What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

It's all part of the plan. If they can't get single payer by law, they'll use free market manipulation to artificially create a monopoly and then use that as the single payer.

Sounds like a plan.

The only alarmist language I heard during the WE MUST KILL OBAMACARE!!!11 circus that was true was that it was a wedge that would eventually result in single payer. That's true -- the problems with the ACA are solveable by expanding Medicare to include all Americans, whereas the advantages are already obvious to all but the most blindly partisan. Basically the ACA is a sane health care system with insurance company profits grafted onto it artificially because 'MURICA ECONOMIC FREEDUMB. The heavy lifting on the healthcare portion has been done. What's left is to burn off the vestigial vampire squid of Aetna and Cigna. We don't have the political will to do that in this White House and Congress, but it'll happen sometime down the line when taxpayers get sick of funneling windfalls to those guys.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Sounds like a plan.

The only alarmist language I heard during the WE MUST KILL OBAMACARE!!!11 circus that was true was that it was a wedge that would eventually result in single payer. That's true -- the problems with the ACA are solveable by expanding Medicare to include all Americans, whereas the advantages are already obvious to all but the most blindly partisan. Basically the ACA is a sane health care system with insurance company profits grafted onto it artificially because 'MURICA ECONOMIC FREEDUMB. The heavy lifting on the healthcare portion has been done. What's left is to burn off the vestigial vampire squid of Aetna and Cigna. We don't have the political will to do that in this White House and Congress, but it'll happen sometime down the line when taxpayers get sick of funneling windfalls to those guys.

Biggest issue I see with Medicare is that it is still a forced monopoly, i.e. it is a FELONY to pay for medical coverage out of pocket if your plan covers it. That's the biggest reason that said "blindly partisans" talk about death panels and delays in care, and is why people from other countries flock here to get procedures done. On top of that, you're forcing people to pay for something they either don't use or don't have the income to make, which is against one of the founding principles of this nation. If you address those two points, you might be able to make some headway. Until then, you will encounter resistance.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Biggest issue I see with Medicare is that it is still a forced monopoly, i.e. it is a FELONY to pay for medical coverage out of pocket if your plan covers it.

In principle I have no problem if the Kochs want to pay out of pocket for their ritual diamond bloodlettings or whatever. I'm all for the rich still getting to do their richie rich stuff, as long as they help foot the bill for the poor to get coverage.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

On top of that, you're forcing people to pay for something they either don't use or don't have the income to make, which is against one of the founding principles of this nation.

That's an overstatement. We pay for schools even if we don't have kids. There are plenty of public goods we pay for that we don't directly use. The Founders were cool with that, by the way -- they weren't nearly the cray cray anarchists the Church of Latter Day Rockwell thinks they were.

As far as forcing people to pay for something they can't afford, I'm all for a completely public system paid for out of the general fund and supported by tax dollars which are collected via a highly progressive tax system, so I'm not tapping folks who can't afford it. Quite the opposite.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

In principle I have no problem if the Kochs want to pay out of pocket for their ritual diamond bloodlettings or whatever. I'm all for the rich still getting to do their richie rich stuff, as long as they help foot the bill for the poor to get coverage.

Wait, I assume it isn't a felony to pay for medical coverage OOP, so what's he screeching about?
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Wait, I assume it isn't a felony to pay for medical coverage OOP, so what's he screeching about?

You'll have to ask him. I think he's saying if Koch wants a new kidney and the actuarial algorithm says he's behind 290 million more deserving candidates, there's no provision for him to legally buy his way to the front of the line. I'm saying that I support a system where he can do so. That'll be $10 billion, please, and no I won't take a check. I'm willing to let John Hoyt on the rocket if he pays for it.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Wait, I assume it isn't a felony to pay for medical coverage OOP, so what's he screeching about?

Actually, if you're on Medicare, and you try to pay for something that is covered by your present Medicare coverage OOP, it is a felony. If it's not covered, OOP is fine. This was something covered by Herman Cain when he described his plan for health care reformation.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

That's an overstatement. We pay for schools even if we don't have kids. There are plenty of public goods we pay for that we don't directly use. The Founders were cool with that, by the way -- they weren't nearly the cray cray anarchists the Church of Latter Day Rockwell thinks they were.

As far as forcing people to pay for something they can't afford, I'm all for a completely public system paid for out of the general fund and supported by tax dollars which are collected via a highly progressive tax system, so I'm not tapping folks who can't afford it. Quite the opposite.

Not an overstatement at all. The homeless don't pay for schools, because said taxes are based upon your ownership of property in a specific district. Renters don't pay it directly, although lanlords will typically pass said cost onto the renter in the form of total rent cost.

As for tapping folks who can't afford it, guess what the PPACA does, if you read it closely. And before you start claiming exemptions, you still have to report it to the federal government, and you have to pay a certain amount to be able to send said information tot he government.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

In a world where banks are too-big-to-fail, and thus too big to merge, we have this. A 23% premium seems a bit much to me for a normal merger, for some reason.

We'll have to see what the regulatory agencies have to say about this, as well as the "status" of said regulators if they say no.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

That merger needs to be blocked just like Time Warner/Comcast was blocked.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

It's related, so we're going after it: Title X, the Federal Family Planning Progam, Is in Danger
While the headlines of late have all been about gay marriage, lethal injection, and the Affordable Care Act, a major strike against women’s health care has been quietly mounting in Washington.

In preparing its budget proposal for the upcoming year, the GOP-led Congress has made moves to fully eliminate Title X, the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related reproductive health services, including contraception.

Ninety percent of the people Title X serves have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 63 percent are uninsured. Six in 10 women who access health care services from a Title X-funded health center consider this their main source of health care.

Funded at $286 million for fiscal year 2015, Title X has already sustained cuts totaling $31 million since fiscal year 2010, significantly reducing the number of patients served by its programs. There were 600,000 fewer individuals served by Title X programs in 2013 versus 2010 as a result of past cuts.

However, there’s evidence that Title X saves taxpayers money: For every public dollar invested in family planning, the American taxpayer saves approximately $7 in Medicaid-related costs. Nearly half of all births in the U.S. are paid for by Medicaid, the health care program for low-income families and individuals; the average national cost for one Medicaid-covered birth is $12,770. This is a stark contrast to the $239 per-client cost of publicly funded contraceptive care through Title X family planning. It is estimated, then, that Title X saves taxpayers nearly $7 billion a year.

There’s also evidence that Title X prevents unintended pregnancies — 1.1 million in 2012, to be exact, according to the Guttmacher Institute. These pregnancies would have resulted in 527,000 unplanned births and 363,000 abortions. Without the services provided by Title X — which include Pap smears, breast exams, cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection screenings, and HIV tests — it is estimated that the number of unplanned births and abortions would be 66 percent higher.

So if Title X reduces costs and reduces the abortion rate, why the opposition?

It might have to do with the fact that while more than half of Title X-funded clinics are public health departments and another 14 percent are federally qualified health centers, 13 percent are Planned Parenthood clinics, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

If you set out to create a fictional political platform aiming to spread misery and hardship to the most people possible, it would be nearly indistinguishable from the GOP's.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

If you set out to create a fictional political platform aiming to spread misery and hardship to the most people possible, it would be nearly indistinguishable from the GOP's.

The Religious Right hates Planned Parenthood with a fiery passion, so they're throwing out the baby with the bath water. It's as simple and sad as that. Everything else is collateral damage of political warfare.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Well, they lost the battle against the gays. They have to turn their, uh...<strike>bigotry</strike>, <strike>self-hatred</strike>, passion :p towards something else, and they've made some surprising strides in the abortion battle over the last decade or so. The eeeeeeeevil Planned Parenthood is only a natural target.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Well PP provides the abbatoir to murder the unborn. Why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top