The fall of Trumpcare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,028
    [It would have to cover R&D costs, so it would be higher than the current Canadian price.]
    And to settle law-suits and hire expert witnesses and bogus test-results, yes.
    In fact, they make a healthy profit at Canadian prices, and probably do quite well, even at the Mexican prices.
    Regulation and oversight is important (and probably next on the budget chopping-block), especially since there have been quite a few dangerous products released with inadequate testing.
    Another approach might be stopping or threatening to stop the research subsidies and tax exemptions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    That's not really practical. Requiring someone who has no money to pay $5K a year will result in him going to jail for nonpayment of taxes, whereas a rich person won't even notice that amount. And keeping people in jail is expensive, so the remaining taxpayers see their bill go up, so more of them to go to jail, and taxes go up again . . . .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    It's only complicated if you tax different income types differently. But if you taxed all income equally, it wouldn't be that difficult. I think what is being proposed is a minimum income tax, not a flat tax. A flat tax would disadvantage the poor. But if we are talking about a minimum tax (e.g. the Buffet Rule), that wouldn't be the case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Fixed, sorry.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,028
    Thanks. I believe we're reading the same stats and coming to the same conclusions.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    It's back? Republicans are now talking about reviving Trumpcare. Apparently, the pressure on the Freedom Caucus continues to mount. Right wing Christians want to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood and repealing Obamacare would have done that for them. And then there is the fact they need the trillion dollars they would take from Obamacare to fund their tax cuts for America's wealthiest families. And then there is the fact the Republican base has demanded repeal and replace for 7 years. It has become the "remember the Alamo" rallying cry within the right wing nutter base.

    But I think Trump and his fellow Republicans would be wise to let it go. He's already been badly burnt. He doesn't need to do it again. Even if he manages to get it through the House, he still has the Senate to contend with, and even then, if it gets passed, it will piss off a lot of people. When Johnny Sixpack earning 26,000 a year sees his health insurance premiums rise from 1,700 dollars a year to 15,000 dollars a year, Johnny will not be pleased. And Johnny will not care why. Republicans are hoping to sell Johnny will not notice. It's a no win situation for Republicans. I think Republicans would be wise to let this die quietly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    I agree, that would be the wise course of action.

    Unfortunately, that probably means they will do the Farragut thing - "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    True; Republicans aren't known for wisdom.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    What Republican refused to vote 'yes' thinking it would be worse than Obamacare?
    Where did the Heritage Foundation advocate, originate, or support Obamacare-like plans?
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Back in 1993 the Republicans took up a Heritage Foundation written plan from 1989, wrote a bill according to its major features, and offered it as an alternative to Clinton's initiative.

    Here's a direct comparison of the 2010 ACA with that earlier Heritage Foundation developed approach: http://khn.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/
     
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Did you honestly not know this Syne? I understand you're screwed either way, either you were ignorant or you were trolling - take your pick.
    Here's an interview for you Syne:
    If there’s one thing conservatives might hate more than Obamacare, it’s hearing that Obamacare springs from Republican ideas. The Heritage Foundation, the granddaddy of the right-wing think tanks, fumed when President Barack Obama said it was the source of the concept of the health insurance marketplaces where people could shop for the best deal. (We rated Obama's claim Mostly True.)
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    It is almost a rule of Internet forums - the more outraged a right winger is about something, the less likely he is to understand it. I am reminded of the Facebook poster who was cheering the downfall of Obamacare; he did not have to worry, he explained, because he had his healthcare coverage through the ACA.
     
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    That's one of my favorites - see my Schadenfreude posts elsewhere. It's hard to resist drinking their tears...
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    About the '93 Republican bill - it had two Democratic suckers cosponsors: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1770/cosponsors

    Just for the hell of it, not that we don't already know they were and are full of shit, we can list the Republican cosponsors of the '93 bill who voted against the 2009 ACA (every single '93 Republican cosponsor still in the Senate 16 years later did that).
    Sen. Bond, Christopher S. [R-MO]*
    Sen. Bennett, Robert F. [R-UT]*
    Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]*
    Sen. Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN]*
    Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]*
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    They didn't vote on it, that was the point. The republicans polled their house members in private, determine they did not have enough yes votes and dropped the bill, why some of them did not vote is because they wanted more cuts or they had a moment of sanity, only they know.

    This deserves a meme:



    For the love of god The heritage foundation came up with obamacare-like plan in 1989.
    http://americablog.com/2013/10/orig...on-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

    That being everyone would be forced to get insurance or pay heavy fines/taxes (individual mandate) in trade insurance companies would basically be required to insure everyone even the doomed, because with everyone paying insurance the healthy could pay for the sick and the insurance companies could still skim a profit off the top. Everyone wins, especially the insurance companies with millions and millions of new clients most of whom low risk that they can suck off like the fucking parasites they are. I swear vampires run insurance companies, that and banks, with us jews.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Republicans are once again speaking in optimistically about repealing Obamacare. Well that was brief. Just a few days ago, it was all over, and Obamacare would remain the law of the land. Now how much of this is revival just ego stroking and feeding the base, I don't know. But Republicans really do want to repeal Obamacare. One, it's a measure of their credibility with their base. For 7+ years now they have lied and fear mongered Obamacare to the point of absurdity. They not only lied about Obamacare, but they promised to repeal it on day one. And now when they control both houses of Congress they failed to do it. It's long past day one, and they couldn't even get repeal out of the House.

    Equally important, Republicans want to use the trillion dollars they will save by taking away access to healthcare for 20 million Americans to fund their tax cuts for America's wealthiest citizens. Republicans have powerful incentives to kill Obamacare. So I expect they will continue their efforts to thwart Obamacare. But it will be a difficult row for them to hoe, because Obamacare has become a very popular program. The people who have elected Republicans will not be happy when their health insurance premiums go from 1,700 per year under Obamacare to 15,000 dollars per year under Trumpcare.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  20. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,028
    They're sailing at a Scylla of not doing it and Charybdis of doing it.
    What the smarter ones - always assuming any are still alive - will opt for is retaining and renaming those portions of ACA that their constituents would be angriest to lose.
    Which means, all services relating to women, infants and reproduction will be struck down, while all programs required by fat old white men will be kept.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! Apparently you guys don't bother reading (or understanding) your own sources.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Chafee's 1993 bill was A) never taken up by the Senate, B) likely had to be bipartisan in majority Democrat held House and Senate (accounting for the Democrat cosponsors), and C) was not supported by the Heritage Foundation, as per Randwolf's link (not an "interview"):
    Conservative pushback

    Even before Chafee brought his bill forward, some conservatives were trying to scuttle it.

    More hard-line senators such as Phil Gramm, R-Texas, House Republicans and the Heritage Foundation saw the Chafee bill as an unacceptable compromise. What they wanted was outright defeat of the president’s approach.
    ...
    It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.
    - http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
    The 1989 Heritage Plan is not the Chafee plan, nor are either similar enough to Obamacare. The Chafee plan had an easy out for the individual mandate (iceaura's link):
    Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone. - http://khn.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/
    The 1989 Heritage Plan seems to specify only mandating catastrophic coverage (ElectricFetus' link):
    "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance..." - http://americablog.com/2013/10/orig...on-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html
    And even the Chafee plan required offering a catastrophic coverage policy (iceaura's link):
    Requires large employers to offer to employees at least a standard package and a catastrophic package.
    ...
    Requires each qualified health plan to provide a standard package and a catastrophic package. - http://khn.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/
    Obamacare plan requirements strictly denied catastrophic coverage only.
    So not only did the Heritage plan only require an individual mandate for catastrophic coverage, but the Chafee plan, not supported by the Heritage Foundation, allowed an easy religious exemption to the individual mandate, so it was a bipartisan olive branch that had no teeth.

    Randwolf, maybe you should read past the first paragraph of your source.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Iceaura, maybe you should read all of your source as well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Care to try again?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Care to try again?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
    So the similarity of Trumpcare to the Heritage Foundation plan makes it unacceptable to Republicans.

    The problem then becomes: this Heritage model was the rightwing backstop against incoming socialism - it was supposedly a way to arrange things so that ordinary people could obtain basic First World medical care in the US, or at least be presented with the illusion of the possibility so that they would not revolt politically, without interfering with corporate capitalist profit-making or socializing any aspect of medical care delivery, and in particular without significantly raising taxes on rich people. It was the only such combination play ever invented.

    So the combination play is toast. Obamacare will fail, because costs are already too high for it and they are rising, and because the amendments it needs to limp along face a Republican government incapable of such maintenance. What happens then?
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    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.
     

Share This Page