I did make my case in this thread. Go back to post #3. All three "repeal and replace" bills had as it's main feature removing Medicaid as an entitlement and reducing spending, therefore making them impossible to pass anything other than the House. No bill like that was going to pass the Senate. It's pretty clear that was a poison pill. I don't think Ryan wanted any of those bills to pass because: 1. He wanted to embarrass Trump 2. He didn't want the responsibility of the fairly horrible results if any of those bills passed. No could you please explain what "Ryan's Roadmap" has to do with anything? Seriously. It was a fake proposal that was never even legislation, but you keep touting it as if it was an actual accomplishment. It was boob bait to make conservative policy wonks think Ryan was actually with them, when the only people Ryan was with were the donors. I'm not arguing for the Freedom Caucus, but its hard not to compare how as Speaker Nancy Pelosi ramrodded a truly odious bill through the House (Obamacare) but Ryan couldn't accomplish anything. He's a failure. I'm sorry if your sickened, but the results of the Ryan House leadership will not be a sterling highlight of GOP governance. But at least Ryan's donors will be happy, so that's something.
I had a somewhat similar experience I have a medicare advantage plan Needed an emergency heart valve replacement I do not remember how much it cost But not too bad But in a totally free market scenario, and assuming there is no medicare And if one happened not to have good work related coverage Then people could face either Prohibitively expensive coverage due to age Or Insufficent coverage from trying to get a good price... or simply not understanding coverage and risks Or Getting hit with a pre existing condition gottcha.... like in my case, maybe i have surgery, but then the insurance company bumps up the next year premium cost to unaffordablility based on my now having a high risk pre-existing heart condition condition
That’s BS. All the Ryan plan needed was 50 votes due to reconciliation. Where does this BS about removing Medicaid as a program in the Ryan-Pence 3 part plan ?? The Ryan Roadmap is important because health insurance reform is a big part of the Roadmap. And it clearly demonstrates that Ryan had spent a lot of time (years) thinking through reforms necessary to improve healthcare and the major entitlement programs and also a national training program to increase the productivity of US workers. Read it. To claim that Ryan purposely sabotaged attempts to repeal and replace ObamaCare is complete BS. Claiming that he wanted to embarrass Trump is ridiculous. Those responsible for the continuation of ObamaCare are the Freedom Caucus. Are you completely ignorant of why ObamaCare passed ?? The D's had 60 votes in the Senate. That had nothing to do with Pelosi nor Ryan's performance as the Speaker. Judging from your posts on this I can only conclude that you don't understand how the government works and that for some reason you have an irrational hatred of Paul Ryan. The main objectives of the Trump administration were tax reform, reform ObamaCare, and spending cuts. Tax reform was done, ObamaCare remains thanks to the Freedom Causus, and spending cuts could not be made because Trump correctly wanted increased military spending but didn't have the 60 Senate votes to actually cut overall spending.
@AFM So why don't Boardies "Get It"? 2 pages of hackneyed REPEAL. STATES REPLACE. 10th Amendment The Republican Party mistake was buying into, Federal Replace. Stupid is as stupid does The GOP did a stupid in associating repeal with replace. What part is incorrect? Moi Don't ize
If the healthcare industry, providers and insurers, can't supply affordable costs, it will, without a doubt, end up as gov't funded. So, if they don't want that, they should be working to lower costs.
The D's will block anything like that with their Senate votes. 60 votes are required. The R's only had a minimal majority.
Why does anyone think government controlled health insurance and healthcare is any worse than insurance company controlled health insurance and healthcare?
I don't know. The concept of the states being governance laboratories is fundamental to the creation of the US. Of course this is not discussed in the education system any more.
They tried and almost did it if it weren't for McCain voting against it. I found that strange since during his many floor speeches in 2010 when Dems were attempting to pass it he was against it as written It was clearly a very flawed Act. It should have been seperatesd into Insurance legislation regulating private insurance companies, the Patient Protection portion and finally the revisions to Medicare. With over 35 years in health field I knew immediately that it would fail to control premiums and regulate private insurers. Even worse, the fact it promised to bail out insurers if they experienced losses showed that the Dems were protecting these companies and not the middle class or employers. They need to revise the PPACA. The transparency Obama promised to potential insurers never happened. Companies can still price you out of your current policy and can raise your deductibles and co-payments. Not much changed and in fact became worse. Dems and a republicans are clueless and simply have no idea what to do. Read my other posts in Medicare for all.
Sorry but private health insurance and healthcare is already rationed by the ability to pay. Try again!
And government systems ration healthcare spending at 50% of what the private healthcare consumers spend in the US. Try again.
That has no relevence to anything and makes absolutly no sense. But if you would care to actually supply any evidence to clarify exactly what you are trying to say. Are you trying to compare the health insurance exchanges to company sponsored health insurance or to individually purchased policies or perhaps to Medicare and Medicaid or to healthcare furnished in emergency rooms?
Because the people that run the govt are biased, crave power, inefficient, unaccountable, and produce inferior results. Compare life insurance, liability insurance, property insurance, car insurance, plane insurance, to health insurance - all except health insurance are fast, efficient, and effective. But health insurance is not really health insurance anymore, its a health payment management system due to govt intrusion.
I think the other types of insurance are fundamentally different from health insurance. First there is minimal competition both in insurance providers and in the providers of the healthcare itself. Second the payouts of the other types are basically bounded by the value of what is insured and in most cases if you fail to buy the insurance you as an individual will suffer financially should the need for that insurance arise. In healthcare if you fail to have insurance you get the healthcare and everyone else pays for it. And in healthcare there are no limits on how much the healthcare can cost for an individual and no real incentives gor the healthcare providers to control costs.
Well I understand that we spend more as a nation than any other developed country but that includes all spending both private and government. That still doesn't help me understand your post. Here is what you said that I am trying to understand: " And government systems ration healthcare spending at 50% of what the private healthcare consumers spend in the US." If what you are saying is that countries that have government run healthcare systems limit and control costs that is certainly true. And yet they usually have better outcomes that the US with it's almost unlimited consumption.
Trump's temporary tax cuts for the middle class will be made permanent by the Dem house and opposed by a Red senate: not good for the GOP. The same will happen with ACA. Curious to see with the Dems do with DOD spending.
dairyair has the gist of it. Those who suggest that western nationalized health systems do not have better outcomes are woefully educated, mentally feeble, or malignantly motivated.
