Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act has always been premised on comparing an actual law, with its compromises and trade-offs, to an imaginary alternative. A Republican ad promises, “Health insurance that provides more choices and better care at lower costs, provides peace of mind to people with preexisting conditions … House Republicans have a plan to get there, without disrupting existing coverage.”

The end of the ad directs viewers to “learn more” at https://abetterhealthcareplan.com/. But when you visit the site, it’s just a big video of the same ad that directed you to the site, along with two brief sentences of text. (“There is a plan to get there. The House Republican Healthcare Plan lowers costs, provides more control and more choices to pick a plan that meets our needs, not a plan that Washington mandates.”) The Republican plan turns out to consist of an assurance that there is indeed a plan.

The Republican Party, faced with the catastrophic real-world consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act, is divided over how to proceed. Some nervous Republicans want to figure out what they want to put in place of Obamacare. Senator Mike Lee insists that Republicans repeal Obamacare first, before they decide on an alternative. And his reason is straightforward: If people saw the Republican alternative, they might not like it! “There is a lot less agreement about what comes next,” he tells Julie Rovner. “If we load down the repeal bill with what comes next, it’s harder to get both of them passed.”

That is very true. If people see what Republicans would put in place of Obamacare, they would probably rather keep the status quo. Lee is right that the best way to eliminate Obamacare is to remain vague about the alternative. It’s a little odd for him to come out and admit this, though.

Skjellyfetti wrote:They've been trying to repeal the ACA for almost 6 years now. The House has voted over 50 times to repeal it.

I would think that would be enough time to come up with a plan.

They control both houses of Congress and the White House. So, what's the wait?

Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act has always been premised on comparing an actual law, with its compromises and trade-offs, to an imaginary alternative. A Republican ad promises, “Health insurance that provides more choices and better care at lower costs, provides peace of mind to people with preexisting conditions … House Republicans have a plan to get there, without disrupting existing coverage.”

The end of the ad directs viewers to “learn more” at https://abetterhealthcareplan.com/. But when you visit the site, it’s just a big video of the same ad that directed you to the site, along with two brief sentences of text. (“There is a plan to get there. The House Republican Healthcare Plan lowers costs, provides more control and more choices to pick a plan that meets our needs, not a plan that Washington mandates.”) The Republican plan turns out to consist of an assurance that there is indeed a plan.

The Republican Party, faced with the catastrophic real-world consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act, is divided over how to proceed. Some nervous Republicans want to figure out what they want to put in place of Obamacare. Senator Mike Lee insists that Republicans repeal Obamacare first, before they decide on an alternative. And his reason is straightforward: If people saw the Republican alternative, they might not like it! “There is a lot less agreement about what comes next,” he tells Julie Rovner. “If we load down the repeal bill with what comes next, it’s harder to get both of them passed.”

That is very true. If people see what Republicans would put in place of Obamacare, they would probably rather keep the status quo. Lee is right that the best way to eliminate Obamacare is to remain vague about the alternative. It’s a little odd for him to come out and admit this, though.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ecret.html

UNI88 wrote:IMO it will be a major mistake to repeal the ACA and not have a replacement before the end of the year. Repeal is going to impact thousands and it's going to look like the GOP sandbagged a lot of people. It won't have a major impact on the makeup of the Senate following the 2018 elections but the impact on the House will be bigger than the Party anticipated.

Chizzang wrote:Presently I'm on an individual ACA plan...
I'm really excited to see what comes from the Republicans
I'll get to experience it first hand

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Presently I'm on an individual ACA plan...
I'm really excited to see what comes from the Republicans
I'll get to experience it first hand

Maybe you won't have to pay for your IUD

mrklean wrote:They don't have one. They are focused on destroying this program because this is Obama's baby. No matter how many people it will harm in the end.

mrklean wrote:They don't have one. They are focused on destroying this program because this is Obama's baby. No matter how many people it will harm in the end.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Presently I'm on an individual ACA plan...
I'm really excited to see what comes from the Republicans
I'll get to experience it first hand

Maybe you won't have to pay for your IUD

bluehenbillk wrote:

mrklean wrote:They don't have one. They are focused on destroying this program because this is Obama's baby. No matter how many people it will harm in the end.

You do realize they could just not touch ACA and the program would self-destruct before the end of Trump's first term? You need insurance companies to participate & the majors have been pulling out.

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:
You do realize they could just not touch ACA and the program would self-destruct before the end of Trump's first term? You need insurance companies to participate & the majors have been pulling out.

Boo **** hoo...

Screw big insurance companies. They're simply extractionary finance companies that need to be cut out of the action.

I'm sure we'll get right in that...

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Maybe you won't have to pay for your IUD

Maybe you won't have to pay for your triple bypass..?

AshevilleApp wrote:

UNI88 wrote:IMO it will be a major mistake to repeal the ACA and not have a replacement before the end of the year. Repeal is going to impact thousands and it's going to look like the GOP sandbagged a lot of people. It won't have a major impact on the makeup of the Senate following the 2018 elections but the impact on the House will be bigger than the Party anticipated.

More like millions of people impacted. Trump has hinted that he has a plan to insure everyone. Wouldn't it be ironic if he proposed a single payer system?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Boo **** hoo...

Screw big insurance companies. They're simply extractionary finance companies that need to be cut out of the action.

I'm sure we'll get right in that...

Well, BHBK's right in one regard, the current ACA, as it's set up, can't continue - it will eventually be so costly that it can't be maintained. Obamacare, as it's written, cannot last without changes.

Big question is, what changes do we go with? Do we keep an insurance model or do we go with the state-run model? Both have their perks and downsides - insurance model costs more but you get more advanced medicine and you get it more quickly under that model, but you're paying more. The state-run model means it costs less, but you get less too in terms of services when you want them and possibly less in terms of advances in medicine, but yes, you pay less. It would be nice if both sides could actually talk to each other and possibly figure this thing out, but I'm not hopeful.

houndawg wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, BHBK's right in one regard, the current ACA, as it's set up, can't continue - it will eventually be so costly that it can't be maintained. Obamacare, as it's written, cannot last without changes.

Big question is, what changes do we go with? Do we keep an insurance model or do we go with the state-run model? Both have their perks and downsides - insurance model costs more but you get more advanced medicine and you get it more quickly under that model, but you're paying more. The state-run model means it costs less, but you get less too in terms of services when you want them and possibly less in terms of advances in medicine, but yes, you pay less. It would be nice if both sides could actually talk to each other and possibly figure this thing out, but I'm not hopeful.

It isn't an either/or thing. Our whole medical system isn't going to vanish if we have a single-payer system; there will always be health care on demand for those who want it.

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:
You do realize they could just not touch ACA and the program would self-destruct before the end of Trump's first term? You need insurance companies to participate & the majors have been pulling out.

Boo **** hoo...

Screw big insurance companies. They're simply extractionary finance companies that need to be cut out of the action.

I'm sure we'll get right in that...

mrklean wrote:

kalm wrote:
Boo **** hoo...

Screw big insurance companies. They're simply extractionary finance companies that need to be cut out of the action.

I'm sure we'll get right in that...

i AGREE 100%

kalm wrote:

houndawg wrote:

It isn't an either/or thing. Our whole medical system isn't going to vanish if we have a single-payer system; there will always be health care on demand for those who want it.

This. The only part that needs to be socialized is basic insurance. Providers and manufacturers can remain private, innovate, and profit.

Just because we socialized broadband infrastructure doesn't mean that Comcast has innovated less or cut services...