The Parable of Pious Paul of Ryan

[zoogs]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/and-jesus-said-unto-paul-of-ryan.html

“Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God,” Jesus said. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received comfort.”

“Oh, come on, Jesus,” Pious Paul protested. “Don’t go socialist on me again. Please don’t encourage class warfare. The best way to help the needy is to give public money to the rich. That then inspires the poor to work harder, galvanizes the sick to become healthy, forces the lepers to solve their own problems rather than kick back and depend on others. That’s why any realistic health plan has to focus on providing less coverage for the poor, and big tax benefits for the rich. When millions of people lose health care, that’s when a country is great again!”

 

[TGHusker]

It is becoming a big boondoggle - It is difficult to roll back any program once granted. They need to find a way to keep all insured without

the system imploding as the ACA is doing.

Allow me to go "All tin foil hat' here: Suppose the repubs knew all along the ACA could not be

undone. (They just used it for a wedge issue with voters, while telling us there was a better way when there wasn't). This epic, We Gave it our

best Try ends with - the best thing we can recommend at this time (ACA is imploding, there is no way to fix it - "You cannot stuff the toothpaste back

into the tube") is a One Payor system. This would benefit all of the rich corporate donors for both the dems and repubs. Congress would keep

their cushy health care program and the citizens would end up with one huge govt program and all of its inefficiencies.

Now, I'll remove the tin foil hat and step off of the ledge.

I will say this regardless of the outcome - the Republicans have handled this BADLY. They don't deserve to be the ruling party if this is how unprepared

they are and how poorly they are working together on this much less wt dems. While I don't think the dems had any intentions of working wt repubs

in 2009 on the ACA - the repubs should have acted like the big boys and courted some bipartisanship to make this bill a product that was wholestically

fixing the problems wt the ACA while keeping the good provisions of the ACA. The repubs wanted to be the heros with the new plan and it is beginning

to look like they will be the dopes if they don't get their act together soon.

 

[funhusker]

"IF" Republicans and Trump pull off universal healthcare, I will where a "Make America Great" hat everyday for the next 3.5 years....

 

[zoogs]

"the system imploding as the ACA is doing."

...explain.

And are you saying single payer is what all the rich corporate donors want?

"While I don't think the dems had any intentions of working wt repubs in 2009 on the ACA" -- The original lie about Obamacare:

The reason is simple enough: Obamacare is the bipartisan version of health reform. It accomplishes a liberal end through conservative means and is much closer to the plan conservatives favored a few decades ago than the one liberals did. “It was the ultimate troll,” as Michael Anne Kyle of Harvard Business School put it, “for Obama to pass Republican health reform.”

 

[NUance]

Universal health care in America. The problem isn't necessarily due to the Republicans or the Democrats. It's due to our political system and the manner in which laws get passed. Right now the AMA has a stranglehold monopoly on healthcare providers. Health insurance companies have a stranglehold oligopoly on healthcare reimbursement. Any time a proposal comes forward that threatens to make either of these two primary aspects of healthcare more efficient, one or the other--or both--will fight tooth and nail to neuter it. Tens of millions of dollars will be spent on lobbyists to ensure that the AMA members and the health insurance companies won't lose any revenue. Given the manner in which lobbyists and politicians are allowed to operate, it won't be possible to pass a healthcare initiative in America that is in the best interests of patients. It's all about maximizing healthcare revenue.

 

[zoogs]

^Well said. I think that's a good representation of some of the challenges, and explains the slow and tortuous road towards any kind of healthcare advancement here. All this despite incredible numbers of sheer spending.

 

[TGHusker]

"the system imploding as the ACA is doing."

...explain.

And are you saying single payer is what all the rich corporate donors want?

"While I don't think the dems had any intentions of working wt repubs in 2009 on the ACA" -- The original lie about Obamacare:

The reason is simple enough: Obamacare is the bipartisan version of health reform. It accomplishes a liberal end through conservative means and is much closer to the plan conservatives favored a few decades ago than the one liberals did. “It was the ultimate troll,” as Michael Anne Kyle of Harvard Business School put it, “for Obama to pass Republican health reform.”

Rising cost of premiums is what I meant by the imploding part.

A few years ago I heard of surveys that major corporations would like to offload healthcare off of their responsibilities/benefits to employees if they could. It is a major cost.

 

[zoogs]

What if the ACA were not actually imploding? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14921594/obamacare-implosion-ahca

 

[JJ Husker]

"the system imploding as the ACA is doing."

...explain.

And are you saying single payer is what all the rich corporate donors want?

"While I don't think the dems had any intentions of working wt repubs in 2009 on the ACA" -- The original lie about Obamacare:

The reason is simple enough: Obamacare is the bipartisan version of health reform. It accomplishes a liberal end through conservative means and is much closer to the plan conservatives favored a few decades ago than the one liberals did. “It was the ultimate troll,” as Michael Anne Kyle of Harvard Business School put it, “for Obama to pass Republican health reform.”

Rising cost of premiums is what I meant by the imploding part.
A few years ago I heard of surveys that major corporations would like to offload healthcare off of their responsibilities/benefits to employees if they could. It is a major cost.

Just my opinion but I would think most businesses that provide healthcare to their employees would be overjoyed to get out of the middle of that arrangement. I sure was glad when I could dump company provided health insurance and give that responsibility to my employees. It doesn't help generate any profit but rather costs you a bunch of time and effort and it is a royal pain in the a$$ dealing with it.

 

[NUance]

"IF" Republicans and Trump pull off universal healthcare, I will where a "Make America Great" hat everyday for the next 3.5 years....

Well, IF the Trumpites get this done I will build a 20 foot wall around my house and yard! And my neighbors will have to pay for it!!

 

[commando]

it's all for global corporations benefit.

 

[ZRod]

"the system imploding as the ACA is doing."

...explain.

And are you saying single payer is what all the rich corporate donors want?

"While I don't think the dems had any intentions of working wt repubs in 2009 on the ACA" -- The original lie about Obamacare:

The reason is simple enough: Obamacare is the bipartisan version of health reform. It accomplishes a liberal end through conservative means and is much closer to the plan conservatives favored a few decades ago than the one liberals did. It was the ultimate troll, as Michael Anne Kyle of Harvard Business School put it, for Obama to pass Republican health reform.

Rising cost of premiums is what I meant by the imploding part.
A few years ago I heard of surveys that major corporations would like to offload healthcare off of their responsibilities/benefits to employees if they could. It is a major cost.

Just my opinion but I would think most businesses that provide healthcare to their employees would be overjoyed to get out of the middle of that arrangement. I sure was glad when I could dump company provided health insurance and give that responsibility to my employees. It doesn't help generate any profit but rather costs you a bunch of time and effort and it is a royal pain in the a$$ dealing with it.

Maybe it's a pain in the a$$ for employees to deal with; health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, 401ks, IRAs, HSAs, and all the other aeeys!

 

[NM11046]

Regarding the "imploding" part, and rising premiums - everything I've read shows that the increases in premiums in the last few years (since the inception of ACA) have actually been going up less than they should typically as we worked out how much this coverage would cost. Now this last year when they had to play catch up to cover for the sicker than expected population, it felt like there was a huge jump. But (with the exception of states where insurers have pulled out like AZ) the 4% increases that people paid (or hardly noticed) the last few years had to go up. That the increase average really hasn't been significantly more than what the typical year to year increases have been - just felt like people got walloped because they had gotten a break for a bit.

Am I misunderstanding the data?

Also, I get that we all look at what we have to pay and make some sort of judgement about the program, but I'm curious - this goes out to the people here on HB that are opposed to the ACA or feel that it's been a burden for them. Do you look at the greater overall benefit to the public as a positive? Does the improvement in number of people insured mean anything to you? (I honestly don't mean these as snide questions, I tried to figure out a way to rephrase and this is the best I could come up with). I sincerely want to understand how there can be a camp that doesn't look at the bigger picture for our citizens. Do you feel that paying while healthy is unfair for you (or others)? Do you think that by getting folks insured now and into healthier maintanance programs we could potentially decrease the amount of sickness and catastrophic care necessary in the future, thus lowering our overall payment into the system in the long run? Do you have any worries about aging and potentially losing your job or having a very big health issue and having to come up with funds to pay what your insurance won't or to potentially have to declare bankruptcy in order to stay afloat?

Now, if you have coverage that went up 180% or something I get it (AZ I hear a lot about as I have family there now and I know they have a struggle different than most of us. But I think it's shortsighted to not recognize that for most of us, the need for medical care is only going to increase in the coming years. To make a change like this is right now is just guaranteeing that we will feel the brunt of it in the future.

Me? I'd rather pay a bit more now when I have a salary and am covering all my expenses than get absolutely blown out of the water with bills when I really need to be worrying most about my health.

 

[Mierin]

I don't mind paying extra if more people are covered. I was livid when the Republican states didn't opt to cover those in the 100-130% poverty range. It was extremely cheap for the states. I'm talking < $10 a year per household. It was an utterly political move devoid of logic. Nebraska was one of those states.