(03-22-2017 07:10 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  so what's your plan for the millions that lose coverage? what's your plan to put something new in place? realistically how long do you think that will take to start all over? Consider there will be millions who once had some sort of coverage that while time it takes to develop something else. Do you really want to give them a clean slate?

In principle I actually agree with a 100% free market approach. Ire just that right NOW, practically speaking I'm not sure that there is another way to do it without serious harm to the public and political consequences.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

We already have medicare and medicaid for the poor and old. Simply allow the healthy to buy-in to these programs at cost. Tahdah. No new entitlements. No new programs. And by making those programs healthier, you probably even make them less expensive per capita.

On top of that, pass these vague Phase 3 "promises" Ryan talks about when he wants to butter up people to this turd of a bill. Letting small businesses pool together and collectively bargain for insurance. Letting people buy across state lines. Hell, I'd even let people buy from Canada too. Removing FDA red tape to low cost generics. Malpractice reform.

The bill as it stands now is little more than rebranded lightly watered down ObamaCare. It will destroy what is left of the individual market which is already barely clinging on in a dozen states.

(03-22-2017 08:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/saving-priv...?mod=e2two

Article suggests that, similar to the Maine model, it will dramatically improve the individual market.

Not going to pay for a WSJ subscription to read one article. And just from the two paragraphs it's clear that the "solution" is to have a $100b federal slush fund for state high risk pools. And might I add state high risk pools -- before ObamaCare even -- were very expensive. That doesn't solve anything ... it just makes the situation marginally less terrible while that pool of money is there. After that money dries up?

(03-22-2017 02:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 07:10 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  so what's your plan for the millions that lose coverage? what's your plan to put something new in place? realistically how long do you think that will take to start all over? Consider there will be millions who once had some sort of coverage that while time it takes to develop something else. Do you really want to give them a clean slate?

In principle I actually agree with a 100% free market approach. Ire just that right NOW, practically speaking I'm not sure that there is another way to do it without serious harm to the public and political consequences.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

We already have medicare and medicaid for the poor and old. Simply allow the healthy to buy-in to these programs at cost. Tahdah. No new entitlements. No new programs. And by making those programs healthier, you probably even make them less expensive per capita.

And that's more than fair.

What about people who, like myself, were born with chronic health conditions but don't qualify for Medicaid? What are they supposed to do? My dad had a decent job and my mother and I both had health problems. I was in and out of hospitals A LOT from the time I was 3 into my teens. My dad literally had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because he couldn't keep up. What do you tell those families?

(03-22-2017 02:43 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  And that's more than fair.

What about people who, like myself, were born with chronic health conditions but don't qualify for Medicaid? What are they supposed to do? My dad had a decent job and my mother and I both had health problems. I was in and out of hospitals A LOT from the time I was 3 into my teens. My dad literally had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because he couldn't keep up. What do you tell those families?

The reforms I posted in another thread would help by bringing down costs substantially for a start. And it would allow your dad to have collectively bargained in an ENORMOUS insurance pool which helps spread outlier costs like yours over hundreds of thousands of people. The bigger the pool, the more it can accommodate expensive outliers.

(03-21-2017 11:20 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 05:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Full repeal would take 60 votes in the Senate. That is just not a realistic possibility. They can repeal the portion that passed after Kennedy died with 51 votes, but there is no realistic way to repeal the bill that passed on Christmas eve

http://csnbbs.com/thread-800902-page-5.html

I agree with you 100% that the President should remove the Congressional loopholes that Obama gave them and force Congress to live under Obamacare as the bill intended.

That would definitely spur some action. He seems to be trying to place nice with GOP Congressional leadership at this time so I do not know if that option is on the table.

It should be though, those jokers are not under the Obamacare all of us are under

(03-22-2017 03:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:43 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  And that's more than fair.

What about people who, like myself, were born with chronic health conditions but don't qualify for Medicaid? What are they supposed to do? My dad had a decent job and my mother and I both had health problems. I was in and out of hospitals A LOT from the time I was 3 into my teens. My dad literally had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because he couldn't keep up. What do you tell those families?

The reforms I posted in another thread would help by bringing down costs substantially for a start. And it would allow your dad to have collectively bargained in an ENORMOUS insurance pool which helps spread outlier costs like yours over hundreds of thousands of people. The bigger the pool, the more it can accommodate expensive outliers.

what do you do with those people right NOW? I agree in the future. I just dont see a way to get there quickly.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-22-2017 03:16 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 03:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:43 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  And that's more than fair.

What about people who, like myself, were born with chronic health conditions but don't qualify for Medicaid? What are they supposed to do? My dad had a decent job and my mother and I both had health problems. I was in and out of hospitals A LOT from the time I was 3 into my teens. My dad literally had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because he couldn't keep up. What do you tell those families?

The reforms I posted in another thread would help by bringing down costs substantially for a start. And it would allow your dad to have collectively bargained in an ENORMOUS insurance pool which helps spread outlier costs like yours over hundreds of thousands of people. The bigger the pool, the more it can accommodate expensive outliers.

what do you do with those people right NOW? I agree in the future. I just dont see a way to get there quickly.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah best case scenario it's gonna take at least a year or 2 to get all that set up and see drastic reductions in costs, assuming of course it all works like you are saying.

(03-22-2017 03:16 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  what do you do with those people right NOW? I agree in the future. I just dont see a way to get there quickly.

So keep the (frankly ridiculous) $100b slush fund bailout for high risk pools. Even $100b pales in comparison to the pain coming if this turd passes.

(03-22-2017 03:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 03:16 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  what do you do with those people right NOW? I agree in the future. I just dont see a way to get there quickly.

So keep the (frankly ridiculous) $100b slush fund bailout for high risk pools. Even $100b pales in comparison to the pain coming if this turd passes.

Do you not like what the bill does or the fact that it does not go far enough in repeal and replace?

I honestly have not researched it that much but I know that without 60 votes they cannot do true repeal and replace so anything that would lessen the obamacare taxation would help.

(03-22-2017 03:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 03:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 03:16 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  what do you do with those people right NOW? I agree in the future. I just dont see a way to get there quickly.

So keep the (frankly ridiculous) $100b slush fund bailout for high risk pools. Even $100b pales in comparison to the pain coming if this turd passes.

Do you not like what the bill does or the fact that it does not go far enough in repeal and replace?

I honestly have not researched it that much but I know that without 60 votes they cannot do true repeal and replace so anything that would lessen the obamacare taxation would help.

Ughhhhhhhh I'm so sick of hearing artificial made up deadlines and barriers. 60 votes isn't the barrier. 51 is. McConnell can be made to move or replaced.

The bill has ZERO reform. The bill will hurt the individual market (and me) even more even faster than ObamaCare is. The bill repeals almost nothing and replaces even less. The ONLY good thing about the bill is medicaid block grants ... and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even add THAT token reform to the bill.

Hey hey hey look at this -- the Senate is preparing to use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. But the nuclear option is IMPOSSIBLE right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/...delay.html


Where there is a will ... there is a way.

(03-22-2017 02:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 07:10 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  so what's your plan for the millions that lose coverage? what's your plan to put something new in place? realistically how long do you think that will take to start all over? Consider there will be millions who once had some sort of coverage that while time it takes to develop something else. Do you really want to give them a clean slate?

In principle I actually agree with a 100% free market approach. Ire just that right NOW, practically speaking I'm not sure that there is another way to do it without serious harm to the public and political consequences.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

We already have medicare and medicaid for the poor and old. Simply allow the healthy to buy-in to these programs at cost. Tahdah. No new entitlements. No new programs. And by making those programs healthier, you probably even make them less expensive per capita.

On top of that, pass these vague Phase 3 "promises" Ryan talks about when he wants to butter up people to this turd of a bill. Letting small businesses pool together and collectively bargain for insurance. Letting people buy across state lines. Hell, I'd even let people buy from Canada too. Removing FDA red tape to low cost generics. Malpractice reform.

The bill as it stands now is little more than rebranded lightly watered down ObamaCare. It will destroy what is left of the individual market which is already barely clinging on in a dozen states.

(03-22-2017 08:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/saving-priv...?mod=e2two

Article suggests that, similar to the Maine model, it will dramatically improve the individual market.

Not going to pay for a WSJ subscription to read one article. And just from the two paragraphs it's clear that the "solution" is to have a $100b federal slush fund for state high risk pools. And might I add state high risk pools -- before ObamaCare even -- were very expensive. That doesn't solve anything ... it just makes the situation marginally less terrible while that pool of money is there. After that money dries up?

(secret-you can read it-its just in very faded print-I have to take off my glasses and get close to the screen)

(03-21-2017 01:42 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  LOL
The Trumpbots have no idea what they like. Trump has to tell them first.

Wrong on some but not all. Some of us "Trumpbots" want the GOP reborn as something actually conservative and solution minded.

(03-22-2017 03:56 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Hey hey hey look at this -- the Senate is preparing to use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. But the nuclear option is IMPOSSIBLE right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/...delay.html


Where there is a will ... there is a way.

You only go nuclear if they go nuclear first (which would be the case if 41 Dems vote no on Gorsuch).

Using 51 votes to completely replace Obamacare means they can reinstall it if they get Presidency, Senate and House.