Repeal and Replace

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
9,440
507
113
Body of Christ, Texas
Like Sen. Tim Kaine advised, have a joint session that the Dems can call 'reform' and the Repubs can call 'replacement'. Problems solved, faces saved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sen-tim-kaine-on-obamacare-rex-tillerson-energy-after-2016-election/
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,629
9,868
113
MJOJunkie said:
[img:center]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/76/19/b8/7619b834ed8b3c6273873ba587594486.png[/img]
Remember this? Yeah, that was funny.

You having a rough day, champ?
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,629
9,868
113
test_article said:
Like Sen. Tim Kaine advised, have a joint session that the Dems can call 'reform' and the Repubs can call 'replacement'. Problems solved, faces saved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sen-tim-kaine-on-obamacare-rex-tillerson-energy-after-2016-election/
It's more about the repeal than the replace for many. I don't think this common-sense approach has a chance.
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
GDaddy said:
I support the idea of more competition in the market.

I think that if people want the government to compete in the market then let's try that , but as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) not as a taxpayer-funded agency. As in, compete on a level playing field. If a Health Care GSE can outperform private enterprise then that's great. If not, it is what it is.
The notion that the vendors and insurers will magically bring their prices down if there's a competition is naive at best.

Unless there's government regulation in place, nothing will change.

And yes, public option needs to exist but cannot have the profit as a motivating factor.

That's why we have the expensive, unaffordable mess of a healthcare that we have. :foreheadslap:
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,766
19,712
113
Jacksonville Beach
FecalFace said:
GDaddy said:
I support the idea of more competition in the market.

I think that if people want the government to compete in the market then let's try that , but as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) not as a taxpayer-funded agency. As in, compete on a level playing field. If a Health Care GSE can outperform private enterprise then that's great. If not, it is what it is.
The notion that the vendors and insurers will magically bring their prices down if there's a competition is naive at best.

Unless there's government regulation in place, nothing will change.

And yes, public option needs to exist but cannot have the profit as a motivating factor.

That's why we have the expensive, unaffordable mess of a healthcare that we have. :foreheadslap:
I think prices will come down, at least for healthy 20-30 somethings, if one of these things happen:

We can tell people with expensive conditions to FOAD. (pre-existing conditions, and lifetime maximums)
We can tell old people they can be charged much, much more than 3x what a healthy 18 year old pays.
We can all buy ripoff plans that cover basically nothing, from whatever the shittiest state is. My money is on Alabama or Mississippi.

Seems pretty clear that the ACA is great if you're not worth keeping alive (in the income/actuarial sense) or you have no money, and utterly worthless everywhere else.
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
It all boils down to 3 simple things.

1) In order to truly bring down the price of healthcare, the participant pool has to be ginormous. (single payer)

2) Private insurance needs to be an option - not the sole solution.

3) There has to be government regulation in place that stops vendors from charging whetever the fvck they please.


There, I solved the problem.

Thanks you.


I'm going outside now..... wait, it's raining....... I'm coming back in......
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,349
17,179
113
Sharkbiscuit said:
FecalFace said:
GDaddy said:
I support the idea of more competition in the market.

I think that if people want the government to compete in the market then let's try that , but as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) not as a taxpayer-funded agency. As in, compete on a level playing field. If a Health Care GSE can outperform private enterprise then that's great. If not, it is what it is.
The notion that the vendors and insurers will magically bring their prices down if there's a competition is naive at best.

Unless there's government regulation in place, nothing will change.

And yes, public option needs to exist but cannot have the profit as a motivating factor.

That's why we have the expensive, unaffordable mess of a healthcare that we have. :foreheadslap:
I think prices will come down, at least for healthy 20-30 somethings, if one of these things happen:

We can tell people with expensive conditions to FOAD. (pre-existing conditions, and lifetime maximums)
We can tell old people they can be charged much, much more than 3x what a healthy 18 year old pays.
We can all buy ripoff plans that cover basically nothing, from whatever the shittiest state is. My money is on Alabama or Mississippi.

Seems pretty clear that the ACA is great if you're not worth keeping alive (in the income/actuarial sense) or you have no money, and utterly worthless everywhere else.
I hope they resort to death panels.
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,766
19,712
113
Jacksonville Beach
frvcvs said:
Sharkbiscuit said:
FecalFace said:
GDaddy said:
I support the idea of more competition in the market.

I think that if people want the government to compete in the market then let's try that , but as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) not as a taxpayer-funded agency. As in, compete on a level playing field. If a Health Care GSE can outperform private enterprise then that's great. If not, it is what it is.
The notion that the vendors and insurers will magically bring their prices down if there's a competition is naive at best.

Unless there's government regulation in place, nothing will change.

And yes, public option needs to exist but cannot have the profit as a motivating factor.

That's why we have the expensive, unaffordable mess of a healthcare that we have. :foreheadslap:
I think prices will come down, at least for healthy 20-30 somethings, if one of these things happen:

We can tell people with expensive conditions to FOAD. (pre-existing conditions, and lifetime maximums)
We can tell old people they can be charged much, much more than 3x what a healthy 18 year old pays.
We can all buy ripoff plans that cover basically nothing, from whatever the shittiest state is. My money is on Alabama or Mississippi.

Seems pretty clear that the ACA is great if you're not worth keeping alive (in the income/actuarial sense) or you have no money, and utterly worthless everywhere else.
I hope they resort to death panels.
That happens by way of repeal. FYI, the PC term is "board-approved actuarial tables". This way we don't annoy the types who like to pretend free preventative care and free emergency room care are the same thing.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,827
23,449
113
62
Vagina Point
I'm for death panels.

Life at the end is not precious.

You're not special!

Get out the pain med and party into the great beyond.

Sorry Grandma!

Any thing to kill more unwanted fetuses and old people is a good thing!
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
89,130
18,178
113
Autoprax said:
I'm for death panels.

Life at the end is not precious.

You're not special!

Get out the pain med and party into the great beyond.

Sorry Grandma!

Any thing to kill more unwanted fetuses and old people is a good thing!
Isn't like 90% of medical costs end of life anyway?
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,629
9,868
113
and in places like Florida, they won't let you die even if it's what you wanted!