hi Elvado
I think you and Ed misunderstand health insurance. When you buy an insurance policy, the overwhelming majority of the benefits, are benefits that you will never need. If you read the benefits of a policy, you may see pediatric benefits, even if you have no children. If you are over 55 you will never need obstetrical services. So are you saying that those services should be eliminated?? You cannot design a package for each individual's situation.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 12, 2016 7:33:06 GMT -5
But you can design tiers. I work every day with insurance companies.
If you don't believe contraceptive care can be excised from a policy with the right degree of commitment you are crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 7:53:34 GMT -5
Actually, my example was a poor one. You can opt for single or family coverage. If it is single, then there would be no pediatric coverage. There is some latitude, but it would be difficult to design more specific tiers than already exists. On another note, I will be interested to see if Congress can actually agree on a plan to replace Obamacare. I am not optimistic
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 12, 2016 23:45:07 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so.
Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 13, 2016 0:51:06 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so. Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be. Why is Roe v. Wade dead in the water? They didn't kill it in Casey, nor since. Why, specifically,would now be different?
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Nov 13, 2016 5:13:22 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so. Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be. Why is Roe v. Wade dead in the water? They didn't kill it in Casey, nor since. Why, specifically,would now be different? Wishful thinking? It is a really, really weirdly reasoned decision.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2016 5:36:17 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so. Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be. Tas: I think you are falling victim to a great deal of the sky is falling rhetoric about what will take place. Obamacare should go and go immediately. From its unholy conception, rammed through before they even read it in a straight party line vote to its exploding costs, it is a loser and we can do better. Roe has always been a poorly worded opinion on a collision course with itself. What was "viable" in 1973 and today are vastly different and the idea that 1973 science guides law is insane. That said, I don't think it is going anywhere very soon. As for same sex marriage, I don't see that going anywhere either. Rights once recognized are very hard to unrecrecognize and the practical implications militate in favor of same sex marriage staying just where it is as it should. However to your point about devout Christian's and their hang ups, which are legion, why must it be called marriage at all? Does the word "civil union" mean less? Just my two cents.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 13, 2016 20:37:51 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so. Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be. Why is Roe v. Wade dead in the water? They didn't kill it in Casey, nor since. Why, specifically,would now be different? For one: www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 13, 2016 20:49:12 GMT -5
ACA is likely dead in the water. Add to that Roe v. Wade, any progress on climate change and all sorts of things regarding the LGBTQ community, including marriage rights. Pence was, apparently, for conversion therapy though his team has tried to walk that back likely because it's both unpopular and completely moronic. Those idiots always go back to the "it's a choice" argument which isn't an argument at all. I've also heard the "it's an impulse" argument. Any straight people out there have that "impulse" that these people talk about? Didn't think so. Why can't devout Christians differentiate between the social contract of marriage and the sacrament of marriage? Same sex marriage ceremonies don't have to be conducted in a place of worship and most people aren't asking for them to be. Tas: I think you are falling victim to a great deal of the sky is falling rhetoric about what will take place. Obamacare should go and go immediately. From its unholy conception, rammed through before they even read it in a straight party line vote to its exploding costs, it is a loser and we can do better. Roe has always been a poorly worded opinion on a collision course with itself. What was "viable" in 1973 and today are vastly different and the idea that 1973 science guides law is insane. That said, I don't think it is going anywhere very soon. As for same sex marriage, I don't see that going anywhere either. Rights once recognized are very hard to unrecrecognize and the practical implications militate in favor of same sex marriage staying just where it is as it should. However to your point about devout Christian's and their hang ups, which are legion, why must it be called marriage at all? Does the word "civil union" mean less? Just my two cents. Because "Just civilly unionized" makes for an atrocious car sign? I guess, in my own mind, marriage in the legal sense is a right. As such, it should be afforded to all people. That was my only point. I think, regardless of the terminology, they should be called the same thing under the law regardless of the two people involved. As for the sky falling part, you could be right but I don't think any of us has a clear sense of the what if's just yet. Not that we ever do but Trump is, to be kind, a new kind of animal. And I agree with your assessment on the 1973 science.
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,479
Member is Online
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Nov 15, 2016 10:02:04 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 15, 2016 14:50:15 GMT -5
why must it be called marriage at all? Does the word " civil union" mean less? Yes, as a matter of fact it does. If it isn't called marriage, why not? It is some other form of union? A second class of marriage? Why should the LGBT community have to settle for second class..again? Either we have equality, or we don't. By the way, religious organizations can recognize or grant marriages as they deem fit. But for legal purposes - (let's not forget Separation of Church and State), the government grants marriage licenses and marriages themselves... whether by a justice of the peace, at city hall, etc.
|
|