"Health care" bill withdrawn due to lack of votes

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's pretty damn popular if you frame the question right -
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx
http://kff.org/global-health-policy...-alternative-or-creating-a-single-payer-plan/

Which is why conservatives always shout "OMG SOCIALIZED MEDICINE".

I don't think it's the question that keeps US from having a single payer system. Ask this same question but show how much more they would be paying in taxes and I'm going to wager most will be against it.

Pretty much the same thing we saw in those blue states, everyone was for it until they saw how much more they would pay via taxes then overwhelming said "Nah"
 
Dems couldn't pass single payer with massive majorities in the house and senate. I doubt that will change.

They will run into the same hurdles they did the first time. Moderate dems in conservative states won't vote for it. Not to mention that it comes off as incredibly hypocritical to fight off the GOP's replacement plan for the ACA only for dems to come out against it with their own replacement plan (which is what single payer would be... no matter how much people delude themselves to the contrary).
I don't think Democrats would ever rally behind straight-up single-payer, but you might see a Medicare for All type deal where they sell a public option as a Medicare buy-in expansion. Boost subsidies enough so that everyone who can't afford it can.

There's ways to getting to UHC and further reforming our healthcare system without going full-out "we're Canada now."
 

Oersted

Member
Not to mention that it comes off as incredibly hypocritical to fight off the GOP's replacement plan for the ACA only for dems to come out against it with their own replacement plan (which is what single payer would be... no matter how much people delude themselves to the contrary).

That doesn't make as much sense as its probably supposed to.
 

Chichikov

Member
I don't think it's the question that keeps US from having a single payer system. Ask this same question but show how much more they would be paying in taxes and I'm going to wager most will be against it.

Pretty much the same thing we saw in those blue states, everyone was for it until they saw how much more they would pay via taxes then overwhelming said "Nah"
For most americans, it should be less than what they pay for their healthcare right now.
You can also do it the public option route that allows people to choose rather than be forced into that system. I think it's an inferior solution to a true single payer but it might be easier to pass.

No, what prevents the US from having a single payer program is that the health insurance industry knows it will be pretty damn close to a death sentence for them (yeah, there will be a room for supplemental insurance, but that's a much smaller market than now) and they would fight tooth and nail to kill it.
They did it in the 90s and that's why democrats went with an approach that wouldn't piss them too much.
 

giga

Member
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-republican-waterloo/520833/

bMaU7t6.png


Frum is killing it.
 
The Democrats need to be careful promising a plan this far out from when they could hold all three branches. Lest we have this thread but in reverse for the Democrats.
 
For most americans, it should be less than what they pay for their healthcare right now.
You can also do it the public option route that allows people to choose rather than be forced into that system. I think it's an inferior solution to a true single payer but it might be easier to pass.

No, what prevents the US from having a single payer program is that the health insurance industry knows it will be pretty damn close to a death sentence for them (yeah, there will be a room for supplemental insurance, but that's a much smaller market than now) and they would fight tooth and nail to kill it.
They did it in the 90s and that's why democrats went with an approach that wouldn't piss them too much.

Insurance needs to be separated from employment before we ever see real change. People still think their premium is only the $200 a paycheck they spend, not realizing it's closer to $20,000 per year with the employer contribution. Added to that, our representatives in government would get a chance to write a check for their health care and may have a better perspective as well.
 
??? You mean Obamacare? The law of the land?

I mean promising stuff like a public option this far out.

Just use high level stuff like "we want to improve Obamacare with things that will make insurance more affordable" or other empty words that don't really mean anything

Otherwise you end up promising to do something for 7 years and end with the embarrassment of never being able to actually deliver on that promise.
 
I mean promising stuff like a public option this far out.

Just use high level stuff like "we want to improve Obamacare with things that will make insurance more affordable" or other empty words that don't really mean anything

Otherwise you end up promising to do something for 7 years and end with the embarrassment of never being able to actually deliver on that promise.

The best plan is to keep things simple and avoid creating too many enemies too soon. Running with allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices is broadly popular across the political spectrum - that should be the focus. And quietly in the background support for a public option on the exchange should be built up.
 

tuffy

Member
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? Didn't Trump do away with the fine if you don't purchase insurance?
As I recall, he issued some vague executive order about "reducing the burden of Obamacare" or some such thing, but he's not able to change the law unilaterally.
 
As I recall, he issued some vague executive order about "reducing the burden of Obamacare" or some such thing, but he's not able to change the law unilaterally.

I thought in reducing the burden of Obamacare, the fee for noncompliance is not to be enforced. So if noncompliance people aren't paying any fines, then haven't they won, then? No money coming in, rates go up even more and it will turn into a dumpster fire?
 
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? Didn't Trump do away with the fine if you don't purchase insurance?

AHCA actually left the individual mandate and the tax penalty intact.

I thought in reducing the burden of Obamacare, the fee for noncompliance is not to be enforced. So if noncompliance people aren't paying any fines, then haven't they won, then? No money coming in, rates go up even more and it will turn into a dumpster fire?

One still has to pay the tax penalty for not having health insurance last year and that will probably continue to be the case. There's no evidence he actually got rid of the tax penalty.
 
AHCA actually left the individual mandate and the tax penalty intact.



One still has to pay the tax penalty for not having health insurance last year and that will probably continue to be the case. There's no evidence he actually got rid of the tax penalty.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/27/trumps-executive-order-on-obamacare-leads-to-a-big.aspx

In effect, Trump's executive order has made it nearly impossible for the IRS to collect the SRP or to concretely verify an individuals' health insurance status.

Seems to me you can avoid the penalty.
 

Ogodei

Member
For most americans, it should be less than what they pay for their healthcare right now.
You can also do it the public option route that allows people to choose rather than be forced into that system. I think it's an inferior solution to a true single payer but it might be easier to pass.

No, what prevents the US from having a single payer program is that the health insurance industry knows it will be pretty damn close to a death sentence for them (yeah, there will be a room for supplemental insurance, but that's a much smaller market than now) and they would fight tooth and nail to kill it.
They did it in the 90s and that's why democrats went with an approach that wouldn't piss them too much.

That's my thought, too.

You could even set it up that everybody pays roughly what they're paying now: a new payroll tax on full-time positions equal to the median salary:health benefits ratio so that employers still pay a large part of the burden and an additional tax to anyone filing a 1099 for non-investment income to capture the self-employed. Soak the rich at an extra 1.5% on top marginal income, and you'd probably have enough to pay for everybody on top of what we're paying now. Then once people are used to the principle, you slow-walk around to just moving that burden onto increased FICA tax instead (maybe with a legal mandate that employers pass the reduced payroll taxes to their employees as wages).

Then the only hard part would be dealing with the crater in the economy and jobs market where the insurance industry used to be. Even if the Department of Health and Human Services would have to beef up customer service reps and payment processing people, it wouldn't be nearly enough to offset the losses, especially since the sales departments at those companies would have nowhere to go.
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
For most americans, it should be less than what they pay for their healthcare right now.
You can also do it the public option route that allows people to choose rather than be forced into that system. I think it's an inferior solution to a true single payer but it might be easier to pass.

No, what prevents the US from having a single payer program is that the health insurance industry knows it will be pretty damn close to a death sentence for them (yeah, there will be a room for supplemental insurance, but that's a much smaller market than now) and they would fight tooth and nail to kill it.
They did it in the 90s and that's why democrats went with an approach that wouldn't piss them too much.

Oh, it would absolutely be superior and less expensive for us, but convincing people of that is the challenge. Too many people don't learn shit about economics, personal finance, and even struggle with basic arithmetic. It'd be really difficult to overcome the massive GOP and insurance industry media blitz that would happen.

I think going the public option route is the best shot at easing into a more socialized system. As Bernie's popularity has risen quite a bit, I think public option might be able to make it through at some point as a good "compromise" between the current Obamacare status quo and Bernie's medicare for all stance. Over the long term, I think liberal Democrats and Independents need a bigger PR effort to sell more people on true universal healthcare, showing the benefits, while also refining existing proposals.

I feel like too many Democrats tend to be too reactionary and short term thinkers. Conservative/Neo-Conservative policy is a complete disaster in every way imaginable, but they played the long game with that, building towards the current situation over a period of decades.
 

Nerokis

Member
I mean promising stuff like a public option this far out.

Just use high level stuff like "we want to improve Obamacare with things that will make insurance more affordable" or other empty words that don't really mean anything

Otherwise you end up promising to do something for 7 years and end with the embarrassment of never being able to actually deliver on that promise.

The thing is, the situation here is kinda specific. You have the fact that, assuming one believes health insurance is an important thing for people to have, the ACA verges on being the Republican interpretation on how to make sure poor, old, and sick people have access to it, and thus it's difficult to realistically pull it much further right; the fact that Republican repeal efforts, and their endless promises, began before the ACA had actually been truly implemented, and were never recalibrated to account for a scenario in which millions of people relied on it and began to expect the benefits it provided; the fact that the tension between moderate and conservative Republicans in terms of healthcare is much greater than that between moderate and liberal Democrats, as difficult as this might be to believe; and finally, the fact that Trump is an ideological vacuum who made a lot of promises that made no sense when seen as a whole, which was partly reflected in the Frankenstein's Monster of a bill the AHCA ended up being.

I agree we should be careful with the promises we make, but I think we're much better positioned to implement a plan smoothening out Obamacare's rougher edges (once we have power, that is) than Republicans were to execute on their repeal and replace promises.
 

kamineko

Does his best thinking in the flying car
So list of accomplishments for next year's state of the union

  • Failed to take healthcare away from poor, white people (and everybody else ofc, this is about his base)
  • Deported some nonviolent, well-liked people from communities (some quite conservative) who valued them
  • Stayed up all night talking about made-up conspiracies on twitter
This is a businessman who gets shit done, y'all. Look out, ISIS
 

rjinaz

Member
So list of accomplishments for next year's state of the union

  • Failed to take healthcare away from poor, white people (and everybody else ofc, this is about his base)
  • Deported some nonviolent, well-liked people from communities (some quite conservative) who valued them
  • Stayed up all night talking about made-up conspiracies on twitter
This is a businessman who gets shit done, y'all. Look out, ISIS

Did you see all the people that show up at his rallies? Well of course not, the cameras won't show them! Trump has plenty to brag about at the State of the Union. The people love him. So many rallies to brag about!
 
I'm really concerned that Republicans are just going to let Obamacare spiral out of control, and not listen to Democrats as they try to make it better. Then in the election cycle they can just say Obamacare is the Dems fault. I'm glad that it wasn't repealed, but the only people that are concerned with fixing it don't have the votes needed to fix it.
 

Owzers

Member
I'm really concerned that Republicans are just going to let Obamacare spiral out of control, and not listen to Democrats as they try to make it better. Then in the election cycle they can just say Obamacare is the Dems fault. I'm glad that it wasn't repealed, but the only people that are concerned with fixing it don't have the votes needed to fix it.
That's why the need to be specific and public on what they want to do to fix it instead of just vaguely saying it needs improvement.
 
Was this posted?

I hate every single one of these people but that's pretty cool if true.

I'm really concerned that Republicans are just going to let Obamacare spiral out of control, and not listen to Democrats as they try to make it better. Then in the election cycle they can just say Obamacare is the Dems fault. I'm glad that it wasn't repealed, but the only people that are concerned with fixing it don't have the votes needed to fix it.

I wouldn't worry too much. Republicans have the power to change things. If they come into the midterms whining about how hard things are and Democrats come out with a clear vision (yeah, I know. big ask here!), people will vote for the party that has a vision.
 

Kusagari

Member
It's hilarious that Bannon thinks rank and file Republicans give a fuck about him and his threats.

Dude is realizing he's doing more than running a website shitting on people now.
 
Even if they are opposed for completely the wrong reasons, watching Trump, Bannon, and Ryan all get their shit rocked has been amazing.

Freedom Caucus members basically realized they would be Bannon's bitches going forward if they went along with this.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member

Whatever else the 2016 election has done, it has emancipated Republicans from one of their own worst self-inflicted blind spots. Health care may not be a human right, but the lack of universal health coverage in a wealthy democracy is a severe, unjustifiable, and unnecessary human wrong.
I got lost in the next few sentences but this is true.

I fear they'll redirect their energy to sabotage the ACA.
 

Armaros

Member
I got lost in the next few sentences but this is true.

I fear they'll redirect their energy to sabotage the ACA.

They own the government, sabotoging the ACA is them attacking healthcare. People will just know they are losing healthcare and the people in power are doing nothing about it.
 

Biske

Member
What a great strategy.


Can't get your own party to back your own bill.


Make a shit list of them to attack.


Really going by that "get more bees by poking bees" strategy.
 

Incarmine

Banned
Can't believe he actually thought he could get away with this. Or maybe he's really delusional. Either one is bad.

Doesn't he not use a computer? And that he reads websites by having them printed out for him? I don't think he's kept up with the times and realizes the internet makes it easy for this kind of stuff to go around and be recorded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom