• Senate Rejects Repeal Without Replace
    58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52510100]I get that your premiums probably went up. But why do your premiums and your pocket book really super-cede the health, and possibility of care for millions?[/QUOTE] because it is starting for some states to literally have no difference pre-ACA and ACA, it is getting real bad that the problem it was supposed to fix is now reared it's ugly head. Edit: it started before 2016 elections too.
Owned. I've said this before, not here, but the ACA for all its faults ultimately won the moment it was passed because no attempt to take all those people off healthcare will pass.
McCain probably realized he screwed up yesterday and Marked the wrong checkbox
Well that sucks.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52510082]Maybe the calls for him to die painfully were a little premature.[/QUOTE] well calling for him to die is way over the line, but McCain's still smart enough to know what would come from allowing Republicans to discuss a new healthcare bill. assuming he actually voted under his own power, of course.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;52510148]Well that sucks.[/QUOTE] Sure does :toot: Oh, hold on, let me bust the sympathetic one out: :poot:
[QUOTE=Chonch;52510090]Disappointing. I was hoping Congress could tackle the issue starting from a clean slate. [/QUOTE] Yeah man, just like how they tackled the issue for voting rights by removing literally everyone's voting rights first. It takes a certain kind of person to say something [B]THIS[/B] blatantly stupid.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52510059]How do you get proper universal healthcare without a nationalized part?[/QUOTE] Countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands achieve universal healthcare by making health insurance obligatory for anyone in the country and heavily regulating health insurance companies, among other things. It is not nationalized but it certainly is universal
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52510310]Countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands achieve universal healthcare by making health insurance obligatory for anyone in the country and heavily regulating health insurance companies, among other things. It is not nationalized but it certainly is universal[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]heavily regulating health insurance companies[/QUOTE] Not gonna happen in the US thanks to corporate lobbying being more of a rule than a exception.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52510025]Huh. He voted for it to go forward and voted against it in the next stage? I'm sort of confused on this.[/QUOTE] McCain's been all over the place lately, constantly saying one thing and then the opposite. I think the 2016 election broke him.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52510385]McCain's been all over the place lately, constantly saying one thing and then saying another. I think the 2016 election broke him.[/QUOTE] Well, he DOES have a brain tumor.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52510310]Countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands achieve universal healthcare by making health insurance obligatory for anyone in the country and heavily regulating health insurance companies, among other things. It is not nationalized but it certainly is universal[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what Obamacare was.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52510389]That's pretty much what Obamacare was.[/QUOTE] Except without the regulation of insurance companies, and with the exception that the government cannot negotiate cost with healthcare providers. So essentially it's an unregulated mess that you're now required to pay for, often for coverage that literally does nothing for you. Obamacare was never good. The only option that makes any sense is single payer nationalized, with strict and strong government regulation on the costs associated with medical care. That's the only way it would actually be for the good of the people. Anything less than that is going to line the pockets of the insurance companies and the healthcare providers, and the lawmakers who receive lobbyist money in exchange for keeping things that way.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52509833]Honestly, It's the "without replacement" part that [i]really pisses me off[/i]. Yeah the ACA isn't perfect- fuck- ideally they could stop fucking about and finally replace it with something like the national health service. But removing it without even bothering to devise an alternative?, it's just spiteful and frankly that's horrifying. The government should never be motivated by spite against it's citizens.[/QUOTE] They spent much more time bitching than they did trying to come up with a feasible replacement. The past 7 years have literally been a Republican-sponsored hate-boner circle-jerk that's just left everybody pissed off about something that they [I]could[/I] fix, but won't out of "principle".
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52510387]Well, he DOES have a brain tumor.[/QUOTE] I still don't understand why they would let him come and make important decisions with a disease that will clearly inhibit your cognition. You know, besides the whole advancing your corrupt political party thing.
[QUOTE=Wii60;52510146]McCain probably realized he screwed up yesterday and Marked the wrong checkbox[/QUOTE] He said he was going to vote no today, yesterday. He voted yes yesterday to allow discussion
[QUOTE=_Axel;52510059]How do you get proper universal healthcare without a nationalized part?[/QUOTE] I didn't say no nationalized parts. Even the US fits that. I was referring to near total nationalization e.g. canada, taiwan. As for examples, singapore, switzerland, germany, etc..
[QUOTE=J Paul;52510446]Except without the regulation of insurance companies, and with the exception that the government cannot negotiate cost with healthcare providers. So essentially it's an unregulated mess that you're now required to pay for, often for coverage that literally does nothing for you. Obamacare was never good. The only option that makes any sense is single payer nationalized, with strict and strong government regulation on the costs associated with medical care. That's the only way it would actually be for the good of the people. Anything less than that is going to line the pockets of the insurance companies and the healthcare providers, and the lawmakers who receive lobbyist money in exchange for keeping things that way.[/QUOTE] A system such as that is about as disconnected from the good of the people as you could possibly get. What's going to happen when you take away the bargaining power of the people who actually consume the health care? Government employees want to line their pockets just as much as insurance companies do; when consumer money is automatically given to them through tax revenue, from a financial standpoint they have no reason to give a shit about their customers. The NHS had an issue a couple of years ago where they had funding cuts, and rather than making cuts to administration or salaries, they just stopped providing services to fat people. Because their paycheck arrives regardless of whether those people get service or not.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;52511188]A system such as that is about as disconnected from the good of the people as you could possibly get. What's going to happen when you take away the bargaining power of the people who actually consume the health care? Government employees want to line their pockets just as much as insurance companies do; when consumer money is automatically given to them through tax revenue, from a financial standpoint they have no reason to give a shit about their customers. The NHS had an issue a couple of years ago where they had funding cuts, and rather than making cuts to administration or salaries, they just stopped providing services to fat people. Because their paycheck arrives regardless of whether those people get service or not.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's perfect, but that sounds better than what I have, I would be down with that. Cutting fat people sounds harsh sure but dude I mean I literally cannot go to the hospital without incurring serious debt, fuck fat people.
[QUOTE=J Paul;52511366]I'm not saying it's perfect, but that sounds better than what I have, I would be down with that. Cutting fat people sounds harsh sure but dude I mean I literally cannot go to the hospital without incurring serious debt, fuck fat people.[/QUOTE] I mean, I support single payer vehemently and I could argue all day against his argument, but lmao, 38% of the U.S populace is obese, mate. Would probably be a scandal unlike any other to deny 4 out of 10 people service, so I doubt the validity of his claims that that happened in the UK, unless obesity rates were below 10%.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;52511188]A system such as that is about as disconnected from the good of the people as you could possibly get. What's going to happen when you take away the bargaining power of the people who actually consume the health care? Government employees want to line their pockets just as much as insurance companies do; when consumer money is automatically given to them through tax revenue, from a financial standpoint they have no reason to give a shit about their customers. The NHS had an issue a couple of years ago where they had funding cuts, and rather than making cuts to administration or salaries, they just stopped providing services to fat people. Because their paycheck arrives regardless of whether those people get service or not.[/QUOTE] The main problem here is the part where funding was cut to the NHS, although granted the NHS is also not the best example of nationalized health care. It was one of the earliest attempts at national health care and while it's not bad, it has ended up a little inefficient compared to certain other examples. Despite this, it's still massively more efficient than the American system. America spends the absolute highest amount of money on healthcare per GDP in the entire world. Meanwhile, it's health care coverage is the second worst of all OECD countries, only beaten out by Chile after they joined less than a decade ago. The thing is, putting the bargaining with the people who consume it is one of the absolute worst ideas possible when it comes to health care. It's akin to bargaining with an extortionist who may ruin your life, torture, maim or even murder you if you don't comply with their demands. You simply have no position to bargain from. But while insurance (mostly) supersedes the need for (sufficiently insured) consumers to directly bargain for their health care, in it's stead they now have to bargain for insurance, and before the ACA insurance companies in the US had full discretion to refuse coverage or charge exorbitant premiums to people they deem risky due to pre-existing conditions. Which, since you mentioned it, does happen to include obesity. [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=kharkovus;52511443]I mean, I support single payer vehemently and I could argue all day against his argument, but lmao, 38% of the U.S populace is obese, mate. Would probably be a scandal unlike any other to deny 4 out of 10 people service, so I doubt the validity of his claims that that happened in the UK, unless obesity rates were below 10%.[/QUOTE] There's a small grain of truth to it but they didn't literally stop covering obese people. They've delayed certain specific non-acute and non-life threatening surgeries for obese people and smokers, mainly hip and knee replacements. A bad situation, but nowhere near as bad as it sounded.
[QUOTE=dustyjo;52509865]Just last night I saw some dumb bitch on Fox News talking about how much people have suffered under Obamacare and how congress still can't get anything good done. Republicans truly do live in an alternate reality.[/QUOTE] No, they're just paid to lie and manipulate people into working against their best interests.
McCain just destroyed the SKINNY REPEAL!
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52514955]McCain just destroyed the SKINNY REPEAL![/QUOTE] Yup.... Have no idea what lies ahead from here, but I do know the Murkowski and Collins are going to be up shits creek with this move (I'm going to assume McCain won't be around for much longer). Either a Dem will replace them or they'll get primaried. Book it.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52514967]Yup.... Have no idea what lies ahead from here, but I do know the Murkowski and Collins are going to be up shits creek with this move (I'm going to assume McCain won't be around for much longer). Either a Dem will replace them or they'll get primaried. Book it.[/QUOTE] Weren't you the guy complaining about the ACA because it raised premiums? [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-skinny-repeal-cbo-score-2017-7"]The "skinny repeal" would have been worse. [/URL]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52514975]Weren't you the guy complaining about the ACA because it raised premiums? [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-skinny-repeal-cbo-score-2017-7"]The "skinny repeal" would have been worse. [/URL][/QUOTE] That's a debatable issue. I'm just saying that the constituencies of those three Republican Senators will definitely remember this when their respective elections come around.
Skinny repeal just failed
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/health-care-senate-amendment-votes/?utm_term=.d49a0b5bbf50"]Summary of all votes on healthcare by WaPo [/URL] Republicans once again undone by at least three of their members actually giving a shit about their constituents. [QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52514988]That's a debatable issue. I'm just saying that the constituencies of those three Republican Senators will definitely remember this when their respective elections come around.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt the Alaska senator will be booted cause of this, she's been shit on by her party enough to be a write in candidate and still win when she didn't bend to party whims, she'll get through any shade Trump throws on twitter.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52514988]That's a debatable issue. I'm just saying that the constituencies of those three Republican Senators will definitely remember this when their respective elections come around.[/QUOTE] It's not a debatable issue unless you have evidence to the contrary. Your skinny repeal would have raised premiums, which is exactly what you and other Republicans have been complaining about. Also, Murkowski and Collins are 6 years away from their next election and both won their previous election by large margins. Murkowski won in Alaska as a [B]write-in candidate [/B]by building a coalition of voters. You probably aren't going going to get the vindication you want Another also, [URL="https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2017/07/27/arizona-polltrump-approval-at-47-support-for-gop.html"]only about 6% of people polled in Arizona[/URL] support the GOP bill. I really, really don't think they have anything to worry about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.