• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

I think Dean makes plenty of good points in the above article. Of course the ACA doesn't go far enough in the moment to get us where we want to be: a much more unified system that delivers higher quality and value to us as a society. And that provides good healthcare for all our citizens. The ACA is a start. And, politically, it's about as far "right" as you can get and have any hope of accomplishing these goals. And look at the shitstorm the Pubs are producing over it. The oppositional reaction is, IMO, essentially insane. You think we'd have any chance of getting something more progressive through?

To be honest they could have passed anything they wanted. They had the votes. Zero Pubs voted for ACA and it still became law. Why care about the opposition if you aren't going to use their votes anyway? Clearly their opinion didn't matter.
 
To be honest they could have passed anything they wanted. They had the votes. Zero Pubs voted for ACA and it still became law. Why care about the opposition if you aren't going to use their votes anyway? Clearly their opinion didn't matter.

No, they couldn't have. There are/were conservative leaning dems who had to be coddled
 
Tax the sources of illness/injury. Motorcycles would def be taxed 100% like cheeseburgers. Bye bye Harley Davidson

Absolutely. I know you are being fecetious, but that is another reform I would make. Some states have what is called Personal Injury Protection as part of their required auto/motorcycle insurance, which covers medical bills arising from accidents so that regualr health insurance does not have to cover those bills. Thus the riskiness of the vehicle is directly tied to the premium which is ultimately paying the medical bills. That should become mandatory across all states. Yes it raises auto insurance rates, but it decreases health insurance rates and lines up the expenditures with the risk more appropriately.
 
To be honest they could have passed anything they wanted. They had the votes. Zero Pubs voted for ACA and it still became law. Why care about the opposition if you aren't going to use their votes anyway? Clearly their opinion didn't matter.

No, they couldn't have. There are/were conservative leaning dems who had to be coddled


That and I suspect they knew the opposition wasn't going to end with the passage of the law. As it is, they left Republicans with only the option to bitch mindlessly about the ACA without any apparently rational justification and without any ability to create a viable conservative alternative. Or the Pubs could decide to go along and make something good and bipartisan at the same time. Too late now.
 
No, they couldn't have. There are/were conservative leaning dems who had to be coddled

That isn't the fault of the tea party or republicans. They had democratic super in both and the presidency. If they have issues within their own party so be it but the result of this legislation is 100% on democrats for better or worse. Compromising within your own party is vastly different than bipartisan legislation.

Republicans are still responsible for the Tea Party whether we like or not. We can't blame it on the Democrats even if the Tea Party was fueled by Anti-Obama/ACA gasoline. They are our responsibility and we somehow have to figure out how to deal with them. The conservative Democrats in your party are still your responsibility. You can't pass a law with unanimous Democratic support and 0% Republican support and blame any of the negative effects on the Republicans. It is your baby, for better or for worse.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what your position is here, jhmd. Are you advocating that we just do nothing and keep nearly 50 million Americans without healthcare coverage? If not, what is your position....and what is the position of your Republican Party? The reason I ask is that I haven't heard one during the last four years of this debate.

My position is that you should at least address the actual problem, and do so in honest terms.

The actual problem was, is and shall be supply: we've quadrupled the size of North Carolina since the last med school opened. We need to rebalance supply and demand. I've posted no less than five times that we need to build more medical schools, with attached clinics where graduates get heavily subsidized tuition in exchange for their commitment to either repay or pay through service commitment as primary care providers for uninsured people for baseline and retail level care: well baby checks, annual physicals, ER-type vists, screenings, etc. Ask people to cover their own catastrophic care by something similar to the negative, individual mandate (not that the positive individual mandate isn't a great idea; it is a bold step in conservative economic theory) that people can actually afford, and make everybody pay; and I mean really make them pay, by refusing to do it for them when they can (and if you limit it to catastrophic care, people WILL pay premiums for that). Finally, I'd rather have working families paying for their own medical care through Medicare withholdings than that of rich, retired people (where a lot of the wealth is already concentrated) who've put in seven good decades. they've had a good run, but those dollars are better spent on prenatal care for the unborn child trying to develop inside an expecting mother in a working family (keyword: working; cf. entitlement-stricken). But back to what's wrong with the current plan: does ACA touch on the supply/demand problem? Actually in fairness, I'll give you that it does: it increases demand by insuring people who don't currently have care (with magic, its-from-the-government-its-free-monies) and sending them into the system on someone else's dime. It feels great in our hearts, will be poorly implemented, and is not sustainable: it's the perfect government plan. All it's going to do is aggravate the current problems, and eventually providers are going to start going underground. How many people do you know who already get concierge care? The market always walks away from the folly of collectivism: ask Detroit. Is what is actually wrong too many doctors sitting listlessly around b/c patients don't have insurance? Why not fix what's actually wrong?

The honest terms tell anyone who is paying attention that the individual mandate ain't going to cover the hand-out portion of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi was ready to vote for it the minute she heard its name was Obamacare; what could go wrong, amirite? Bob, for all of the elbows we've traded over the years, you know that I respect your candor: honestly, do you think there is a chance in hell that the ACA is going to do anything other than raise costs on people that pay into the system? If not, can you please tell me how? I think the American people (at least the majority who oppose it) don't trust the "But it will bring costs down" canard. If it actually would, why didn't O/B roll up the House in 2012? Instead, people actually re-elected the Boeher majority. Why?
 
Last edited:
My position is that you should at least address the actual problem, and do so in honest terms.

The actual problem was, is and shall be supply: we've quadrupled the size of North Carolina since the last med school opened. We need to rebalance supply and demand. I've posted no less than five times that we need to build more medical schools, with attached clinics where graduates get heavily subsidized tuition in exchange for their commitment to either repay or pay through service commitment as primary care providers for uninsured people for baseline and retail level care: well baby checks, annual physicals, ER-type vists, screenings, etc. Ask people to cover their own catastrophic care by something similar to the negative, individual mandate (not that the positive individual mandate isn't a great idea; it is a bold step in conservative economic theory) that people can actually afford, and make everybody pay; and I mean really make them pay, by refusing to do it for them when they can (and if you limit it to catastrophic care, people WILL pay premiums for that). Finally, I'd rather have working families paying for their own medical care through Medicare withholdings than that of rich, retired people (where a lot of the wealth is already concentrated) who've put in seven good decades. they've had a good run, but those dollars are better spent on prenatal care for the unborn child trying to develop inside an expecting mother in a working family (keyword: working; cf. entitlement-stricken). But back to what's wrong with the current plan: does ACA touch on the supply/demand problem? Actually in fairness, I'll give you that it does: it increases demand by insuring people who don't currently have care (with magic, its-from-the-government-its-free-monies) and sending them into the system on someone else's dime. It feels great in our hearts, will be poorly implemented, and is not sustainable: it's the perfect government plan. All it's going to do is aggravate the current problems, and eventually providers are going to start going underground. How many people do you know who already get concierge care? The market always walks away from the folly of collectivism: ask Detroit. Is what is actually wrong too many doctors sitting listlessly around b/c patients don't have insurance? Why not fix what's actually wrong?

The honest terms tell anyone who is paying attention that the individual mandate ain't going to cover the hand-out portion of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi was ready to vote for it the minute she heard its name was Obamacare; what could go wrong, amirite? Bob, for all of the elbows we've traded over the years, you know that I respect your candor: honestly, do you think there is a chance in hell that the ACA is going to do anything other than raise costs on people that pay into the system? If not, can you please tell me how? I think the American people (at least the majority who oppose it) don't trust the "But it will bring costs down" canard. If it actually would, why didn't O/B roll up the House in 2012? Instead, people actually re-elected the Boeher majority. Why?

Stopped reading here, but someone let VA, SC, GA and the Atlantic Ocean know this is occurring.
 
That isn't the fault of the tea party or republicans. They had democratic super in both and the presidency. If they have issues within their own party so be it but the result of this legislation is 100% on democrats for better or worse. Compromising within your own party is vastly different than bipartisan legislation.

Republicans are still responsible for the Tea Party whether we like or not. We can't blame it on the Democrats even if the Tea Party was fueled by Anti-Obama/ACA gasoline. They are our responsibility and we somehow have to figure out how to deal with them. The conservative Democrats in your party are still your responsibility. You can't pass a law with unanimous Democratic support and 0% Republican support and blame any of the negative effects on the Republicans. It is your baby, for better or for worse.

I don't understand this post. I was simply pointing out that they couldn't have passed single-payer or whatever, because there are blue dog dems in moderate districts. The liberal/conservative line variates in different regions of the country.
 
Stopped reading here, but someone let VA, SC, GA and the Atlantic Ocean know this is occurring.

Manifest Destiny, or perhaps I was referring to population. Perhaps.
 
Stopped reading here, but someone let VA, SC, GA and the Atlantic Ocean know this is occurring.



superman03-1341456828.jpg
 
Or perhaps you were cutting and pasting someone else's thoughts as your own...

That's quite a charge. I certainly hope you can support that (but know better).

A reckless accusation is a poor substitute for an answer, but the evasion is still noted.
 
That's quite a charge. I certainly hope you can support that (but know better).

A reckless accusation is a poor substitute for an answer, but the evasion is still noted.

I stated "perhaps," taking "reckless accusation" and "charge" out of the equation, and releasing me from having to support anything.

Glenn Beck 101 man.
 
I stated "perhaps," taking "reckless accusation" and "charge" out of the equation, and releasing me from having to support anything.

Glenn Beck 101 man.

Congrats on the weasel word merit badge. Feel free to use the search function and see the multiple times I've posted this proposal, and then you can find the guy I copied my ideas from (hint: it was me from six months ago).

But I agree with you that it actually WOULD be pretty lame if someone stole an idea about how to reform health care that wouldn't actually work. For example, the time that Team Hope & Change poached the individual mandate from the Heritage Foundation, and then got buyer's remorse when they realized it was not only wildly unpopular but also likely ineffective, and started delaying its implementation.

I know I speak for everyone when I saw we all enjoyed your rendition of the Dance of the Tards off topic, can we return to my question about how the ACA is actually going to bring costs down? Or if you can't do that, you could just call me names again and blame Fox News or Bush or something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
I don't understand this post. I was simply pointing out that they couldn't have passed single-payer or whatever, because there are blue dog dems in moderate districts. The liberal/conservative line variates in different regions of the country.

It means....stop blaming Republicans for the 'compromises' the Democrats made in ACA. We had nothing to do with it. Any compromise you might have made was within your own party.
 
Congrats on the weasel word merit badge. Feel free to use the search function and see the multiple times I've posted this proposal, and then you can find the guy I copied my ideas from (hint: it was me from six months ago).

But I agree with you that it actually WOULD be pretty lame if someone stole an idea about how to reform health care that wouldn't actually work. For example, the time that Team Hope & Change poached the individual mandate from the Heritage Foundation, and then got buyer's remorse when they realized it was not only wildly unpopular but also likely ineffective, and started delaying its implementation.

I know I speak for everyone when I saw we all enjoyed your rendition of the Dance of the Tards off topic, can we return to my question about how the ACA is actually going to bring costs down? Or if you can't do that, you could just call me names again and blame Fox News or Bush or something.

You were doing so great up till this bit.

Fuckface.:D
 
Back
Top