The fall of Trumpcare

[iceaura]

Nope. Had Trumpcare been Obamacare but better it would have passed without a hitch. Don't forget - the republicans control both houses and the presidency.

Not with majority Republican support.

 

[billvon]

Not with majority Republican support.

If it had been cleverly rebranded with a shiny TRUMP(tm) logo on it and a big "BY REPUBLICANS" subtitle? I don't think it would have had any issue passing. Trump supporters would claim that it had NOTHING to do with that lousy, failed Obamacare - although it might look something like the ACA.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Failure to secure 'yes' votes on Obamacare-lite is not an endorsement of Obamacare over Trumpcare. The failure to secure votes was an indication of Trumpcare's similarity to Obamacare as a half-measure, at best.

Sure... and I should care what moronic reasoning republicans have because?

Your source doesn't mention any penalty, and actually only specifies catastrophic coverage. Both contrary to Obamacare.
Care to try again?

You asked for an obamacare-like plan, we provided, now your attempting to weasel out and move the goal post.

Let me put it do you like, do you disagree with the heritage foundation plan?

 

[iceaura]

If it had been cleverly rebranded with a shiny TRUMP(tm) logo on it and a big "BY REPUBLICANS" subtitle? I don't think it would have had any issue passing.

There are too many true believers among the Republican media operations. Plus the Dems would have jumped on board.

 

[Syne]

I did. And I told you all about it:
Meanwhile, as you throw up chaff
keep in mind you are now quibbling over details of the Heritage/Chafee/Romney/Obama plan that the Republicans have - just now - refused to amend.

You're ignoring substantial facts again.

Of course it was. The biggest public fear was that people would lose their coverage. They wanted to keep what they had, as Trump had promised they could, and politicians did not want to deal with the political fallout of yanking the health insurance coverage of tens of millions of voters.

People wanted to keep the ACA.

Nope. Had Trumpcare been Obamacare but better it would have passed without a hitch. Don't forget - the republicans control both houses and the presidency.

And in case you have forgotten, here's what was promised as a replacement:

"We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
“I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.”
“We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance.”
“I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we’re going through.”
"We have to get rid of the artificial lines around the states.
“I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

If those had been true - if even some of them had been true - then Trumpcare would have passed. However, it was seen as so much worse than the ACA that even with a republican majority in both houses and a republican president, they couldn't even get it to a vote.

If you believed Trump's campaign lies, that's on you. The Republicans who rejected Trumpcare didn't. "If those had been true"? That's the point, the Republicans who refused Trumpcare knew they weren't.

 

[Syne]

Failure to secure 'yes' votes on Obamacare-lite is not an endorsement of Obamacare over Trumpcare. The failure to secure votes was an indication of Trumpcare's similarity to Obamacare as a half-measure, at best.

Sure... and I should care what moronic reasoning republicans have because?

I don't know...intellectual honesty?

You asked for an obamacare-like plan, we provided, now your attempting to weasel out and move the goal post.

Let me put it do you like, do you disagree with the heritage foundation plan?

LOL! If you really want to call a plan with a catastrophic coverage mandate without any teeth Obamacare-like, you go right ahead.
Facts and details matter.

 

[billvon]

If you believed Trump's campaign lies, that's on you.

Oh, I knew he was lying, and indeed was amused by the True Believers who lapped them up.

The Republicans who rejected Trumpcare didn't.

The republicans who rejected Trumpcare didn't give a shit about his lies. They desperately wanted to get re-elected.

 

[iceaura]

LOL! If you really want to call a plan with a catastrophic coverage mandate without any teeth Obamacare-like, you go right ahead.
Facts and details matter

The relevant facts and details you can read up on in the Kaiser Health Institute link in post 70 - the link in which one of, if not the, leading analytical houses in this exact issue summarized its findings thus:

Titled the “Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993,” it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton’s plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I don't know...intellectual honesty?

Intellectual is the wrong word. Actually work the logic here: "I'm voting no because this is obamacare-lite, thus forcing us all to remain with obamacare full" do you see the stupidity yet?

LOL! If you really want to call a plan with a catastrophic coverage mandate without any teeth Obamacare-like, you go right ahead.
Facts and details matter.

Your just weaseling, what do you think the word mandate means? Do you honestly think the heritage foundation wanted no punishment?

 

[Syne]

Intellectual is the wrong word. Actually work the logic here: "I'm voting no because this is obamacare-lite, thus forcing us all to remain with obamacare full" do you see the stupidity yet?

Apparently you either don't understand the limitations of political capital or you bought Trump and Ryan's lie that the only choice was between Obamacare or Trumpcare (false dilemma).

Your just weaseling, what do you think the word mandate means? Do you honestly think the heritage foundation wanted no punishment?

Not much without any penalty (demonstrated by the religious exemption in the Chafee plan, supposedly based on the Heritage plan). You can read into it stuff that isn't there, but I'm not going to indulge your unfounded assumptions.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Apparently you either don't understand the limitations of political capital or you bought Trump and Ryan's lie that the only choice was between Obamacare or Trumpcare (false dilemma).

Well guess what it is for now: Obamacare.

Not much without any penalty (demonstrated by the religious exemption in the Chafee plan, supposedly based on the Heritage plan). You can read into it stuff that isn't there, but I'm not going to indulge your unfounded assumptions.

It says "mandate" there is no assumption, of course you don't want to indulge you know you lost.

 

[Syne]

Well guess what it is for now: Obamacare.

And? Can the Republican majority Congress not introduce new legislation on the issue?

It says "mandate" there is no assumption, of course you don't want to indulge you know you lost.

Yeah, get your little victories whatever you can imagine them, huh?
Even making zero assumptions, the Heritage plan only mandated catastrophic coverage...you know, like mandated car insurance.
And the Chafee plan, supposedly based on the Heritage plan, had a religious exemption to the mandate.

An alternative strategy - mandating insurance coverage without regard to risk - is attractive to some analysts, but it has the defect of pushing up rates for all insured individuals. Thus the cost of protecting the high-risk group is shouldered equally by all insured families. This is far more regressive than using the general tax code to cover these individuals.
- 1989 Heritage Plan​

Obamacare mandates "coverage without regard to risk...pushing up rates for all insured individuals."
But keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep.

 

[iceaura]

And? Can the Republican majority Congress not introduce new legislation on the issue?

In theory, sure. In reality - look at what happens when they try.
Who's going to write it, this time?

Obamacare mandates "coverage without regard to risk...pushing up rates for all insured individuals."

That brings down rates for insured individuals, if everybody is receiving medical care.

The only way it would raise rates would be if lots of people were not insured individuals, and could not pay for medical care, and therefore did not receive any, before.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And? Can the Republican majority Congress not introduce new legislation on the issue?

Apparently they can't! They control the whole of the federal government and still can't get shit done. I gave a lot of shit to democrats for when they had total control that the best they could do was obamacare, but clearly republicans bet the record for incompetence.

Yeah, get your little victories whatever you can imagine them, huh?

Oh boy!

Even making zero assumptions, the Heritage plan only mandated catastrophic coverage...you know, like mandated car insurance.
And the Chafee plan, supposedly based on the Heritage plan, had a religious exemption to the mandate.

An alternative strategy - mandating insurance coverage without regard to risk - is attractive to some analysts, but it has the defect of pushing up rates for all insured individuals. Thus the cost of protecting the high-risk group is shouldered equally by all insured families. This is far more regressive than using the general tax code to cover these individuals.
- 1989 Heritage Plan​

Obamacare mandates "coverage without regard to risk...pushing up rates for all insured individuals."
But keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep.

And again more weaseling. You asked for "obamacare-like", we provided, and now your moving the goal post in a panic to "exactly Obamacare".

 

[Syne]

In theory, sure. In reality - look at what happens when they try.
Who's going to write it, this time?

It's already been written and voted for...many times.

Reminder: The House Voted to Repeal Obamacare More Than 50 Times​

And if those same Republicans hope to keep their seats come the midterm, they're going to have to do something to prove this wasn't just a political ploy under Obama.

That brings down rates for insured individuals, if everybody is receiving medical care.

The only way it would raise rates would be if lots of people were not insured individuals, and could not pay for medical care, and therefore did not receive any, before.

No, basic economic tells us that not accounting for risk drives up prices for everyone, as the insurers are forced to defray the risk among all policies.

Apparently they can't! They control the whole of the federal government and still can't get shit done. I gave a lot of shit to democrats for when they had total control that the best they could do was obamacare, but clearly republicans bet the record for incompetence.

And how long did it take Democrats? Remember, the ACA wasn't even introduced to the House until July 2009 (6 months into Obama's first term), wasn't passed until October 2009, and wasn't signed into law until March 2010 (14 months into Obama's first term).
And you want to compare that to 3 months into Trump's first term? LOL! What a joke.

And again more weaseling. You asked for "obamacare-like", we provided, and now your moving the goal post in a panic to "exactly Obamacare".

Yeah, it really can't be helped that you don't have the intellectual honesty to refrain from faulty comparisons.

 

[billvon]

And if those same Republicans hope to keep their seats come the midterm, they're going to have to do something to prove this wasn't just a political ploy under Obama.

There may be some room temperature IQ types out there who still think that those were NOT political ploys - but at this point you would be hard pressed to find them.

 

[spidergoat]

And you want to compare that to 3 months into Trump's first term?

More like 7 years since they wanted to replace it.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Couples who made above 62 thousand on line 37 of ther 1040 didnt get an Obamacare subsidy to reduce ther insurance premium... an some of 'em druther have a cheep policy like they had before Obamacare an they dont care that the cheep policy wasnt nearly as good... an even tho ther makin perty good money i can still understand that they ant hapy wit the premium increase.!!!

So as a fix... policies coud be added to Obamacare which cover less an cost less... or... the cutoff maximum a couple coud make coud be increased (100 thousand?) so even they coud have as good a policy as everbody else on Obamacare.!!!

Personaly... i like everbody bein well insured (for ther own benefit... an to keep everbodys premiums lower by not usin the emergency room as ther family Dr.)... an i thank the 62 thousand cutoff is plenty generous.!!!

Hmmm... other than makin medicare avalable to all... i dont see that Obamacare needs fixin

 

[iceaura]

It's already been written and voted for...many times.

When it couldn't pass. The question was who's going to write it now.

No, basic economic tells us that not accounting for risk drives up prices for everyone, as the insurers are forced to defray the risk among all policies.

Defraying the risk among all policies lowers the prices. That's the whole point of insurance.

There may be some room temperature IQ types out there who still think that those were NOT political ploys - but at this point you would be hard pressed to find them.

You would not be hard pressed to find that view among the expressed views in US news media or in the beliefs of the core Republican electorate.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And how long did it take Democrats? Remember, the ACA wasn't even introduced to the House until July 2009 (6 months into Obama's first term), wasn't passed until October 2009, and wasn't signed into law until March 2010 (14 months into Obama's first term).
And you want to compare that to 3 months into Trump's first term? LOL! What a joke.

Dude, your ilk had 7 years to come up with an alternative, not 3 months.

Yeah, it really can't be helped that you don't have the intellectual honesty to refrain from faulty comparisons.

Yeah, it really can't be helped that you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit when your wrong.