|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 20, 2013 13:38:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 20, 2013 15:07:02 GMT -8
Almost put me to sleep but the idea that obamakare and Medicare as currently exist can not be sustained over the long term is clear. Medicare would be an easier fix, but not cheap. Obamakare can not work over the long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 20, 2013 16:11:32 GMT -8
Medicare for All!  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 20, 2013 16:36:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 20, 2013 17:36:55 GMT -8
Medicare for All! For all U.S. citizens only maybe. And that means all federal, state, and local government employees. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 20, 2013 22:47:36 GMT -8
Okay, fair enough. But if most people won't be affected, then why pass a bill of 2500 pages (with 20,000 pages of rules and regs) that basically affects all aspects of health care? Why not just pass a law that gives subsidies to the people who now do not have insurance? I think that would have worked, and the GOP, if given a serious chance to participate in the writing of the bill, would almost certainly have supported it. Or at any rate a sizable number of Repbs. would have voted "aye." Wouldn't that have been a much better way to handle this issue? And please don't say that one of the main reasons to pass ObamaCare was to lower health care costs. It's pretty clear that the cost curve is not going to go down, and a least some of the bill's supporters would agree with that. The only way ObamaCare is gong to lower costs is by draconian rationing of health care. That will cost many, many lives. As I have said several times before on this board, we needn't have had this nasty fight over healthcare insurance. The party in power basically said "My way or the highway." That arrogance has proven costly. As with the 2009 stimulus, I can't imagine that the administration anticipated that years later the public would not be covering them with flowers and kisses. The lesson; don't be too sure of yourself. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 21, 2013 9:45:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 21, 2013 10:39:47 GMT -8
Okay, fair enough. But if most people won't be affected, then why pass a bill of 2500 pages (with 20,000 pages of rules and regs) that basically affects all aspects of health care? Why not just pass a law that gives subsidies to the people who now do not have insurance? I think that would have worked, and the GOP, if given a serious chance to participate in the writing of the bill, would almost certainly have supported it. Or at any rate a sizable number of Repbs. would have voted "aye." Wouldn't that have been a much better way to handle this issue? And please don't say that one of the main reasons to pass ObamaCare was to lower health care costs. It's pretty clear that the cost curve is not going to go down, and a least some of the bill's supporters would agree with that. The only way ObamaCare is gong to lower costs is by draconian rationing of health care. That will cost many, many lives. As I have said several times before on this board, we needn't have had this nasty fight over healthcare insurance. The party in power basically said "My way or the highway." That arrogance has proven costly. As with the 2009 stimulus, I can't imagine that the administration anticipated that years later the public would not be covering them with flowers and kisses. The lesson; don't be too sure of yourself. AzWm Plowed ground, William. No point in going over it again. It seems to me that the true path for conservatives on ACA is to let it go forward. If it fails, as you say it will, then liberals will be so chastised they will vote for Ron Paul and wait for the soon to be libertarian paradise. On the other hand, if it succeeds then you conservatives can share in the benefits. A win win for cons. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 22, 2013 8:21:06 GMT -8
Okay, fair enough. But if most people won't be affected, then why pass a bill of 2500 pages (with 20,000 pages of rules and regs) that basically affects all aspects of health care? Why not just pass a law that gives subsidies to the people who now do not have insurance? I think that would have worked, and the GOP, if given a serious chance to participate in the writing of the bill, would almost certainly have supported it. Or at any rate a sizable number of Repbs. would have voted "aye." Wouldn't that have been a much better way to handle this issue? And please don't say that one of the main reasons to pass ObamaCare was to lower health care costs. It's pretty clear that the cost curve is not going to go down, and a least some of the bill's supporters would agree with that. The only way ObamaCare is gong to lower costs is by draconian rationing of health care. That will cost many, many lives. As I have said several times before on this board, we needn't have had this nasty fight over healthcare insurance. The party in power basically said "My way or the highway." That arrogance has proven costly. As with the 2009 stimulus, I can't imagine that the administration anticipated that years later the public would not be covering them with flowers and kisses. The lesson; don't be too sure of yourself. AzWm Plowed ground, William. No point in going over it again. It seems to me that the true path for conservatives on ACA is to let it go forward. If it fails, as you say it will, then liberals will be so chastised they will vote for Ron Paul and wait for the soon to be libertarian paradise. On the other hand, if it succeeds then you conservatives can share in the benefits. A win win for cons. I have reached the conclusion that it is very unlikely that ObamaCare can be repealed. Only a Republican President and a Republican Congress, with a super majority in the Senate, would be able to do that. The latter is unlikely, though a simple 51 GOP Senate members is quite possible. The former looks very unlikely in 2016. I happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a well-regarded mediocrity. The problem for the Republican Party is that being a well-regarded mediocrity beats being a despised genius. Even a genius will not be enough to beat THE FIRST WOMAN TO BE PRESIDENT! ! ! Especially with the bulk of the media running interference for her. If Hillary wins in 2016, she will be 73 when running for re-election. Unless the economy is completely in recession, it will be hard to beat her despite her age. Besides, if Hillary wins big in '16, I think that a third party, probably made up of disaffected Republicans and some independents, will emerge, thus handing the election to the Democrats on a platter. By that time, the UCA (Unafordable Care Act) will be too entrenched to get rid of. . . no matter how costly and cumbersome, no matter how much quality of care has declined, no matter how obvious it is that the well-connected (e.g., govt. employees, the rich) have better care than the rest of us. Therefore, the best that can be done by those who, like me, see ObamaCare as a terrible mistake, is to try to modify it by changing some of the law's more pernicious provisions. That I believe is possible, though even that will not be easy. The Democrats, especially BHO, will be very, very unwilling to admit that the law was badly flawed and perhaps totally unworkable from the start. Still, if the effects of the law are as negative as appears to be the case, the Republicans may enlist the support of enough sensible Democrats to pass bills making crucial changes. But would the President then sign such bills into law? AzWm |
|
