Another extremely biased editorial - but why should I be surprised at this point? To almost anybody that has looked at healthcare solutions around the world, the ACA looks like a "gift" to the insurance companies - over $80 billions a year just for the subsidies for people earning between 100 and 250 percent of the poverty line. When will you - and the politicians who gave us this horrible law - finally admit that it is only a "ploy" to pass federal tax dollars to the insurance companies via subsidies. The ACA is all about Insurance and not Healthcare - and the two things are NOT the same!
1
The only upside of the Trump election is that is forcing both sides to work together. Mostly against him. Who knew it's Trump the peacemaker?
2
There is, alas, only one healthcare system that will work for all, and that is cradle-to-grave, single-payer, tax-funded, gov't managed insurance. A distant second would be what we had before Nixon popularized for-profit HMOs, and that is private, non-profit insurance. As soon as you let the vulture for-profit companies into areas that are essential and not appropriate for market values-based mechanisms (health, education, military) you are merely picking the pockets of people who have no alternative.
6
I do not understand why Trump, Ryan, McConnell and the others see fellow Americans as enemies. Those hurt and perhaps killed by the termination of their healthcare are among the most vulnerable in the country.
Trump claims that he cares deeply about people working in the coal industry. The ACA covers black lung disease.
Is it even legal for the president of the United States to execute an action that will result in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, and harm millions?
Trump claims that he cares deeply about people working in the coal industry. The ACA covers black lung disease.
Is it even legal for the president of the United States to execute an action that will result in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, and harm millions?
6
The NoLabels Group (and the related caucus) have come up with numerous common sense proposals to address myriad problems plaguing the US. If it takes the current national frenzy over health care to get others to pay attention to their message, so be it. Look them up to see what other great ideas they are working on...
3
At the end of the day, if Republicans and Democrats show strength to Trump, he may whine and moan but ultimately go along.
Just look at the call with Pena-Nieto and Turnbull. Lot of whining by Trump, but at the end of both calls it was status quo: Pena-Nieto refused to stop saying Mexico won't pay for the wall and the Trump stood by the U.S. commitment to take refugees from Australia.
Just look at the call with Pena-Nieto and Turnbull. Lot of whining by Trump, but at the end of both calls it was status quo: Pena-Nieto refused to stop saying Mexico won't pay for the wall and the Trump stood by the U.S. commitment to take refugees from Australia.
2
join the rest of the western world: universal single payer cradle-to-grave healthcare! it can be done. the will to promote the Common Good over political trickery needs to win out. no one should fail to see preventative treatment for lack of funds, nor treatment of illnesses. it's a sin to let this insurance scam go on. ACA was a start in a better direction. time to do the best for the Common Good already!
5
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has launched a campaign in support of a bill he's developing that will offer a plan for "Medicare for all."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/02/bernie-sanders-universal...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/02/bernie-sanders-universal...
3
It' s a big mistake for Democrats to let the GOP off the hook for their six year effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, with absolutely no regard for the pain and suffering they would cause their fellow Americans. The American electorate should consider the stress, anxiety, drama, trauma, the blatant dishonesty, the vile degradation of our political dialogue, the corrosion of our democracy and the general malaise, insecurity, and personal turmoil brought about - quite needlessly - by the malevolent depredations of the Republican Criminal Organization over the last six years. And why? The ACA is a REPUBLICAN plan, created the REPUBLICAN Heritage Foundation, and implemented successfully by Mitt Romney - a REPUBLICAN - in Massachusetts. But it was passed under a black man, so this singular achievement, providing health care to millions of otherwise uninsured Americans, must of course be totally undone because of the color of President Obama's skin. This vile racist organization, the GOP, a seditious criminal conspiracy masquerading as a political party, owned by plutocrats, banks and polluters, must be held accountable from top to bottom, and cut out, like the cancer it is, from the American body politic. Look to California to see the amazing progress that can be made once Republican criminals are totally removed from political life. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/jerry-brown-saves-california-447559.html
NO REPUBLICANS in 2018! NO REPUBLICANS in 2020!! NONE! NOT ONE!!
NO REPUBLICANS in 2018! NO REPUBLICANS in 2020!! NONE! NOT ONE!!
4
Actually the ACA is a Democratic plan that was passed in Massachusetts by a legislature that was overwhelmingly Democratic and signed into law by Romney only because the alternative was to go against the will of the people. The real Heritage Foundation plan is more like what the Republicans have been trying to do: tax credits for insurance, an end to medicare/medicaid and a whole bunch of handwaving regarding the question of how the poor are to buy health insurance.
1
If either party were actually serious about doing their job for a change, the Treasonous Fascist at the Executive helm would be sweating a lot more than a federal investigation. The Great American Experiment is The Great American Failure.
C'mon, NYT....please endorse Single Payer/Medicare for ALL - call it what you will! Your readers, and the nation, will be grateful. No more slice 'n dice healthcare for some with lots of fine print.
6
Here's a novel idea. Remove insurance companies from health care. Insurance companies demand profits and have high administrative costs to run their business. Why are we sustaining a middle man.
Simple is better. Provide health care for all and tax the services as we tax for social security. The poor pay the least because they earn the least. And so on.
This political acrobatics going on with congress and the senate is a joke. No good will come of this because conservatives will never accept the ACA and liberals will not accept the poor dying in tge streets.
Simple is better. Provide health care for all and tax the services as we tax for social security. The poor pay the least because they earn the least. And so on.
This political acrobatics going on with congress and the senate is a joke. No good will come of this because conservatives will never accept the ACA and liberals will not accept the poor dying in tge streets.
4
That's a cute idea, but what will you do about their employees, which number a lot more than those coal miners everyone was wringing their hands over? Like it or not those middle men vote and are not going to sit idly by as the government destroys their jobs.
It is indeed a pleasant surprise that this Senate Committee is working on a bi-partisan bill to fix Obamacare markets. However, I am not quite Mitch McConnell is on-board with this bipartisan effort. He has already that he is not happy with just fixing Obamacare, he wants to change it. Mitch may stand in the way of bringing it to the Senate floor. We have to wait and see and hope that he will see the light.
1
Maybe Republicans have had a change of heart after the negative votes on ACA repeal. They may realize that if they don't fix the ACA, but let it fail, they will lose heavily in the 2018 mid-terms.
2
I read that the Democrats might offer elimination of an employer's (meeting a certain size, a size to me not a small business) to provide health insurance. That is too much to give up, if true.
1
The point missed by the Times Editorial Board is that when the health care companies were obliged to offer care to those that were previously not enrolled, the cost for doing so exceeded revenues. Since health insurers do not have printing presses in their basements, the options when the federal subsidy is too small is to drop coverage in a given region and/or raise the rates on everyone else.
A major reason for costs exceeding revenues is that younger healthier people do not enrol at the same rate as sicker and older Americans. The mandate was supposed to encourage younger people to buy a health insurance policy rather than paying the mandate when they filled their taxes.
This problem is eliminated in the so called single payer systems, as everyone pays in through the tax system. Part of their taxes goes to providing their health care.
This problem is eliminated in the so called single payer systems, as everyone pays in through the tax system. Part of their taxes goes to providing their health care.
2
Murray and Alexander worked together on the education bill that replaced No Child Left Behind - one of the few major pieces of legislation that passed and was signed by the president in 2016. Glad to see they're working together again.
2
A proposal that should be acceptable to both parties is the banning of prescription drug ads. Billions of dollars are added each year to the cost of medications, unnecessarily. Only the U.S. and New Zealand allow these ads, while the rest of the world wisely prohibits them.
Pharmaceutical companies market prescription drugs as if they were candy. "Ask your doctor" ads contribute to over-medication and increase doctor consultations by a population that is artificially alarmed and constantly prodded to consume drugs. The incessant bombardment of prescription drug commercials must be reigned in, and this can only be done via legislation.
Pharmaceutical companies market prescription drugs as if they were candy. "Ask your doctor" ads contribute to over-medication and increase doctor consultations by a population that is artificially alarmed and constantly prodded to consume drugs. The incessant bombardment of prescription drug commercials must be reigned in, and this can only be done via legislation.
7
For Bipartisanship to work effectively. Elected officials have to feel secure that crossing partisan party lines will not be punished by constituents at the ballot box. If Americans want congress to work collaboratively, they need to back the representatives that take those risks for the greater good.
3
There is a 'hard-core' on either end of the political spectrum, (particularly on the right), who will manage to kill any progress on this issue. The hard-right are just totally and completely opposed to any government program that will do anything to help people. They would rather see people die in the streets than collect a penny in taxes and spend those taxes to help anyone but the already wealthy. The Grover Norquist types on the right will 'primary' anyone who dares to work together if it means that anything will be spent. On the hard left..., there will be those for whom any and all programs are never broad enough to please them.
Well let's see, in this kumbaya moment can the majority of America get an honest sincere apology both to the party and to Mr. Obama in particular. Or should we not hold our breath ? Ok, we'll forego the "we're sorry", what's next how about no more attempts at completely destabilizing the markets thru' ugly lies tantamount to coercion, how about the opposite how about coercing the states that didn't expand into expanding their roles (hint: that would just about secure not only healthcare for Americas rural poor but basically force insurers back into the market place) then promise to leave medicaid, SS and medicare alone. In return we promise to go door to door in every district in the land with a handout touting healthy life styles..eat more fruits and veggies, quit smokin' drink moderately reduce fat intake and excercise more. There does that about cover it?
2
Ditch Mitch and Dump Trump.
Then something might be done.
Then something might be done.
2
Coulda been done six years ago, or any time the GOP chose, and saved the nation tons of grief and health costs. And I can't imagine something like Trump carrying even the nomination without the scorched earth campaign by McConnell and colleagues against Obama, liberalism and the very idea of civic life itself. Ergo the headline does not adequately describe what has happened. More perceptive would have been, "Republicans end eight year strike against Congress."
3
Isnt it tragically wonderful that we end up where in any type of civilized culture we should have begun? Amazingly, the USA always rallies around a common enemy. In healthcare it would appear that one has been found.
1
Part of the Obama legacy is the use of administrative moves which bypass Constitutional requirements. Only the Congress can authorize spending. So one can be against this infarction without being against helping people to buy health services or insurance. In this case , Trump says, Obama did it, I can undo it. If it were law it would not be so easy. Easy doesn't make for good governance.
Easy doesn't make for good governance, but it's golden compared to the strange spectacle of Donald Trump pretending to be President.
We have lived with Republican obstructionism for eight years now. It is time for them to take off their power ties and smug looks and do the right thing for the low-income Americans in particular. Shore up and repair the ACA, something the majority of Americans favor, in the short-term and seriously consider the single payer option. A healthy America is a happier and more productive America. Both parties need to put the 2018 elections out of their minds and do the job they were hired to do: to serve and protect the American People.
5
It's a great effort and I applaud it but sorry, their proposal is a non-starter. 1.) CSR's are illegal. So continuing them will not stabilize anything. 2) If you have a pre-existing condition AND had no insurance, there should be a waiting period before you can get insurance for that condition. I only wish I could wait for a fire, flood, auto accident etc. to buy insurance. 3) Mandate must end. I didn't see that. 4) Repeal all the taxes, not just one.
The only thing that has been proven to lower healthcare costs is if the consumer has a vested interest in the cost. Just look at the cost of higher education.
The only thing that has been proven to lower healthcare costs is if the consumer has a vested interest in the cost. Just look at the cost of higher education.
When demand is inflexible, the whole consumer, skin-in-the-game thing lies somewhere between useless and cruel. We have to stop telling ourselves crazy things like, oh, if we all have to pay, costs will come down. That's crazy because we did it for five decades and costs did nothing but go up, and you know the old saying. If we can bear the costs of our Museum of Peculiar Weaponry and keep it polished, we can bear the costs of healthcare.
In 2015 Republicans de-funded the Risk Corridor provision, thus sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.
I wish the NY Times would produce an in-depth article about how the Republican party thus drove the premiums up, increased the subsidies costs when premiums went up, and that they are the ones who destabilized the market when they stripped away the funds that were in this integral provision.
They haven't shown any real interest in their voters' health. They've defrauded them with a deliberate misinformation campaign.
Also, if they were actually interested in what's best for their constituents they'd have kept the public option.
As they lie to their voters and stifle progress, someone should remind them that this is what Churchill had to say about healthcare and government, in 1948:
“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear: Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the sane way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion….Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
I wish the NY Times would produce an in-depth article about how the Republican party thus drove the premiums up, increased the subsidies costs when premiums went up, and that they are the ones who destabilized the market when they stripped away the funds that were in this integral provision.
They haven't shown any real interest in their voters' health. They've defrauded them with a deliberate misinformation campaign.
Also, if they were actually interested in what's best for their constituents they'd have kept the public option.
As they lie to their voters and stifle progress, someone should remind them that this is what Churchill had to say about healthcare and government, in 1948:
“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear: Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the sane way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion….Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
4
Affordable healthcare is under assault by Trump. The only way the 30 million get insurance is he is funding their insurance month by month. June to September is when the insurance exchanges need to set their rates for the year. By sowing uncertainty the insurers have to raise rates or leave exchanges. Trump is killing healthcare for millions by hinting he may not pay. This is just one way he is destroying healthcare. The only way we could stop his deplorable callousness may be to call or protest against his sneaky way he is accomplishing genocide of the millions in jeopardy of losing healthcare. He now owns this healthcare now and it is probably too late .
1
I am an independent contractor.
I pay Blue Cross $11,000 a year for my policy.
It has a $7,000 deductible which means I pay a total of $18,000 if I actually want to use it.
I am in high-tech so I can afford this.
But what about someone making minimum wage, $8.75 per hour or about $18,000 a year?
I know a woman with two children who sells blood when the car breaks down. They are waiting for the oldest child to turn 18 so she can sell blood, too, when they need extra money.
And we are the richest industrialized country on the planet GDP / capita.
I pay Blue Cross $11,000 a year for my policy.
It has a $7,000 deductible which means I pay a total of $18,000 if I actually want to use it.
I am in high-tech so I can afford this.
But what about someone making minimum wage, $8.75 per hour or about $18,000 a year?
I know a woman with two children who sells blood when the car breaks down. They are waiting for the oldest child to turn 18 so she can sell blood, too, when they need extra money.
And we are the richest industrialized country on the planet GDP / capita.
4
Republicans never negotiate in good faith. Congressional Republicans will make a public pretext of bipartisanship while Trump does the dirty work and sabotages the ACA by refusing to pay CSRs. Don't trust them.
4
The Republicans might as well have been debating abortion. Between the handful of moderates who sincerely want to retain some health insurance and Ron Paul/Ted Cruz who will not accept anything short of stripping Americans of affordable health care (which obviously includes pre-existing conditions and healthy people paying premiums) there is no middle ground.
That they came so close to enacting something nobody wanted is more than enough reason to remove them.
That they came so close to enacting something nobody wanted is more than enough reason to remove them.
1
politicians are not capable of solving these complex isues. They are too uninformed and too biased to their ideas. WE need committee of well informed experts from various fields to evaluate and come up with a plan that has one purpose-Best health care at lowest price. They need to have the idea that health care is a right for all not a privilege . They need to see what has worked in other countries and se what restricts our care. To high f drug prices, too many procedures, too much administrative costs and now we are seeing the business of medicine-, the profits Insurers are reporting. WE can afford a really x complete plan for all.
2
You are a breath of fresh air! In my career I have had responsibility for healthcare for employees in as many as 23 countries. I am very aware of what these countries provide their citizens for healthcare. 99% offer a form of national healthcare. Funny that when one country in Asia decided their healthcare system needed to change they sent a team of healthcare experts to four or five other countries to study their systems. And then came home, took the best practices they found and used them to revamp their system.
Sadly I can't see the U.S. doing this. Americans think they know it all --- they can't learn anything from anyone else.
I too would like for Congress to explain why national healthcare won't work. All they say is the word "socialism ". That's supposed to explain it. Given the stats we have all seen comparing U.S.healthcare costs and results to other countries, they owe it to the American people to justify why it won't work. If education is a right --- then healthcare is too.
Sadly I can't see the U.S. doing this. Americans think they know it all --- they can't learn anything from anyone else.
I too would like for Congress to explain why national healthcare won't work. All they say is the word "socialism ". That's supposed to explain it. Given the stats we have all seen comparing U.S.healthcare costs and results to other countries, they owe it to the American people to justify why it won't work. If education is a right --- then healthcare is too.
Because of Trump the two parties are working together. Trump is winning. He will claim this was his plan all along and you know what? That is plausible. One thing we know is that no pundit /re[porter or otherwise knows what he is thinking and how he does business. anyone who tells you they know is a liar or delusional.
It is absurdly naïve to believe the Republicans want to do anything but destroy the ADA to get money for Tax Cuts for the rich.
The problem with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress is they both work for and are paid by the rich. If they come up with a deal it will mean more money for the Insurance Industry and less coverage for people.
Time for a new Party, the Democrats are just Republican Lite now.
The problem with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress is they both work for and are paid by the rich. If they come up with a deal it will mean more money for the Insurance Industry and less coverage for people.
Time for a new Party, the Democrats are just Republican Lite now.
A time will come hopefully soon that Trump will become irrelevant.
He should be treated under ' No opinion''. Shortt of imepeachment he should be ignored to the point that he may resign on his own
He should be treated under ' No opinion''. Shortt of imepeachment he should be ignored to the point that he may resign on his own
1
Providing healthcare to Americans is no doubt an important endeavor worthy of bipartisanship.
But so is impeachment, should this Congress want to be truly remembered and honored by history.
But so is impeachment, should this Congress want to be truly remembered and honored by history.
I suggest they work on it like their political lives depend on it. Oh wait -- They DO!
1
I fail to see why the insurers need to be getting payments from the government because they might make a bit less money than they ordinarily would. They are doing fine.
1
Single-payer healthcare would cost the government almost NOTHING! We would all pay a Health Tax, in effect, but according to income; all would be included. This kind of democratic system won't ever work in the money-mad insurance-happy U. S.? Health industry would have to accept help, perhaps, in the short run to diversify their products and help manage a mass infrastructure project. marthastephens.wordpress.com
1
Would it not actually be smart of Trump to try to sabotage what most people acknowledge is a flawed bill in order to incentivize Congress to work together on a solution? Understandably, many people will feel that is giving the president too much credit. But if that were in fact his intent, it would be a potentially very effective way to catalyze an otherwise polarized, paralyzed legislature.
This approaches simply gives more to insurance companies and hopes that it will trickle down to consumers. It really fails to address the problems that many are having with the law. Like how does a family with, say $35,000 annual income manage to pay a $7,000 annual deductible after they make premium payments of about 9% of their income?
And why can't insurance companies assume the full risk of major illness? what are we paying them for anyway?
And why can't insurance companies assume the full risk of major illness? what are we paying them for anyway?
I have a fantasy. Democrats in both houses of congress find the few Republicans who still care about their country. They agree to vote for whoever the Republicans pick to be the new leaders. That keeps the leadership Republican--only fair, they won the election--but give both houses leadership who would be committed to working for the American people as opposed to what we have now. Like I said, fantasy. In the meantime, Democrats in both houses elect new minority leaders. That's not fantasy and needs doing big time.
1
The NYT does not seem to realize the middle class is footing the bill for the ACA (through hidden taxes, like $13 billion tax on employer sponsored health insurance). You always seem to assume that spending money on the poor is "all good" and no one gets hurt. Meanwhile, middle class families are struggling with higher premiums (employers pass these on, to absorb the tax), lower salaries and none of the glory.
1
We, in the middle class, pay it anyway. It's just passed on in higher prices for doctors, drugs and hospital care. A civilized nation doesn't just let people die in the streets as a matter of policy. (Ok, the Freedom Caucus would most definitely do that!) I'm hopeful of better from our citizens. Although that hope was shaken badly in the last election.
Maybe people are finally getting tired of just fighting and just want to fix things, and you can call it whatever you want as long as it works better.
1
Who knew that one of the unintended consequences of the Trump administration would be to bring about bipartisanship for the first time in a decade?
What happens when Trump tries to takre credit for it? You know he has enough chutzpah to try.
What happens when Trump tries to takre credit for it? You know he has enough chutzpah to try.
2
I am not celebrating a 'bipartisan' effort on healthcare.
What's succeeding in the ACA is the public part -- the mandate that everyone should have insurance, the taxes that fund it, the government imposed minimal care standards, the government subsidies.
What keeps putting it on the block are the private, for-profit insurers, with their fluctuating markets that can't be kept happy for long.
Both parties are committed to the private part. The Republicans are dead set against the public part. What's to celebrate?
What's succeeding in the ACA is the public part -- the mandate that everyone should have insurance, the taxes that fund it, the government imposed minimal care standards, the government subsidies.
What keeps putting it on the block are the private, for-profit insurers, with their fluctuating markets that can't be kept happy for long.
Both parties are committed to the private part. The Republicans are dead set against the public part. What's to celebrate?
2
I celebrate that 23 million people have a shot at keeping their healthcare. I celebrate that we didn't go back to 2008. And I celebrate that Republican's realize that Americans want access to healthcare for all Americans.
We need single payer. We aren't there yet, but we are closer than we would be if McConnell and his goons had succeeded.
We need single payer. We aren't there yet, but we are closer than we would be if McConnell and his goons had succeeded.
World Class Party. --- Pass both of these under-performing Political Parties good-bye, and start a new one! We are after all World Citizens first. It is time that we all receive our Basic Individual Human Rights. Lets have the Health Insurance come from this new World Class Political Party. World Class is better than First Class, anyway.
2
Are we ready for a political party to the left of Bernie Sanders? Well, some of us are.
Republicans are running scared about 2018-20 so now will work with Democrats to try to get re-elected. They could care less about health care. They only want tax cuts.
1
Who wins? The insurance industry, regardless of the political outcome on the ACA. They are a monopoly: charge more, explain less, march to the pockets of management and the rich coupon clippers.
Medicare for all is coming. Imagine how much money would NOT be spent if the insurance industry were NOT at the trough.
Medicare for all is coming. Imagine how much money would NOT be spent if the insurance industry were NOT at the trough.
6
Who would have thought that the way to unite political Americans would be to elect someone who is anathema to most of us?
1
Ms. spencer,
That was a thought behind the Bernie or Bust(ers) (and others). Go ahead and let them elect the worst candidate possible and burn it all down. Then we/they can rebuild anew and fresh without the old wood in the way. The third party players threatened the status quo with the same outcome. Adapt to our wishes and visions (cause obviously the 2 party system only works for a small percentage of voters) or we don't join you and your hubris brings it all down on our heads.
It was thought out.
That was a thought behind the Bernie or Bust(ers) (and others). Go ahead and let them elect the worst candidate possible and burn it all down. Then we/they can rebuild anew and fresh without the old wood in the way. The third party players threatened the status quo with the same outcome. Adapt to our wishes and visions (cause obviously the 2 party system only works for a small percentage of voters) or we don't join you and your hubris brings it all down on our heads.
It was thought out.
1
So all the pointless anguish and pain was inflicted on us by strategery?
I'm a little confused. "If Mr. Trump stopped the payments, insurers say, they would have to increase premiums by about 20 percent. The government would have to bear much of this additional cost, since the A.C.A. also subsidizes premiums for people with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line. If premiums go up, those subsidies would automatically increase." So, the payments were not explicitly in the ACA. But the subsidy of premiums, I guess, is. But, if what Trump does is offset by the premium subsidy, then will anyone lose their health insurance?
Of course Medicare for all is the simplest and most economical way to deliver healthcare to everyone, using dedicated taxes for that purpose. But the big obstacle to commonsense is the health insurance business, which is a huge business in the US. Effectively it would put them out of business. Republicans certainly have a problem with that and many Democrats as well. Maybe some form of reimbursement as in nationalized companies elsewhere. Yes, it would cost money, but our present crazy system costs more and delivers less, and provides endless hassles for consumers. I am on Medicare and am very happy with how it works. My only problem, and this issue must be addressed if there is any meaningful cost containment, is the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs in the US compared to any other place on earth. The excuse that the cost of development of new drugs prevents this rings hollow when you look at the robust pharmaceutical companies in France,Sweden, etc. Again Republicans are loath to rein in profiteering especially if some of the proceeds go into their reelection coffers. People need to say enough posturing by the GOP and insist they reach across the aisle(it is not the Democrats' fault they are locked out of joint meetings)and work together with the other elected representatives as the '
constitution intended.
constitution intended.
2
The ONLY reason to talk with Democrats is that Republicans are afraid of losing power. Period. This is nothing but Republican cynicism.
4
“Capitol Shocker: Democrats and Republicans Start Working Together on Health Care”
Does anybody normal in America pay any attention to what the Republicans and the Democrats do?
They are just like the kids playing in the send. By the end of day, whatever they create will be wiped out!
However, if they managed to balance the federal budget then we would know they got serious and that this time they are using something more permanent, something like the steel and the reinforced concrete!
Without this crucial step whatever they do looks incredibly similar to the fairy tale of wolf and three little pigs…
Does anybody normal in America pay any attention to what the Republicans and the Democrats do?
They are just like the kids playing in the send. By the end of day, whatever they create will be wiped out!
However, if they managed to balance the federal budget then we would know they got serious and that this time they are using something more permanent, something like the steel and the reinforced concrete!
Without this crucial step whatever they do looks incredibly similar to the fairy tale of wolf and three little pigs…
If they come up with anything that works, Trump'll take credit for it even if they have to override his veto to put it in place.
1
So members of Congress are working together to cure our health care problem. Whoop-de-doo. I'm sure that will help a lot.
Obamacare was nothing more than a bandaid on a gaping wound. Now they are trying to get the bandaid to stick while ignoring the real problem.
The problem we have is that we are spending too much money (that we don't have) and getting too poor of results. We are spending that money on health insurance, when health insurance has little to do with health. (Even health care has little to do with health. But that is another story.)
The numbers tell the story. We spend three times the amount per person that the country with the best health numbers spends, and among the rich countries, our numbers are the worst.
Not that people in Congress are stupid. They are not. But no one -- Republican or Democrat -- seems to be working on anything that will make any difference. You wouldn't know that from articles like this, but our health care system is sick and not getting any better.
Obamacare was nothing more than a bandaid on a gaping wound. Now they are trying to get the bandaid to stick while ignoring the real problem.
The problem we have is that we are spending too much money (that we don't have) and getting too poor of results. We are spending that money on health insurance, when health insurance has little to do with health. (Even health care has little to do with health. But that is another story.)
The numbers tell the story. We spend three times the amount per person that the country with the best health numbers spends, and among the rich countries, our numbers are the worst.
Not that people in Congress are stupid. They are not. But no one -- Republican or Democrat -- seems to be working on anything that will make any difference. You wouldn't know that from articles like this, but our health care system is sick and not getting any better.
4
The republicans and democrats working together for the good of the American people who voted for them? Good one. :)
1
If bipartisan healthcare solutions are important, the first step should be the removal of the ultraleftist ACA that creates a massive unaffordable entitlement, uses backhanded methods to redistribute American wealth, and generally tries to placate liberal interest groups (ex. Feminists) at the expense of Conservative constituencies (ex. Christians). But now we've got weak Republicans helping to preserve the Obama legacy.
STOP WAGING A WAR AGAINST WORK by trying to push us into a single payer system that treats the dropout druggie the same as the gainfully employed college graduate.
STOP WAGING A WAR AGAINST WORK by trying to push us into a single payer system that treats the dropout druggie the same as the gainfully employed college graduate.
1
Please don't sacrifice the truth in defense of Obamacare. As created, the legislation was not financially tenable. Scores of health insurers had pulled out of the marketplace due to due to great losses. New York Health Republic, the non-profit created and backed by New York State to service the low income population, went bankrupt in a year and a half, temporarily leaving its members without insurance. Health insurers remaining in the marketplace requested from the state the right to raise premiums by an average of 17.5% for 2017. Not sustainable.
The government is going to have to throw in a lot more money to keep Obamacare afloat. Or Congress could take a close look and decide that, Gasp!, health care providers and drug companies are making unjust windfall profits with the rates that they currently charge and that this must be brought under control.
The government is going to have to throw in a lot more money to keep Obamacare afloat. Or Congress could take a close look and decide that, Gasp!, health care providers and drug companies are making unjust windfall profits with the rates that they currently charge and that this must be brought under control.
2
"Contrary to Mr. Trump’s tweets, Obamacare is not collapsing."
Au contraire.
There is not one Dem who would publicly advocate that Obamacare just meander along in its current state.
The Dem mantra, that "Obamacare needs some improvement," is like claiming that Amtrak is doing just fine, except for a bit of upgrade. Uh-huh.
Why can't the Dems just level with Americans that their base will only be happy with single-payer, medicaid insolvency be damned, and the GOP will only be happy when only 80% of the country has insurance, the other 20% be damned.
Then, we can have a serious conversation.
Au contraire.
There is not one Dem who would publicly advocate that Obamacare just meander along in its current state.
The Dem mantra, that "Obamacare needs some improvement," is like claiming that Amtrak is doing just fine, except for a bit of upgrade. Uh-huh.
Why can't the Dems just level with Americans that their base will only be happy with single-payer, medicaid insolvency be damned, and the GOP will only be happy when only 80% of the country has insurance, the other 20% be damned.
Then, we can have a serious conversation.
3
A few thoughts.
Reinsurance, a concept bandied around as solving the problem of insurers paying for major illnesses, does not protect an insurer from loss in the event an excess of very high payments, whether to pre-existing condition clients or others. Reinsurance is to protect against major non-expected occurrences such as an earthquake that could bankrupt a company with vulnerability to the area that is decimated. The term has no relevance to health insurance.
Another aspect of ACA is the assumption that there is no such thing as unreported income, which justifies the payments for those making up to four times the poverty rate. This is estimated at 15 to 20% in aggregate, but obviously could be all of a given individual's income. It is not that difficult to selectively direct payments, especially for providing services to private homes, to show a plausible reported income that is reduced by half, and be rewarded by a reduction on health insurance.
Reinsurance, a concept bandied around as solving the problem of insurers paying for major illnesses, does not protect an insurer from loss in the event an excess of very high payments, whether to pre-existing condition clients or others. Reinsurance is to protect against major non-expected occurrences such as an earthquake that could bankrupt a company with vulnerability to the area that is decimated. The term has no relevance to health insurance.
Another aspect of ACA is the assumption that there is no such thing as unreported income, which justifies the payments for those making up to four times the poverty rate. This is estimated at 15 to 20% in aggregate, but obviously could be all of a given individual's income. It is not that difficult to selectively direct payments, especially for providing services to private homes, to show a plausible reported income that is reduced by half, and be rewarded by a reduction on health insurance.
1
I definitely agree with these people finally working together (let's hope it lasts) to try and repair the ACA. I also believe that the White House policy of pulling the rug out (so to speak) of the subsidy payments to insurance companies for those people unable to pay has really caused the ACA and its insurance exchanges to experience the uncertainty and chaos they have. Government support for healthcare would stop this slide. Like others, I believe that this program should be referred to as the ACA, not Obamacare. It is our healthcare program and is badly needed to work. Let's get on with fixing it, the ACA, that is!
3
The problem with this take is that is not what congress was elected to do. Republicans campaigned on repeal, not flushing billions of dollars down the drain an fundamentally flawed legislation. Over the last 7 or so years millions of Americans exercised their constitutional right to send Republican majorities to the House, Senate, and finally captured the Presidency largely due to the fact that Obamacare has hurt so many. Bipartisanship, if it means continuing the flawed legislation constitutes a betrayal to those voters. Real bipartisanship in the spirit of our Democracy would have required Democrats to work with Republicans on one or more of the health bills that recently died in congress , but not one crossed the aisle. Not one.
1
Obama taking credit for the Affordable Care Act makes as much sense as George W. Bush taking credit for the housing bubble.
Both of them believed they were making us happy, healthy and wealthy.
The only difference is that one bubble hasn't burst yet because the federal government has the much larger credit line than the Wall Street.
Beware, every credit line has its beginning and end!
Both of them believed they were making us happy, healthy and wealthy.
The only difference is that one bubble hasn't burst yet because the federal government has the much larger credit line than the Wall Street.
Beware, every credit line has its beginning and end!
2
Let's fix the Affordable Care Act. It's a good law.
And let's start with the hearings on Capitol Hill. Defend it, and shore it up. Bring in advocates to talk about market place fixes. Include input from governors who enacted the Medicare Expansion. Look out for those low income consumers. And address what needs done!
The insurance markets are strengthening. Time now to add in the cost-sharing reduction funds the insurers are entitled to by this law. Stop creating uncertainty and fund it as soon as possible.
And let's start with the hearings on Capitol Hill. Defend it, and shore it up. Bring in advocates to talk about market place fixes. Include input from governors who enacted the Medicare Expansion. Look out for those low income consumers. And address what needs done!
The insurance markets are strengthening. Time now to add in the cost-sharing reduction funds the insurers are entitled to by this law. Stop creating uncertainty and fund it as soon as possible.
1
The Affordable Care Act is a good law? When it has almost nothing to do with making health care affordable except for throwing more money (that we don't have) at health insurance companies?
We haven't learned anything from the war on poverty. It doesn't help with anti-poverty problems to just throw money at the problem. You spend too much and get too little. We have to be smarter than that.
There are things we could do to make Americans more healthy at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, the political winds seem to be blowing in a different direction. That's a pity.
We haven't learned anything from the war on poverty. It doesn't help with anti-poverty problems to just throw money at the problem. You spend too much and get too little. We have to be smarter than that.
There are things we could do to make Americans more healthy at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, the political winds seem to be blowing in a different direction. That's a pity.
1
@John
Baloney. The Affordable Care Act provided insurance without discriminating against people with preexisting conditions for the first time ever,. It strengthened preventative care + gave a major lifeline for primary care. Secured a needed boost to Medicare, cut waste and fraud, created increased care for the poor, disabled, for children, ensured care for those in nursing homes. Aided those with psychiatric conditions. I know--I worked in a psych hospital.
And I dealt with elders on Medicare.
Republicans sabotaged the ACA for fiscal year 2015, Google it, And google Rubio and an insertion of a clause that hurt the law.
You offer jargon--not solutions. I don't hear one actual policy recommendation. Whining without a solution is not a solution.
Baloney. The Affordable Care Act provided insurance without discriminating against people with preexisting conditions for the first time ever,. It strengthened preventative care + gave a major lifeline for primary care. Secured a needed boost to Medicare, cut waste and fraud, created increased care for the poor, disabled, for children, ensured care for those in nursing homes. Aided those with psychiatric conditions. I know--I worked in a psych hospital.
And I dealt with elders on Medicare.
Republicans sabotaged the ACA for fiscal year 2015, Google it, And google Rubio and an insertion of a clause that hurt the law.
You offer jargon--not solutions. I don't hear one actual policy recommendation. Whining without a solution is not a solution.
1
All I know is that under ACA, I am paying $14,000 a year for essentially useless insurance. The deductible is so high, it is worthless unless I have a major problem. Similar to the much maligned "catastophic" policies--that were less than half the cost. Those people advocates say "gained coverage" likely only "gained" the same thing--a subsidized, useless piece of paper. However, ACA ruined the system to the extent that it is impossible to save. No matter what direction you go, someone will be hurt. If you do nothing, someone will be hurt. If you do something, someone will be hurt.
2
Now try paying the out-of-network prices for the care you receive, as all care would be without your insurance, instead of the in-network prices negotiated by your "useless" insurance company, and get back to us. I think you'll find that your insurance is far from useless.
I receives an out-of -network bill, mistakenly, for some tests I had done, for $998. When it was corrected, the bill was $115. I still have to pay the $115, because my deductible hasn't been met, but without the insurance it would have been nine times as much. Same with my operation billed last year at $30,000, reduced to $1,800, that I still had to pay. You want to go back to the old way? I wish you could. I would not.
I receives an out-of -network bill, mistakenly, for some tests I had done, for $998. When it was corrected, the bill was $115. I still have to pay the $115, because my deductible hasn't been met, but without the insurance it would have been nine times as much. Same with my operation billed last year at $30,000, reduced to $1,800, that I still had to pay. You want to go back to the old way? I wish you could. I would not.
1
President Obama promised that the ACA would not require additional taxes.
So who is paying for the $7 Billion per month going to insurance companies ?
I guess I am....
So who is paying for the $7 Billion per month going to insurance companies ?
I guess I am....
1
Going to insurance companies is the point.
1
House Republicans thinking "hmmm.... I've got to go home and face an angry electorate, virtually all of whom have a family member who has Medicare, Medicaid, or an "Obamacare" policy. Some of them, all three. Which we've been railing against for 8 years, and have very nearly succeeded in destroying. Maybe time for a little window dressing to try to make it past the midterm election."
Sorry Charlie, no dice. I don't think your opponents or your constituents will forget that you lied to them for the better part of a decade, claiming that you could deliver something better. Or that you tried every legislative trick you had to try to wreck their healthcare.
Sorry Charlie, no dice. I don't think your opponents or your constituents will forget that you lied to them for the better part of a decade, claiming that you could deliver something better. Or that you tried every legislative trick you had to try to wreck their healthcare.
2
Yes, it is a familiar story. Once you give people an entitlement, it is political suicide to try to take it back. That's why we have a national debt that is huge and growing huger.
1
The problem with any proposal is that Obamacre, "the program", is flawed in design. The best bipartisan solutions will arise when supporting Obamacare is not the question democrats ask but instead the issues are broken down to their components. For example, how to restore competition and lower premiums in the private health insurance market? How to fund or reinsure those with preexisting and costly health needs? When Patty Murray and friends can let go of what the prior administration designed success will be at hand.
Republicans are bereft of how to govern. Plus they are now saddled with owning the failing Heritage Foundation Healthcare. Drag in the Roll Over Dino's and they have Patsies and the Nerds to bandage over and share the Heritage Foundation Healthcare Plan.
Of course this after the polls showing Single Payer/Medicare for all is quickly growing to be the most favored and best answer for America's healthcare.
But that would mean an end to all those Pharma., Insur., Med., lobbyist dollars.
Cant have that, can we Congress.
Of course this after the polls showing Single Payer/Medicare for all is quickly growing to be the most favored and best answer for America's healthcare.
But that would mean an end to all those Pharma., Insur., Med., lobbyist dollars.
Cant have that, can we Congress.
3
With the state of health care in the hands of people who still claim global warming is a hoax, its hard to have any hope that they will be moved by science, or facts, or reality when it comes to medicine, insurance, or anything else.
2
It says a lot about the state of things when we are shocked to hear our employees are working together. Wouldn't it be grand if the servants of special interest really learned the we the people are special too?
38
Among the many things I do not understand is this......... Why do insurance companies do things by county? The states set the rules for every county in the state, so why do things by county? Anyone who knows, please reply.
3
As citizens we need to shine the spotlight on our elected officials who will NOT contribute to the non-partisan healthcare discussion... and remove them from office. I'm looking at YOU, Rep. Greg Walden, R-OR District 2.
4
What are we supposed to do with this column, smile or cry? It insults me to read that the Dems and Reps are trying to work together so they can do what they were hired to do, help the people who elected them. The crossed band aids should be in the shape of an X.
4
Relatively good news. The ACA was not perfect, but a step in the right direction. A one payer system is what we need, and I hope it comes in my lifetime.
Other useful steps to reduce costs: Stop direct advertising by drug companies to the public. Limit, cap, and control Big Pharmacy, as the OPA did for many products, in World War II.
Elect Bernie Sanders, or someone who will follow his lead!
Other useful steps to reduce costs: Stop direct advertising by drug companies to the public. Limit, cap, and control Big Pharmacy, as the OPA did for many products, in World War II.
Elect Bernie Sanders, or someone who will follow his lead!
4
It does not matter that there is current "cooperation". The heart of the matter is that the Democrats shoved the ACA onto the nation with NO bipartisan support. Inotherwords, they broke the cardinal rule of American politics forbidding partisan major legislation. This, this is NOT finally about policy it is about the proper functioning of the body politic. In some form or fashion this must be acknowledged before real progress can be made.
Did you miss the part where they tried working with the GOP and kept on changing it, only to have them say "NO!"? What choice did they have? They took the plan that a Republican governor had implemented, that a Conservative Thinktank had come up with. There was nothing that was going to be acceptable for the GOP, and you saw the same thing this time.
5
The ACA had, and still has, the support of the majority of Americans. Check out the "cardinal rule" about it being a government by, of, and for, the people, and you'll understand why legislation like the ACA is bound to get shoved in there from time to time.
2
Bipartisan is the dirtiest word to most of the Republicans. The FOX TV , the Tea Party and the right wing talk radio will make a lot of trouble for those Republican lawmakers.
1
I'm sorry. How did ObamaCare become law again?
Bipartisanship is a dirty word, because we know what it really means.....SELLING OUT THE PEOPLE who put you in office and pretending the Dems are still in power when they are not.
Not a PEEP about bipartisanship hit the airwaves eight years ago when the Dems ran the whole show.
Bipartisanship is a dirty word, because we know what it really means.....SELLING OUT THE PEOPLE who put you in office and pretending the Dems are still in power when they are not.
Not a PEEP about bipartisanship hit the airwaves eight years ago when the Dems ran the whole show.
You must have missed the health care summits in 2009 and 2010. Perhaps you were not alive to see public hearings on health care legislation during 2009 and 2010. Maybe the process of introducing legislation and having it considered by an appropriate committee comprised of Democrats and Republicans, who hear testimony of experts and stakeholders, is an alien concept for you.
But at least you are reading the NYT, so you have a chance to learn.
But at least you are reading the NYT, so you have a chance to learn.
2
Democrats and Republicans have found themselves in a bind: "Damned cause you did" (Democrats for this train wreck of a bill), and "Damned cause you haven't" (Republicans who ran on the repeal and replace idea). They BOTH have reason to be scared of 2018. Maybe now we'll begin to see some actual work done on behalf of what really matters: The American People.
2
If the insurance companies stop selling insurance, that could be great news. Bring in medicare for all wherever they stop selling.
7
Yes, the "optics" are great, but the politics are still daunting. It's hard to believe that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a visceral opponent of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare") and still smarting from his failure to "repeal" or "replace" it, will allow the bill to come to the floor. And if it does, will it get the 60 votes to pass it. Then, of course, there's the even more daunting task of getting the bill through the political, scorched-earth, repeal Obamacare zealots in the House. Maybe John McCain will be proven right and "regular order" will return to Congress, but it seems a long-shot unless the Democrats are willing to exert some political muscle say on raising the debt ceiling or the budget.
1
The American healthcare system has become so expensive it is reducing our standard of living and international competitiveness. We cannot afford it. It has become that way, in large part because of the way our insurance works.
Both sides are trying to solve the problem in large part by giving out more insurance. That doesn't work very well. We need to dig into the mechanics of the business to root out the bad incentives, inefficiencies, and conflicts of interest to reduce cost and improve out comes.
That should be done in parallel with implementing single payer. It is not inconceivable that our healthcare cost could reduced by half or more. However, there are many interests that will lobby against that.
Both sides are trying to solve the problem in large part by giving out more insurance. That doesn't work very well. We need to dig into the mechanics of the business to root out the bad incentives, inefficiencies, and conflicts of interest to reduce cost and improve out comes.
That should be done in parallel with implementing single payer. It is not inconceivable that our healthcare cost could reduced by half or more. However, there are many interests that will lobby against that.
8
I was in Canada met someone who was recovering from lymphoma. He told me that between his plan as a retiree and his husband's he didn't pay anything. He was able to focus on his treatment. When I heard this, I thought I want this. Why don't I deserve this?
11
That's nice. But if you need a CT scan in Canada its a 6 month wait.
As long as they work together to give us, the people who they are supposed to represent, a better deal. I'm tired of supporting the wealth care industry, tired of the slick ads that proclaim their devotion to bettering our health while they cut corners on staffing ratios, real research, deny or lose our claims, narrow the networks even more, and pay the CEOs obscenely high salaries while starving us in terms of the care we need. All our elected officials need to get away from the gravy train that the health care lobby and industry have become for them. Perhaps 6-8 months of going through what we are forced to endure when it comes to health care with or without insurance would convince them that we need a simpler, open access HEALTH CARE system rather than the wealth care system we are currently supporting.
5
Good news and good start, but the requirement to ask us pay for health insurance or pay a fine is not constitutional.
Practically, it renders all of us hostages to a corrupt insurance and health care system. There is no transparency in price setting and no justification for the bills in acute care and emergency care that are tens of times higher than in Europe and other countries.
It's a bankrupt system that survives by federal help, the law to force us buy it and by various forms of federal subsidy. The Rs and Ds will do some cosmetic changes to buy this corrupt system more time while giving voters the illusion of progress.
The Congress and POTUS should go to the heart of the matter, transparency and cutting all excess that makes care so expensive, doctors' salaries, CEO's salaries, drug prices, tort reform, and all price gouging at every corner. Then they should introduce the public option.
Practically, it renders all of us hostages to a corrupt insurance and health care system. There is no transparency in price setting and no justification for the bills in acute care and emergency care that are tens of times higher than in Europe and other countries.
It's a bankrupt system that survives by federal help, the law to force us buy it and by various forms of federal subsidy. The Rs and Ds will do some cosmetic changes to buy this corrupt system more time while giving voters the illusion of progress.
The Congress and POTUS should go to the heart of the matter, transparency and cutting all excess that makes care so expensive, doctors' salaries, CEO's salaries, drug prices, tort reform, and all price gouging at every corner. Then they should introduce the public option.
28
I'd go along with Alexgri UNDER ONE CONDITION:
Let hospitals turn people away from the ER if they don't have insurance or can demonstrate the financial means to pay for whatever treatment they receive.
No money, no insurance, NO TREATMENT.
Betcha Alexgri would rush out to buy a policy tomorrow were that the case.
Let hospitals turn people away from the ER if they don't have insurance or can demonstrate the financial means to pay for whatever treatment they receive.
No money, no insurance, NO TREATMENT.
Betcha Alexgri would rush out to buy a policy tomorrow were that the case.
3
One thing, Doctors actually provide care. Doctors are not overpaid by a long shot. It's the corporate middlemen that are taking home the excess cash.
1
The alternative is that when these 'constitutionally suicidal' idiots show up uninsured at the emergency room, THEY ARE TURNED AWAY COLD: No sneaking in through a compassionate clause that makes treatment guaranteed. How's that fit your "rights"? Die on the curb, but by golly, it was your precious choice.
2
Donald Trump is just making noise because it gets him attention. If Congress can manage to get something passed, Trump will sign it no matter what it is and then claim that he repealed Obamacare and replaced it with something better--even if that something is a change to the existing law. The man is stuck in this never ending popularity contest that he probably feels he's always losing.
5
I have a conspiratorial view of the issue. I believe Senate Majority Leader McConnell has faithfully carried the Repeal/Replace (R&R) burden for Trump mostly because he has a major conflict of interest. His wife, Elaine Chao, who is Trump's Secretary of Transportation. He does not want to jeopardize her position and surely must fear that our erratic president will someday slander and then demote/reassign/fire her if he doesn't toe the line.
If I'm on target here, we can expect McConnell to create major trouble for bipartisan efforts to fix Obamacare, even if they are modest. Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promise for R&R. He will view a fix that saves Obamacare a repudiation, another defeat.
To the Editorial Board: Shine the light on Mr. & Mrs. O'Connell.
If I'm on target here, we can expect McConnell to create major trouble for bipartisan efforts to fix Obamacare, even if they are modest. Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promise for R&R. He will view a fix that saves Obamacare a repudiation, another defeat.
To the Editorial Board: Shine the light on Mr. & Mrs. O'Connell.
2
Ryan/McConnell and their supporters have only one interest if they come to compromise with Dems: to stick them with the healthcare tar baby. As co-authors, the Dems will be blamed for all deficiencies in the result, due to the Dems' "sabotage" of the GOP's noble efforts.
It's doubtful that the Dems' protest will be heard above the din of right-wing hustlers.
It's doubtful that the Dems' protest will be heard above the din of right-wing hustlers.
4
It was inevitable. And so welcomed. Our elected officials coming together in the interest of us all.
He's The Tsunami President. Neither a deal closer nor a negotiator.
Taken to task by his own party, his foreign policy fully reined in.
He's the under-performer-in-chief:
No significant legislation passed. Multiple resignations and firings follow a venue of general chaos. Weakened, neither respected nor feared. Even Russia is taunting him by tweet.
Lowest polls ever:
Quinnipiac results of 7/27 - 8/1---->
Approval: 33%
Disapproval: 61%
He's The Tsunami President. Neither a deal closer nor a negotiator.
Taken to task by his own party, his foreign policy fully reined in.
He's the under-performer-in-chief:
No significant legislation passed. Multiple resignations and firings follow a venue of general chaos. Weakened, neither respected nor feared. Even Russia is taunting him by tweet.
Lowest polls ever:
Quinnipiac results of 7/27 - 8/1---->
Approval: 33%
Disapproval: 61%
3
One small step for humanity!
4
Smoke and mirrors. Pay the subsidy to the insurance company and the premiums stay where they are. Don't pay the insurance company, they raise the premium, and then government has to pay the subsidy to the consumer to keep their out-of-pocket costs from going up. What a convoluted contraption was created here. We need to seriously question why health insurance companies are even part of the process.
91
Right -- with them on our backs, can't win for losing. Single-payer would be paid for by all of us through our taxes and according to income.
1
The problem the Republicans have is the ACA IS the Republican , Heritage Foundation plan. It's problems are a result of using for profit entities to provide a social good. Going to the Right further erodes the idea of having a health care payment 'system' at all. This is why the Republican moderates and conservatives could never come together. One seeks a role for markets in a system designed to increase coverage and one does not see that as a legitimate goal. Thus we are back on the Democrats turf. When the 'Public Option' was negotiated away by Sen Baucus and Nelson it bacame a Republican plan whether any Republicans recognize it as such or not
5
The NEED to work on it. Health Insurance is becoming non affordable for the middle class. And comes with ever increasing deductibles
Lets look what happened in 2017
Insurers raised premiums in the individual market by an average of 22% in 2017. 27% in Oregon, 25% in Maryland, 24% Connecticut.
Trump, for all his faults is likely less of a problem then right wing Republicans. CNN reported that he called the bill the House passed "mean" in a private meeting with Senate Republicans . .. with CNN commenting that " by describing the House bill as "mean," Trump has both armed Democrats with a powerful tool to rally their base "
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
Data on 2017 increases
https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-editio...
Lets look what happened in 2017
Insurers raised premiums in the individual market by an average of 22% in 2017. 27% in Oregon, 25% in Maryland, 24% Connecticut.
Trump, for all his faults is likely less of a problem then right wing Republicans. CNN reported that he called the bill the House passed "mean" in a private meeting with Senate Republicans . .. with CNN commenting that " by describing the House bill as "mean," Trump has both armed Democrats with a powerful tool to rally their base "
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
Data on 2017 increases
https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-editio...
3
The Republicans have not become altruistic overnight. They recognize the reality that their attempt to repeal but not replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has failed. Implementation of the act succeeded in an additional 20 million Americans receiving health care and a 50% drop in the percentage of uninsured. They mounted a seven year campaign based on lies concerning a shrinking marketplace, increasing costs, and a death spiral, mostly due to their own obstructive efforts and outright immorality (e.g. Republican governors refusing Medicaid costing who knows how many lives). The American people may be slow in catching on to the benefits of Obamacare, but they know if they receive it, they do not want to lose it. They wish to see it improve. Republicans have complained about shrinking marketplaces and rising costs. Improvement requires addressing both of these issues, something they really never wished to do, but now recognize that they must or be recognized as never being interested in their constituents health at all. It would become apparent that, from the beginning, there objective was to free up Medicaid funds for a tax reduction for the wealthy.
44
Unfortunately, we've degenerated to Enlightenment v. Endarkenment. Working together is great, until you realize the end point is null.
Someone excoriated me for not being partisan enough, believing Trump poses an existential threat to the planet. Balance that fervor with a similar one on the opposite side, and we might as well commit group suicide. The last person standing wins.
But what does he win?
Someone excoriated me for not being partisan enough, believing Trump poses an existential threat to the planet. Balance that fervor with a similar one on the opposite side, and we might as well commit group suicide. The last person standing wins.
But what does he win?
4
It has taken Republicans seven years to figure this out?
7
The sooner the Democrats and the GOP work together, the sooner Trump will be irrelevant, the better for all.
3
I have no respect for the GOP and the Republican Party who have unleashed a destructive force in our nation that has and is destroying lives. They are evil incarnate. So stop giving them any credit for doing anything positive. That are not about "positive" influences. They are about slash and burn social programs that will harm Americans for decades to come.
4
Noam Chomsky, a brilliant thinker, has stated that the Republican party is the most dangerous organization in the world.
He admits that is a horrendous statement but then tells you why it is true. ISIS may kill of a lot of people before they are destroyed, and they will be destroyed. But world war III could destroy humanity forever as could climate change. Climate change will seriously affect agriculture and could kill off most people through famine, water shortages, etc. So Trump is so unstable and with the whole Russia strangeness and North Korea and trump dumping US out of the Paris Climate change agreement we could easily accept Chomsky's statement as possible. Their constant lies about Obama care could kill millions by their having no health care. We could go on with the Trump destruction of the EPA water and air safety measures. Thousands were dying from air pollution and contaminated water before Trump. Now as Trump destroys the EPA, those deaths will increase. No end to the Republican destruction.
He admits that is a horrendous statement but then tells you why it is true. ISIS may kill of a lot of people before they are destroyed, and they will be destroyed. But world war III could destroy humanity forever as could climate change. Climate change will seriously affect agriculture and could kill off most people through famine, water shortages, etc. So Trump is so unstable and with the whole Russia strangeness and North Korea and trump dumping US out of the Paris Climate change agreement we could easily accept Chomsky's statement as possible. Their constant lies about Obama care could kill millions by their having no health care. We could go on with the Trump destruction of the EPA water and air safety measures. Thousands were dying from air pollution and contaminated water before Trump. Now as Trump destroys the EPA, those deaths will increase. No end to the Republican destruction.
3
It might be worth all the insanity at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if the end result is getting the clowns on the Hill back to working together for the people instead of for mere party politics or special interests. That said, I am not holding my breath.
4
I know so many in my family who are Trump supporters. I live on a street where some of the families are Trump supporters. We love them all it doesn't matter one bit whom they vote for. Our lawmakers too can put aside their partisan pride and self created part identity and work with each other as fellow citizens in a mission to make America the best country in the world. They can do it. Provided the media stops all the he said this she said that gasp gulp. 24 hours of non stop Trump obsession by the media.
2
At the risk of restating the obvious, the Republicans were anti-ACA primarily for political reasons since it is a Heritage Foundation idea based on individual responsibility. Had John McCain won and put forward the same ideas they would have been good conservative ideas and praised by all. But for Trump I feel it's a vendetta against Obama for Obama ridiculing Trump at a White House gathering in 2012 (?) As Trump's wife said, when he is hit he strikes back 10 times as hard. His goal is to wipe Obama out of the history books, like those soviet pictures that wipe out a previous party member when he falls out of favor. The welfare of the country is a distant second, or third, to revenge. Trump's ego trumps the nation's welfare.
3
Donald Trump is a sick man with an obsession based on jealousy of Barrack Obama. Congress must not allow his insanity to destroy our country. Rational Democrats and Republicans in Congress must work together to save institutions and traditions that have made the USA great. We have problems, Donald Trump clearly is not the one who can "alone" fix them. Rational leaders must regain control.
What, only 8yrs later they decide to address something that was right there 8yrs ago?
Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, when NOTHING prevented Dorthy heels from being been clicked together as soon as she put on the slippers early in the movie.
Butttt just like Oz,..these folks need: A Brain, A Heart, and Courage:):)
Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, when NOTHING prevented Dorthy heels from being been clicked together as soon as she put on the slippers early in the movie.
Butttt just like Oz,..these folks need: A Brain, A Heart, and Courage:):)
3
Last week John McCain saved the Republican party from destruction at the polls next year. That would be the result of the loss of health care for 16 million people and the downgrading of Medicaid for many millions more.
The people made it clear that they did not want the ACA repealed. They wanted it repaired instead. All but three Republican senators flipped the public the bird which is what the voters would would have done when Republicans sought reelection.
The GOP has so far accomplished nothing that would help ordinary people and much to injure them. Now with with the kleptocrat and liar in chief trying to stop all investigations into his crimes the people are sick of him. They want him gone while the GOP which could remove him, with a little Democratic help, does nothing to reign in this treasonous executive regime, until it prevented him from revoking the sanctions for tampering with our democracy.
The GOP is in need of political salvation, a lifeboat so to speak, and if cooperating with the Democrats to allow the people to keep what the already are entitled to under existing law, with a little repairing, this lifeboat of cooperation seems to be the logical thing to do.
The real problem that the GOP has has a death wish, a longing for gotterdammerung, which is where Trump is leading.
The people made it clear that they did not want the ACA repealed. They wanted it repaired instead. All but three Republican senators flipped the public the bird which is what the voters would would have done when Republicans sought reelection.
The GOP has so far accomplished nothing that would help ordinary people and much to injure them. Now with with the kleptocrat and liar in chief trying to stop all investigations into his crimes the people are sick of him. They want him gone while the GOP which could remove him, with a little Democratic help, does nothing to reign in this treasonous executive regime, until it prevented him from revoking the sanctions for tampering with our democracy.
The GOP is in need of political salvation, a lifeboat so to speak, and if cooperating with the Democrats to allow the people to keep what the already are entitled to under existing law, with a little repairing, this lifeboat of cooperation seems to be the logical thing to do.
The real problem that the GOP has has a death wish, a longing for gotterdammerung, which is where Trump is leading.
2
Of course, republicans cannot be trusted, as they are known for their spiteful incompetence, but healthcare insurance for the poor, the sick, and the elderly, is on the line. Perhaps "distrust but verify" is the motto to follow, even if congress does, finally, the right thing. Then comes the fight to get racist Trump to allow Obamacare to remain the health law of the land for those unable to afford it otherwise. Abuse of power takes it's toll, doesn't it?
1
Single payer by expanding medicaid to all. Government should set prices for drugs.
80
Medicare is not the perfect solution, though it is better than the for-profits. It doesn't cover everything, requires you to pay for a secondary medi-gap policy, and is forbidden by Dubya's law from negotiating for lower drug prices based on quantity, the way the VA does. I was unable to buy insurance after surviving a stage 3+ colon cancer 20 years ago, and the ACA, and now Medicare are my only alternatives. Ironically, my out-of-pocket medical costs from 1997 until I qualified for the ACA and then Medicare were less than the average policy you get from your employer would have cost - even if you never had to use it.
You don't mean that...Medicaid is the mega-managed program for low income people, limited options, that most doctors will not accept because they are paid less than the cost of providing care...
I think you mean Medicare. But more shocking is so many "thumbs up".
Is this ignorance issue or a visceral reaction---Medicaid stinks...unless the other option nothing. Or is it "Say YES to single payer?" Really scary that so many people don't seem to know the difference.
I think you mean Medicare. But more shocking is so many "thumbs up".
Is this ignorance issue or a visceral reaction---Medicaid stinks...unless the other option nothing. Or is it "Say YES to single payer?" Really scary that so many people don't seem to know the difference.
US Senate to America: "You Cannot Stop Us!! We're Senators!! Resistance is Futile!!"
The announcement of next year's policy costs will be a huge propaganda opportunity for Trump: he will do everything possible to cause those numbers to rise so that he can claim the collapse. He is like a thug shooting people in the street saying "I told you it was dangerous around here" and yes people will die from this policy, and yes he will get away with it.
2
Don't believe the GOP rhetoric. Elections are just around the corner, fund raising must proceed, and promises are easy.
GOP intent, if history is any guide, is to "work" with the Dems up to the usual "poison pill" ploy:
When a vote is scheduled on any bi-partisan reasonable legislation some GOP local yokel from Texas, South Carolina, or Alaska will offer an amendment to gut Social Security or Medicare, forcing the Dems to vote NO.
The illusion of cooperation achieved, the GOP will then blame the Dems for destroying "bipartisanship."
Bet the rent!
GOP intent, if history is any guide, is to "work" with the Dems up to the usual "poison pill" ploy:
When a vote is scheduled on any bi-partisan reasonable legislation some GOP local yokel from Texas, South Carolina, or Alaska will offer an amendment to gut Social Security or Medicare, forcing the Dems to vote NO.
The illusion of cooperation achieved, the GOP will then blame the Dems for destroying "bipartisanship."
Bet the rent!
1
There are so many ways to do health care. I recommend reading "The Healing of America", by T.R. Reid which does a wonderful job of examining health care systems around the world. I will be sending a copy to my senators and representatives. My hope is that now that the political fighting has failed, perhaps the folks in Washington can step back, take a breath, think rationally about this complex problem, and consult some experts (Yes, I know, heresy these days). Perhaps then they can start working on solutions based on reason and fact, rather than bombast and political posturing.
2
The Democrats and Republicans would be working together on everything were it not for McConnell and Ryan. McConnell in particular is a major reason why we have Trump; he hates Obama probably as much as Trump although Mitch doesn't think it's personal. He's merely a bigot, but he thinks he is very fair-minded. He is not. It is the leadership of the Republican party that presents an intransigent position and, except for so-called Tea Party leftovers, keeps our country from moving forward on needed legislation. Perhaps Trump's major achievement will be his pushing the two parties together in order to overcome Trumpism. We can only hope.
1
Pushing somebody under a bus then claiming they jumped would be considered murder. Trump and his ugly spirited team want to throw tens of millions under the bus and call it the fault of "failing Obamacare". We need to toss Trump et.al. under the bus in the next election cycle. Why is doing such great harm to to fabric of our nation acceptable to so many?
1
The headline should read, "Dems Cave Again"
2
To be honest, I believe this problem is bigger than Congress in one particular sense: the scope of representation in today's Congress is insufficient.
This is an issue that cries out for a (yes, I'm going to say it)...a Blue Ribbon panel.
We should not simply be looking for a solution to today's healthcare crisis or for what solution with satisfying the needs and demands of today's interest groups, industries, government entities, providers or, especially, patients. We need to be thinking about the needs of these groups 20-50 years from now and establishing a process by which these needs can be heard, vetted and met.
Health care is a foundational need in any society and important in the same way as the national defense, the protection and appropriate use of natural resources or the proper alignment of our system of checks and balances. We must look out for how health care is established and maintained as a key component of our national security and prosperity.
Any health care panel should be molded into our governmental systems -- Congressional oversight, broad representation of interested parties and sectors, makeup tied in some way to representation influenced by voters, etc. Whatever is done must, however, look far beyond what breaks today's gridlock and be focused on driving ongoing change and refinement in what may be the most dynamic of both marketplaces and human needs.
This is an issue that cries out for a (yes, I'm going to say it)...a Blue Ribbon panel.
We should not simply be looking for a solution to today's healthcare crisis or for what solution with satisfying the needs and demands of today's interest groups, industries, government entities, providers or, especially, patients. We need to be thinking about the needs of these groups 20-50 years from now and establishing a process by which these needs can be heard, vetted and met.
Health care is a foundational need in any society and important in the same way as the national defense, the protection and appropriate use of natural resources or the proper alignment of our system of checks and balances. We must look out for how health care is established and maintained as a key component of our national security and prosperity.
Any health care panel should be molded into our governmental systems -- Congressional oversight, broad representation of interested parties and sectors, makeup tied in some way to representation influenced by voters, etc. Whatever is done must, however, look far beyond what breaks today's gridlock and be focused on driving ongoing change and refinement in what may be the most dynamic of both marketplaces and human needs.
Sounds like some in congress are trying to get work done in spite of very poor leadership by the majority in both houses. Music to my ears. The idea is to work together for the common good, and not to keep throwing fits and shouting 'my way or the highway' after crafting something in secret with no input or buy in by the other parties.
Gory Gardner, Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton: many of us in Colorado will not forget your role in this debacle. McConnell and Ryan had help in trying to hurt so many, to benefit so few. And all of you should have a basic understanding of how insurance works.. which clearly you did not by the bill you ended up passing. Talk to some actuaries and get some expert opinion, at least, instead of simply working for a purely political end.
As a 'successful businessman' Trump should have been encouraging this all along, but then his idea of 'success' is different from that of an ethical human being who works with and for others as well as themselves. Trump is all about 'killing' to 'win'... works perhaps in the dingy cut throat world he comes from, but not so much in a normal business setting where Execs are effective in leadership: And definitely not (shock) for leadership in government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Gory Gardner, Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton: many of us in Colorado will not forget your role in this debacle. McConnell and Ryan had help in trying to hurt so many, to benefit so few. And all of you should have a basic understanding of how insurance works.. which clearly you did not by the bill you ended up passing. Talk to some actuaries and get some expert opinion, at least, instead of simply working for a purely political end.
As a 'successful businessman' Trump should have been encouraging this all along, but then his idea of 'success' is different from that of an ethical human being who works with and for others as well as themselves. Trump is all about 'killing' to 'win'... works perhaps in the dingy cut throat world he comes from, but not so much in a normal business setting where Execs are effective in leadership: And definitely not (shock) for leadership in government of the people, by the people, for the people.
2
Funny thing--maybe it takes such a horrible Executive Branch, to get get Capital Hill working again (when become united against an incompetent POTUS)...
Why on earth are they not working together on universal single payer? If the Democrats really want better health care for all, stop messing around with stupid Band-Aid fixes to the ACA. If the GOP really want to keep considering themselves the "fiscally responsible" party, then stop messing around with stupid patchwork fixes and make the fiscally responsible switch the universal single payer. Oh yeah, and stop taking insurance companies' campaign donations. We the People are behind you.
76
In single-payer we'd all pay for it through our taxes -- a Health Tax, one might say. Health industry would then be sick itself -- and need help to recover, perhaps through its management of a mass infrastructure project.
If we endlessly repeat the same garbage our politicians always promote, then we are not better than the politicians at all!
In the interest of helping people get and keep healthcare this news is a good thing if it achieves that end, and so it must be pursued. I'm sure Neville Chamberlain felt the same way when he negotiated his compromise with Hitler.
But the Dems should not be lulled into any sense of victory or satisfaction. Republican orthodoxy demands a "free" market solution, which is diametrically opposed to the realities of the healthcare market. Making profit the basis of healthcare turns the system on its head. Healthcare is about making patients better, not making the bottom line better. The maxim: "Whatever you focus on becomes greater" is true in this case as well. We have had a for-profit based system and heath industry profits vastly outpace inflation, while people continue to struggle to afford the costs. It's long past time to reverse our focus, as every major industrial country has, and realize that the healthier a society is, the more prosperous it becomes.
So yes, negotiate, but don't capitulate.
But the Dems should not be lulled into any sense of victory or satisfaction. Republican orthodoxy demands a "free" market solution, which is diametrically opposed to the realities of the healthcare market. Making profit the basis of healthcare turns the system on its head. Healthcare is about making patients better, not making the bottom line better. The maxim: "Whatever you focus on becomes greater" is true in this case as well. We have had a for-profit based system and heath industry profits vastly outpace inflation, while people continue to struggle to afford the costs. It's long past time to reverse our focus, as every major industrial country has, and realize that the healthier a society is, the more prosperous it becomes.
So yes, negotiate, but don't capitulate.
1
Nothing warms my heart more than to see bipartisan cooperation in Congress. It began with the sanctions on Russia, & now there is a flickering fame that is trying to repair Obama Care.It demonstrates there are Politicians that value our country more than their Party, & a stop of obstructionist politics.Oh, for the likes of McCain & Obama in the White House, this flickering flame would become a raging fire, of good will.
1
I'm heartened by the bipartisan effort here, but it drives me nuts that we remain intractably wedded to a system that is wholly dependent on shoveling large sums of government money at a for-profit industry that cannot stand on its own. Is it just me, or does anyone else recognize how crazy it is that the only way insurance companies can make those profits is if they stop insuring sick people? Otherwise, it's a $7 billion subsidy to support the ACA exchanges or, according to the math in this article, a $9.3 billion subsidy if Trump craters this thing.
And yet we are told over and over that single payer would be too expensive. For who?
And yet we are told over and over that single payer would be too expensive. For who?
1
You would rather kill fellow citizens than give up the illusion of the invisible hand. How foolish.
Nott a shocker. Working together for the greater good is why we elect legislators.
For political reasons, if for no other, the Democrats need to incorporate single-payer into their "Better Deal" election platform. If the Dems are to win back the House in 2018, they will need to take 24 seats from Republicans—no easy task given the current geopolitical landscape.
As The Times’ Nate Cohn and other analysts have noted, the Dems will need to scrabble for every possible Democratic vote if they are to reach that 24-seat goal. So, a platform directed at the working, middle class, as welcome as it is, is simply not enough.
We certainly need the working-class—former Obama voters who switched to Trump and are now having regrets should be low-hanging fruit—but we also need all those people who didn't vote in 2016, or who voted for Johnson or Stein. They are people of every race and economic condition, whose numbers far exceed the working-class defectors.
"A Better Deal" is too narrowly drawn.To win in 2018 we need a broad, diverse coalition. And we need a compelling vision of America, one that appeals across race, class and ethnicity. Above all, we need single-payer. This narrowly focused platform will not inspire victory in 2018.
• "The Democratic Party’s Billion-Dollar Mistake," Steve Philips, NYTimes, July 20, 2017, http://tinyurl.com/y9wcleng
• "Democrats’ Best Chance to Retake the House? 8 Types of G.O.P. Districts to Watch," Nate Cohn, NYTimes, June 26, 2017, http://tinyurl.com/y922qf45
As The Times’ Nate Cohn and other analysts have noted, the Dems will need to scrabble for every possible Democratic vote if they are to reach that 24-seat goal. So, a platform directed at the working, middle class, as welcome as it is, is simply not enough.
We certainly need the working-class—former Obama voters who switched to Trump and are now having regrets should be low-hanging fruit—but we also need all those people who didn't vote in 2016, or who voted for Johnson or Stein. They are people of every race and economic condition, whose numbers far exceed the working-class defectors.
"A Better Deal" is too narrowly drawn.To win in 2018 we need a broad, diverse coalition. And we need a compelling vision of America, one that appeals across race, class and ethnicity. Above all, we need single-payer. This narrowly focused platform will not inspire victory in 2018.
• "The Democratic Party’s Billion-Dollar Mistake," Steve Philips, NYTimes, July 20, 2017, http://tinyurl.com/y9wcleng
• "Democrats’ Best Chance to Retake the House? 8 Types of G.O.P. Districts to Watch," Nate Cohn, NYTimes, June 26, 2017, http://tinyurl.com/y922qf45
1
“For political reasons, if for no other, the Democrats need to incorporate single-payer into their "Better Deal" election platform.”
That sentence epitomizes why the Democrats and their “supporters” keep losing elections.
It is abundantly clear that a single-payer health care system is the Moral and Ethical solution. Yet, Democrats no longer care about policies centered around Morals and Ethics.
“For political reasons” is not the correct reason to support a policy.
That sentence epitomizes why the Democrats and their “supporters” keep losing elections.
It is abundantly clear that a single-payer health care system is the Moral and Ethical solution. Yet, Democrats no longer care about policies centered around Morals and Ethics.
“For political reasons” is not the correct reason to support a policy.
Reply to rfmd1,
You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to put words in my mouth. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest or imply that single-payer was not the "moral or ethical solution." In fact, I’ve argued for single-payer on similar grounds for years.
Unlike you, however, I recognize that no progress can be made on this (or any other) front, unless the Democrats take back power in Washington.
Advocating for a political strategy that will make single-payer possible, is in fact a moral and ethical position. To advocate an end without the means to achieve it, is vacuous hypocrisy.
Your comment drips with holier-than-thou, moral outrage. In future, try to muffle that liberal outrage—it really gets tiresome—and use your noodle to THINK.
You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to put words in my mouth. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest or imply that single-payer was not the "moral or ethical solution." In fact, I’ve argued for single-payer on similar grounds for years.
Unlike you, however, I recognize that no progress can be made on this (or any other) front, unless the Democrats take back power in Washington.
Advocating for a political strategy that will make single-payer possible, is in fact a moral and ethical position. To advocate an end without the means to achieve it, is vacuous hypocrisy.
Your comment drips with holier-than-thou, moral outrage. In future, try to muffle that liberal outrage—it really gets tiresome—and use your noodle to THINK.
1
Finally -- A pin hole glimmer of hope for the American people. Hallelujah!
2
The ACA would have been fine, with more tweaking, had the pretender at the white house and the repulsives not claimed that they had a "better deal" They had nothing of the sort and have managed to make the insurance companies fearful of what might happen if there was no ACA. The repulsives have created this morass. They never did have a plan.
3
Another shocker: cats and dogs playing together. That I can buy, but the only way Dems should play with Republics is if they acquiesce to Dems demands. We can as easily play the obstructionist game McConnell ordered his party to do commencing Day One of President Obama's term. Let Republics stew in the muddled mess they've made. Enablers of Trump since the Big Oaf descended the faux gold escalator, the GOP deserve a good walloping at the polls come next year. So much for Jeff Flake's feeble attempts to find a worm hole to sneak through, now claiming no complacency on his part in furthering Trump's
ascension. Really? Flake talks the talk but when it came to walking the walk, actually voting "Nay" on the Trump agenda, he wimped out. In fact, Flake and all Republicans have not uttered a discouraging word about Trump as long as he maintained a high level of support from rubes, goobers, yahoos, hicks, bumpkins, the deplorable crowd. Now as they see the tide turn, and 2018 approaching, they have become profiles in courage? No, not in the least. What these Republicans are morphing into are rats on a sinking ship. Too little, too late, Jeff.
DD
Manhatttan
ascension. Really? Flake talks the talk but when it came to walking the walk, actually voting "Nay" on the Trump agenda, he wimped out. In fact, Flake and all Republicans have not uttered a discouraging word about Trump as long as he maintained a high level of support from rubes, goobers, yahoos, hicks, bumpkins, the deplorable crowd. Now as they see the tide turn, and 2018 approaching, they have become profiles in courage? No, not in the least. What these Republicans are morphing into are rats on a sinking ship. Too little, too late, Jeff.
DD
Manhatttan
3
Great timing. In my state, the insurance companies have already announced their hefty premium increases for 2018. Raise your hand if you think they're going to re-adjust their rates downward as a result of this new bipartisan spirit.
Funny how mainstream economists do backflips explaining how insurance company greed is not a factor in our breakdown of healthcare payment system. Like National defense health care is a public good which must be evenly distributed across society. The most conservative would not envision defense as a subscription service in which if you pay you get protected form invasion while if you do not invaders are welcome to your house. My house opting out affects the whole. What Republican ideology refuses to see is that health care is the same; either we have sufficient coverage or the holes define the barrier. It is also important to remember the state of health care in the 18th century. If medicine was more likely to heal as hurt back then it would have been mentioned in our Constitution.
"Another danger is that Mr. Trump and his health and human services secretary, Tom Price, could try to pre-emptively weaken the marketplaces through administrative measures."
That ship is already sailing, full steam ahead. Isn't HHS already producing anti-ACA videos, using funds set aside to promote the enrollment period? Even if Dr. Price is forced to stop the cameras, some videos are already out there, doing the damage just as he and Trump planned. Having diminished the promotion budget, Price could do next to nothing to promote enrollment and claim he didn't have the funds to do a better job. Indeed, that seems to be the plan: The HHS website doesn't seem to have any info about the 2018 enrollment period. Like everything else touched by Trump, this approach is underhanded, mean, and hurts people who are already in a vulnerable position.
That's why any news that lawmakers are talking to each other--and ignoring the angry orders from Tweety Bird--is so encouraging. I wish I could order in lunch for the senators who are stepping up to do what is best for their constituents, as opposed to what's best for their party and/or donors, regardless of who gets to claim the "win." This is how the system is supposed to work. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the first glimmer of real hope since Nov. 8, 2016.
That ship is already sailing, full steam ahead. Isn't HHS already producing anti-ACA videos, using funds set aside to promote the enrollment period? Even if Dr. Price is forced to stop the cameras, some videos are already out there, doing the damage just as he and Trump planned. Having diminished the promotion budget, Price could do next to nothing to promote enrollment and claim he didn't have the funds to do a better job. Indeed, that seems to be the plan: The HHS website doesn't seem to have any info about the 2018 enrollment period. Like everything else touched by Trump, this approach is underhanded, mean, and hurts people who are already in a vulnerable position.
That's why any news that lawmakers are talking to each other--and ignoring the angry orders from Tweety Bird--is so encouraging. I wish I could order in lunch for the senators who are stepping up to do what is best for their constituents, as opposed to what's best for their party and/or donors, regardless of who gets to claim the "win." This is how the system is supposed to work. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the first glimmer of real hope since Nov. 8, 2016.
In the age of the "Contract With America" Republicans don't 'work' with Democrats, the 'out-maneuver' them; rules, laws, norms be damned. Winning is the only thing, governing (as we have now witnessed) is of almost no concern. This 'bipartisan' effort looks like nothing more than a flanking tactic by the Republicans to diffuse the ever mounting momentum for single payer. When Senator Schumer announced that single payer is "on the table" it was a threat to the Republicans plain and simple. They still remember what happened the last time they woke up the Democratic sleeping giant.
1
Lyin' Donald has provided the GOP congressional leadership has an excuse to put their Radical Right Extremism aside. Trump may be the Anti-Christ for all I care, but he did not invent the extremist political posturing of the Congressional Republicans over the past decade or two. However, his failures have positioned him as a scapegoat and allowed the GOP to quickly away from their extremism and toward bipartisian legislation. In this time of political chaos, international threats, and environmental disaster, it is nice to see something positive emerge from the epic, childish mess of Trump's administration.
2
Which is why Obamacare should have never been passed without a single republican vote.
2
ACA was a long process full of hearings and allowed a TON of GP amendments, which is why its hurting in some areas, because of those allowed GOP amendments. And it hsould nt have been passed? The GOP would have passed that atrocious wealthccare bill had they had the votes. yes, the Dems should have passed the ACA. The GOP was never going to agree on any healthcare plan, ever. They dont want the gov't to give healthcare, and they never will. So there was nothing the Dems could have done back then to get the GOP on board. Thankfully, its been around long enough, that you now can not take it away. Cry as you might, but Obama's legacy lives on, especially with the excellent healthcare he gace the US. Deal with it.
1
True . If the Republican had offered even a single vote as being in play Baucus and Nelson could not have held the plan hostage. Obama sold out his base with a heritage Foundation plan but he needed to get something in place. If the Republicans had not acted in lock step it could have been better, but having something in place makes it harder to go back to status quo ante, as Trump, Ryan and McConnell have found out.
There has been so much bitterness, dishonesty and distrust in our Washington political system over the past 30 years that I think it impossible for these actors to do anything that resembles good for the country. They are working for the companies that have lobbyists writing the legislation that they propose and pass.
The foundation forms of our government are strong but the concrete (politicians) are rotten. Any sort of 'compromise' on healthcare will compromise the health of the country more than it already is.
The foundation forms of our government are strong but the concrete (politicians) are rotten. Any sort of 'compromise' on healthcare will compromise the health of the country more than it already is.
This bipartisan effort is refreshing and instills some much needed hope. It needs to shut down the radicalized Freedom Caucus of the Senate as much as it needs to shut down the misguided and destructive forces of the White House.
"Something unusual and important is happening in Congress: Republicans and Democrats are working together to improve the health care system. And they’re doing so in defiance of President Trump..."
This may be the most important outcome of the trump presidency.
This may be the most important outcome of the trump presidency.
2
From article:
"Insurers have said they will no longer sell policies in 20 counties in Indiana, Nevada and Ohio..."
Just to quantify the problem, I did what authors probably hope readers will never do: click on the link (to "20 counties"). Turns out it's 12 counties now (as of August 2, 2017), all in Nevada, with a total of 12,000 enrollees.
Whatever one feels about Obamacare, THIS problem doesn't strike me as a big one.
"Insurers have said they will no longer sell policies in 20 counties in Indiana, Nevada and Ohio..."
Just to quantify the problem, I did what authors probably hope readers will never do: click on the link (to "20 counties"). Turns out it's 12 counties now (as of August 2, 2017), all in Nevada, with a total of 12,000 enrollees.
Whatever one feels about Obamacare, THIS problem doesn't strike me as a big one.
4
If you review the campaign promises that President Trump made (the best Healthcare Plan ever) Congress has the opportunity to fulfill that promise. However I am sure that Corporate Money and their Lobbyists will stymie this approach.
If Congress is really interested in finding the best Healthcare Plan, I propose that three contenders be evaluated:
1. Obamacare as it is today
2. A Single Payer plan similar to the European Plans (No one gets thrown under the bus with this plan)
3. The unknown New Plan that will be discussed in Congress
Two of the three plans can be evaluated relatively quickly by the CBO while we wait for the New Plan to wind its way through the Senate. I do not believe that a Single Payer Plan has ever been evaluated by the CBO since it is politically incorrect in this country. Hopefully the CBO will not be influenced by politics.
If Congress is really interested in finding the best Healthcare Plan, I propose that three contenders be evaluated:
1. Obamacare as it is today
2. A Single Payer plan similar to the European Plans (No one gets thrown under the bus with this plan)
3. The unknown New Plan that will be discussed in Congress
Two of the three plans can be evaluated relatively quickly by the CBO while we wait for the New Plan to wind its way through the Senate. I do not believe that a Single Payer Plan has ever been evaluated by the CBO since it is politically incorrect in this country. Hopefully the CBO will not be influenced by politics.
2
Why is it that liberal progressives never answer the following question? Why does my family, who has to live with the higher deductibles and higher premiums of the Obamacare disaster, have to also pay for Congress's 75% subsidized (by the middle class) Obamacare? Where is the outrage and why can't liberal progressives see the inherent conflict and disfunctionality of this subsidy?
Are you saying you have paid for your family's insurance for the past about 8 years or more and somehow/for some reason moved to "Obamacare" from what you had and your rates went up more than the average? Or do you feel your insurance rates were driven up by the very existence of Obamacare? Insurance and medical care costs have been on a steep upward trajectory for decades. It seems those claiming unfairly increased costs are reflecting back to non-existent halcyon days when medical and insurance costs held steady.
4
We "liberals" do feel outraged by the increase in premiums, because this is what will lead to millions of people losing their healthcare. We do feel outraged by the fact that Congress won't provide the American people with the same coverage that we pay for them to have. Because of this conflict, most of us think there should be a single-payer system. If that won't pass, then we will settle for making corrections to the Affordable Care Act that will support it's original aim. Obama's mistake was not in trying to provide health insurance for everyone. His mistake was in believing that, if he adopted a Republican solution, the Republicans would back him. It's unrealistic to think that such a major program would be perfect from the beginning, especially given the political climate in which it was developed. Legislation is always changing to address problems that arise or that were not properly addressed before. The idea that the Affordable Care Act is a "disaster" or should be scrapped because it needs to continue to evolve is nonsensical.
Why do you think we aren't outraged? I don't know any liberal or progressive who isn't sickened by the crass hypocrisy shown by conservatives who actively seek to withhold healthcare from their own constituents, while enjoying excellent taxpayer-funded health insurance themselves. It has been one of the most frequently-raised objections to the movement to repeal Obamacare, right from the start.
"Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" I'm afraid that I don't share your optimism.
With so much money going to insurance companies, why not cut out the middleman?
We need a single-payer system. We ought to pay a consumption tax dedicated to healthcare. Everyone goes to the doctor, hospital, and get prescription medicine and the bill comes to US.
We get the government we deserve.
We need a single-payer system. We ought to pay a consumption tax dedicated to healthcare. Everyone goes to the doctor, hospital, and get prescription medicine and the bill comes to US.
We get the government we deserve.
130
Valerie,
Study after study has been done on a single payer healthcare in the US and every single one of them says it's just not possible. Regardless of one's political bent, single payer is simply not possible because of the cost. Please do the research, the information is literally at your fingertips.
Study after study has been done on a single payer healthcare in the US and every single one of them says it's just not possible. Regardless of one's political bent, single payer is simply not possible because of the cost. Please do the research, the information is literally at your fingertips.
Bill - You are 100% wrong in your absurd claims.
1
Please stop calling it "Single payer." Nobody knows what single payer is. They think it's some weird foreign thing that "is simply not possible because of the cost" that they do is "socialist countries. Please call it by its proper name, Medicare. We should cut out the middleman, and institute Medicare. That's not just what we want, and it saves $billions. We can see how much less it already costs for the oldest and sickest among us, from the 50+ year experiment that we have already conducted.
Anything less than Democrats uncompromisingly advocating affordable, qualitative, and equally comprehensive coverage for all members of our society is unacceptable. Not Republicans in Congress but their constituents and 2018 voters are the people with whom Democrats need to be working.
3
That sounds great, but what does it actually mean once you get down to the details?
Note to Democrats: Be careful.
We have an odd if tenuous kind of leverage at this moment, so use it judiciously.
Don't overreach, but don't give away the store, either. Because of the GOP's historically malevolent intransigence, any "honest" outreach by them will be a shock to the system, resulting in a negotiation error.
This could be some kind of trick, and even if it isn't, the rug could be pulled out from under this by leadership at any moment.
They love shiny objects, maybe dangle some minor concessions in the estate tax area to move the ball forward.
We have an odd if tenuous kind of leverage at this moment, so use it judiciously.
Don't overreach, but don't give away the store, either. Because of the GOP's historically malevolent intransigence, any "honest" outreach by them will be a shock to the system, resulting in a negotiation error.
This could be some kind of trick, and even if it isn't, the rug could be pulled out from under this by leadership at any moment.
They love shiny objects, maybe dangle some minor concessions in the estate tax area to move the ball forward.
3
How sad that we should be shocked when Republicans suddenly show heart! Or is it just fear, based on Trump's plummeting poll numbers? Let's hope it's a combination of both.
What is concerning, however, is the "resident" - a man driven by resentment and revenge, qualities which are hindrances to carrying out the Oath of Office. Governing by threats, tweets, hostility and arrogance will not produce the results this nation needs. And the sooner GOP members of Congress step up to the Bipartisan plate, the better for the country.
Healthcare must be shored up and ultimately fixed in such a way that Americans, like people in all other advanced nations, can relax, knowing that a health crisis is not a step on the road to bankruptcy.
This is pure common sense!
Nevertheless, a madman, a sociopath, sitting in a revered White House, which he recklessly terms a "dump," should be evicted therefrom! Instead of being able to evict citizens from a right to lifesaving, necessary healthcare.
If the Congress were sensible, they would swiftly enact legislation allowing anyone to claim Medicare benefits. (With Medicaid as a supplement for those in need) It's the right thing to do. It's the compassionate thing to do.
To do any less is a crime. A crime against humanity.
Think about it: if even prisoners receive needed medical care, what does this tell us? That to go with out government-sponsoredhealtgcare is "cruel and unusual Punishment."
The constitution forbids it!
What is concerning, however, is the "resident" - a man driven by resentment and revenge, qualities which are hindrances to carrying out the Oath of Office. Governing by threats, tweets, hostility and arrogance will not produce the results this nation needs. And the sooner GOP members of Congress step up to the Bipartisan plate, the better for the country.
Healthcare must be shored up and ultimately fixed in such a way that Americans, like people in all other advanced nations, can relax, knowing that a health crisis is not a step on the road to bankruptcy.
This is pure common sense!
Nevertheless, a madman, a sociopath, sitting in a revered White House, which he recklessly terms a "dump," should be evicted therefrom! Instead of being able to evict citizens from a right to lifesaving, necessary healthcare.
If the Congress were sensible, they would swiftly enact legislation allowing anyone to claim Medicare benefits. (With Medicaid as a supplement for those in need) It's the right thing to do. It's the compassionate thing to do.
To do any less is a crime. A crime against humanity.
Think about it: if even prisoners receive needed medical care, what does this tell us? That to go with out government-sponsoredhealtgcare is "cruel and unusual Punishment."
The constitution forbids it!
5
The biggest winner is insurance companies. They are holding this country hostage for their profits. Seriously, why are we still talking about stablizing insurance market but not reducing cost and improving coverage? Let me spell it out the obvious. Insurance companies are for profits. They only want to insure healthy people and collect their payments. Why in the world are we putting them in the center of healthcare debate? Only in America!
And the solution should be simple when insurance companies are involved. Give them healthy people so they can make money. Government just focus on sicker people and finally start working on real solutions. In the name of free market approach, this is insane but so be it. Sorry, I cannot just blame GOP for the stupidity. It really takes two to tango.
And the solution should be simple when insurance companies are involved. Give them healthy people so they can make money. Government just focus on sicker people and finally start working on real solutions. In the name of free market approach, this is insane but so be it. Sorry, I cannot just blame GOP for the stupidity. It really takes two to tango.
9
Brilliant!
And I totally agree with the last line. There's just the two of them, red and blue. Their attempts to blame each other make them all look like children.
I'd like to add this to your solution. Let's go for states rights all the way. Let each state choose. Do they want to join the national fund (for the already ill) or rely on the insurance companies? Do they have some sort of re-insurance scheme of their own to keep premiums down? Why should I suffer for the bad decisions that other people in other states continue to make?
And pretty soon we would be able to see for ourselves who has the better solutions.
And I totally agree with the last line. There's just the two of them, red and blue. Their attempts to blame each other make them all look like children.
I'd like to add this to your solution. Let's go for states rights all the way. Let each state choose. Do they want to join the national fund (for the already ill) or rely on the insurance companies? Do they have some sort of re-insurance scheme of their own to keep premiums down? Why should I suffer for the bad decisions that other people in other states continue to make?
And pretty soon we would be able to see for ourselves who has the better solutions.
I think the incentive for Republicans is that they will be held responsible at the election booth in November 2018 for failure of the healthcare system between now and then. So by all means, let's keep their feet to the fire!
This is a step in the right direction. I applaud the on-board Republicans for swallowing their medicine and going forward. This is finally some good news!
37
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.... It is a relief that finally there is some political will for working together. Carping about political agendas, the past, and all the rest of it is counterproductive right now. I am just relieved that the combatants are willing to talk/negotiate.
It's like when the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland finally decided that maybe they should endeavor to get along for the sake of the country.
It's like when the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland finally decided that maybe they should endeavor to get along for the sake of the country.
2
This just goes to prove that if anything good comes from this presidential term, it will be IN SPITE OF the Oval Office. As Trump is wont to say: SAD.
1
If the Republican don't talk to the insurance industry or continue to ignore them like they did the first part of the summer, this won't get fixed. The main fix that I think the insurance industry has been screaming for all along is "fix the risk pool!" "Everyone in the pool!" is a great way to liven up the party - it's also the way to fix most of these problems. Two ways to do it:
1) Sharpen and increase the penalties for not carrying insurance. Republicans claim they would get rid of the "individual mandate" and it's penalties, but guess what...they also included a penalty of 30% surcharge on premiums if someone wanted to buy health insurance for the first time and were already ill. That's an "individual mandate and penalty" in sheep's clothing.
2) Single-payer Medicare-for-all health insurance. Everyone is in - no shopping, no selecting, no "premiums" - at least in the traditional sense. Just a payroll deduction like your FICA - Medicare deductions. If everyone is in, everyone is paying their part, then everyone is probably paying much less. AND factor in that no part of that is going to CEO salaries, stockholder profits, advertising, lawyers, accountants, etc. that are all part of "marketplace insurance." Everyone's in, everyone's covered, everyone has "health security." No more wondering, "I wonder what would happen if...." Think of the entrepreneurial energy unleashed if people no longer have to worry about losing their insurance if they leave their 9-5 jobs!
1) Sharpen and increase the penalties for not carrying insurance. Republicans claim they would get rid of the "individual mandate" and it's penalties, but guess what...they also included a penalty of 30% surcharge on premiums if someone wanted to buy health insurance for the first time and were already ill. That's an "individual mandate and penalty" in sheep's clothing.
2) Single-payer Medicare-for-all health insurance. Everyone is in - no shopping, no selecting, no "premiums" - at least in the traditional sense. Just a payroll deduction like your FICA - Medicare deductions. If everyone is in, everyone is paying their part, then everyone is probably paying much less. AND factor in that no part of that is going to CEO salaries, stockholder profits, advertising, lawyers, accountants, etc. that are all part of "marketplace insurance." Everyone's in, everyone's covered, everyone has "health security." No more wondering, "I wonder what would happen if...." Think of the entrepreneurial energy unleashed if people no longer have to worry about losing their insurance if they leave their 9-5 jobs!
2
Perfectly said. Thank you. Let's all leave idealogy behind and get this done.
nice job Okie
nice job Okie
I don't know. Blocking a bipartisan health care stopgap seems pretty risky. McConnell is relatively insulated politically right now. Trump would probably spin the bill as proof that Obamacare really is dying. All the same, willfully killing the measure seems like a bridge too far. Slapping voters with a fat premium increase or an empty market seems like bad party politics. Again, I think they'd rather pass the bill and stump on how they "saved" Obamacare.
I'm more concerned about the temporary nature of the agreement. Right now we have bipartisanship born of necessity. Need to know time. Insurance companies are making a decision one way or the other. However, what if this becomes the new norm? Every year or few years, Congress has to renegotiate the appropriation of health care subsidies. I know a favorable appeal verdict would eliminate the necessity but suppose it doesn't.
Will legislators actually follow through on their commitment to find a permanent solution or will Obamacare continue to languish in quasi-functional limbo? We shall see.
I'm more concerned about the temporary nature of the agreement. Right now we have bipartisanship born of necessity. Need to know time. Insurance companies are making a decision one way or the other. However, what if this becomes the new norm? Every year or few years, Congress has to renegotiate the appropriation of health care subsidies. I know a favorable appeal verdict would eliminate the necessity but suppose it doesn't.
Will legislators actually follow through on their commitment to find a permanent solution or will Obamacare continue to languish in quasi-functional limbo? We shall see.
Congress prevailed in its suit that Obama's executive branch usurped congressional authority by spending unappropriated funds on Obamacare subsidies. This is currently under appeal, and the Trump admin can lawfully drop that appeal at any time, killing the subsidies.
Trump wants to keep this option on the table as a negotiation chip, but at some point he will need to pull the trigger on this option.
Further, Trump should VETO any new Obamacare appropriation passed by congress. It is unlikely there are votes to override a veto.
Trump wants to keep this option on the table as a negotiation chip, but at some point he will need to pull the trigger on this option.
Further, Trump should VETO any new Obamacare appropriation passed by congress. It is unlikely there are votes to override a veto.
The best thing Americans can do now is contact their representatives and tell them we support these bipartisan efforts. If all we do is complain like screaming banshees whenever we don't get what we want, congress will continue to play to the extreme elements of each party. We know what that looks like. However, most of us are in "the middle." If we are willing to speak up and demand that members of congress work together, maybe they will start behaving like intelligent human beings and finally get some work done. It's worth a try.
50
Sorry, but there are billions to be made by the for-profits and no solution our Congress comes up with will remove the 800-lb gorilla that sits on our healthcare system - for-profit vultures. Too much campaign loot is at stake.
This is an opportunity for everyone to look good. Assuming that the ACA can be repaired and improved, the president can magnanimously come down from the bully pulpit, sit down with congressional leadership, explain the realpolitiks of the situation and make this happen. (It might help Republicans swallow their pride if they stopped calling it Obamacare). If they can repair it, he'll be the great negotiator, Congress might help their abysmal job ratings and more importantly, the people will be better off. What a novel idea, working for the people!
34
You are operating from an alternate universe if you think trump can ever wipe the stench of his behavior off himself and 'sit down and become a hero . . .' The bloom is off the rose even for the diehards.
1
The best improvement for the ACA is the restoration of the original Public Option that McConnell forced Obama to trade away to get past his filibuster. The Individual Mandate is pure conservative Republican policy originated by the Heritage Foundation and implemented (complete with tax penalties for healthy young people who didn't sign up) as the core of Romneycare.
The best solution for America is still single-payer. Americans pay twice as much privately in their premiums, deductables, copays, limits, et al. than the taxes paid by Europeans for far better medical care. The United States, for example has a horrendous rate of women dying during childbirth and children living past 1 year, compared to any other western country except Mexico. American lifespans are 3 to 5 years shorter than the rest of the modern world. And we pay twice as much per capita as the rest of the modern world. The only difference is that we call the costs monthly fees, deductables, co-pays, 80/20 payments, annual and lifetime limits, limited services, while the European systems are paid by taxes. In both cases our health care comes out of our own pockets one way or another. Only the rest of the advanced countries pay far less in taxes for their superior systems than we do for our dysfunctional systems of the past 35 years.
The best solution for America is still single-payer. Americans pay twice as much privately in their premiums, deductables, copays, limits, et al. than the taxes paid by Europeans for far better medical care. The United States, for example has a horrendous rate of women dying during childbirth and children living past 1 year, compared to any other western country except Mexico. American lifespans are 3 to 5 years shorter than the rest of the modern world. And we pay twice as much per capita as the rest of the modern world. The only difference is that we call the costs monthly fees, deductables, co-pays, 80/20 payments, annual and lifetime limits, limited services, while the European systems are paid by taxes. In both cases our health care comes out of our own pockets one way or another. Only the rest of the advanced countries pay far less in taxes for their superior systems than we do for our dysfunctional systems of the past 35 years.
Confronted with the loss of ACA coverage, Medicaid expansion, the Republican Trump base, the white male, HS educated realized that they, their families, were in the cross-hairs of repeal. Even the middle-class Trump Republicans can recall the double digit increases in insurance premiums prior to the ACA, and the cascading loss of employee insurance benefits. Party leaders are deaf to developments that contradict their policies. Democratic leaders obstructed the Sanders campaign and maligned Sanders "Medicare for all". Sanders supporters voted third Party, stayed home, or voted for Trump in desperation. Democratic leaders continue to pretend that Sanders is absent, or crazy. Republican leaders pretend that the Trump voters are not frightened by their intransigence, Both Parties are confronted by the disconnect between themselves and the non-insurance health care industry, and all the employers who cannot plan, who cannot calculate their costs, who are confronted with escalating benefit costs.
When all first world nations have "single payer" or other government based health insurance at far lower costs and better outcomes and the argument against "health care for all" in America is that we cannot afford it, we are not fooled. Why can't America afford single payer? Because the Republican and the Democratic Parties are corrupt are in bed with beneficiaries of corruption. Where is Sanders in this "compromise"?
When all first world nations have "single payer" or other government based health insurance at far lower costs and better outcomes and the argument against "health care for all" in America is that we cannot afford it, we are not fooled. Why can't America afford single payer? Because the Republican and the Democratic Parties are corrupt are in bed with beneficiaries of corruption. Where is Sanders in this "compromise"?
1
What the "bipartisan cooperation" actually sounds like is another massive donation of billions of tax dollars to Big Insurance which is already reaping vast profits for doing absolutely nothing positive for ordinary citizens except collecting as much of their money as possible which they have to shell out for medical care that is a human right in most of the industrialized world.
Until we have Medicare for all, these bloated corporations will continue to act as gatekeepers for the sick and injured, often determining who will live and who will die, and causing the cost of healthcare to skyrocket through their inefficient policies and mountains of paperwork that physicians and other providers must fill out lest an "unacceptable" medicare procedure slip by.
Until we have Medicare for all, these bloated corporations will continue to act as gatekeepers for the sick and injured, often determining who will live and who will die, and causing the cost of healthcare to skyrocket through their inefficient policies and mountains of paperwork that physicians and other providers must fill out lest an "unacceptable" medicare procedure slip by.
2
Someone needs to remind Trump that by stopping the ACA subsidies he will not be getting revenge on Congress. It doesn't hurt them in the least, and they won't be blamed for it. But, it will hurt millions of voters, most of whom voted for him and continue to support him. Whether they will continue their support after he cuts off their access to doctors and medical services is anyone's guess. But, he better weigh his actions very carefully. His approval is hovering around 35% now. If he loses even a portion of his base, he won't only be a lame duck, he'll be a sitting duck in 2020.
If this effort has any chance to succeed Mitch McConnell must stay on the sidelines. His demonstrable willingness to lie and zero-sum philosophy makes it impossible for any normal person to collaborate with him, let alone the Democrats he has treated as enemies for 10 years.
"Conservatives quake at the idea of "wealth redistribution" but on health care, at least (if "redistribution" is what Obamacare is), a majority of Americans no longer feel this way.
And Obamacare has worked despite Republicans lies against it for 7 years. Rather than say the obligatory phrase (of which I am sick) - that "Obamacare works but is flawed" - I say that any limp in Obamacare's step is wholly the result of Republican disdain at its inception, and their ideological opposition to it and subterfuge against it for nearly a decade.
Just think of it: Obamacare surely could have been fully stable by now, providing Americans with what we might reasonably expect of American citizenship - affordable health care.
The question is what one expects of being an American. Republicans fervently believe that it means only the opportunity - if you are able - to profit from the business systems of our nation in a quest to get nothing but rich, with a big military to protect your dragon's hoard of gold. That's the ideal Republican America: where only money can buy happiness.
Health is worth more than money when it comes to happiness. (Many people think so. Believe me.) Republican opposition to Obamacare has thwarted this nation in a truly despicable way for nearly a decade, using even racist anger against a black president as a tool Republican ideological ends.
Yes, those Republicans working to repair that damage deserve support, but they are lifting themselves from shame.
And Obamacare has worked despite Republicans lies against it for 7 years. Rather than say the obligatory phrase (of which I am sick) - that "Obamacare works but is flawed" - I say that any limp in Obamacare's step is wholly the result of Republican disdain at its inception, and their ideological opposition to it and subterfuge against it for nearly a decade.
Just think of it: Obamacare surely could have been fully stable by now, providing Americans with what we might reasonably expect of American citizenship - affordable health care.
The question is what one expects of being an American. Republicans fervently believe that it means only the opportunity - if you are able - to profit from the business systems of our nation in a quest to get nothing but rich, with a big military to protect your dragon's hoard of gold. That's the ideal Republican America: where only money can buy happiness.
Health is worth more than money when it comes to happiness. (Many people think so. Believe me.) Republican opposition to Obamacare has thwarted this nation in a truly despicable way for nearly a decade, using even racist anger against a black president as a tool Republican ideological ends.
Yes, those Republicans working to repair that damage deserve support, but they are lifting themselves from shame.
1
I am sure the insurance companies have spoken to their employees... oh… I mean senators and congressmen and made it very clear that they do not want the money flow turned off.
This is corruption on a grand scale we are paying these useless companies money to supply us with inferior healthcare. We need to get for profit insurance companies out of healthcare.
This is corruption on a grand scale we are paying these useless companies money to supply us with inferior healthcare. We need to get for profit insurance companies out of healthcare.
3
I vote for stabilizing the market. But who am I to the 'great minds' in Congress who care only for their own ideologies. As far as Trump goes, he doesn't have the brain to form any consistent ideology.
1
Do you know why the Roman Empire collapsed and fell apart many centuries ago?
The Rome believed that they were doing great, that they implemented the best possible measures, that they took care of all the problems and that nothing bad could happen to them…
They were unable to recongize the worst threat to the Empire.
Why?
It was within them - their own corruption and the loss of the morality…
All of that happened in spite of the Christianity being the official religion of the state for a couple of centuries.
When you manage to effectively muzzle up the clergy or the critics and make them publically adore your policies instead of criticizing your mistakes, then you effectively eliminate the internal self-control, self-criticism and self-improvements.
Complicity is the worst threat to any society.
The partisan loyalty and discipline are the worst national security threat because those destroy our common sense, wisdom and intellect.
We should ban any partisan involvement among our elected officials.
We have the right to politically organize as the citizens, but if elected we have to serve all the people, not just our political allies.
The national interests are much bigger and more important than the partisan ones…
The Roman rulers tried to protect their own selfish interests and in the process destroyed the Rome!
The Rome believed that they were doing great, that they implemented the best possible measures, that they took care of all the problems and that nothing bad could happen to them…
They were unable to recongize the worst threat to the Empire.
Why?
It was within them - their own corruption and the loss of the morality…
All of that happened in spite of the Christianity being the official religion of the state for a couple of centuries.
When you manage to effectively muzzle up the clergy or the critics and make them publically adore your policies instead of criticizing your mistakes, then you effectively eliminate the internal self-control, self-criticism and self-improvements.
Complicity is the worst threat to any society.
The partisan loyalty and discipline are the worst national security threat because those destroy our common sense, wisdom and intellect.
We should ban any partisan involvement among our elected officials.
We have the right to politically organize as the citizens, but if elected we have to serve all the people, not just our political allies.
The national interests are much bigger and more important than the partisan ones…
The Roman rulers tried to protect their own selfish interests and in the process destroyed the Rome!
Any decent health care program is going to have to get bi-partisan support. The Republican majority cannot pass a decent program pn their own (there are too many right wingers against it). And the democrats don't have the votes to pass anything on their own.
If the Republicans and the Democrats could solve the problem, they would have solved it several decades ago…
Idiocy is to expect that the same voting pattern could deliver different results the next time…
The only few revolutionary changes the two mainstream political parties have created over the last 35 years is that we don’t have to pay any longer for our bills (thus the chronic budget deficits and the colossal national debt) and that now we officially equal bribery to the freedom of speech because everybody knows the money speaks…
Those changes are not just revolutionary but suicidal too…
Idiocy is to expect that the same voting pattern could deliver different results the next time…
The only few revolutionary changes the two mainstream political parties have created over the last 35 years is that we don’t have to pay any longer for our bills (thus the chronic budget deficits and the colossal national debt) and that now we officially equal bribery to the freedom of speech because everybody knows the money speaks…
Those changes are not just revolutionary but suicidal too…
1
Once upon a time, about March 21, 1765, a group of well-intentioned elected officials sought to "protect" its subjects by funding a militia to guard the borders.....this act was cleverly disguised as the Stamp Act...by British Parliament.
The Stamp Act, a seemingly insignifigant, rather unobtrusive tax provoked a violent response from the very same people it was intended to help...........
Many years later, on almost exactly the same calendar date, March 23, 2013......US Congress and the US President signed into law another bill, thought to be rather innocuous, non-burdensome, and very helpful to the subjects. It was soon exposed by the Supreme Court to be little more than a Tax Law....with very little health care. And once again unintended consequences are likely to be ENORMOUS.
The Stamp Act, a seemingly insignifigant, rather unobtrusive tax provoked a violent response from the very same people it was intended to help...........
Many years later, on almost exactly the same calendar date, March 23, 2013......US Congress and the US President signed into law another bill, thought to be rather innocuous, non-burdensome, and very helpful to the subjects. It was soon exposed by the Supreme Court to be little more than a Tax Law....with very little health care. And once again unintended consequences are likely to be ENORMOUS.
Encouraging the next congress to do the right thing - that's the consequence of the Right's recent healthcare debacle. Having failed to come up with any idea in 7 years to replace Obamacare, Congress is now highlighting the nuttiness of government "support" to an insurance industry that has broken records for profit. (United Health, Humana, etc) There has been no better illustration of the failure of the "free-market" paradigm in healthcare than what we're witnessing. For 52 years, Medicare has excelled at providing the essential government responsibility of healthcare for it's sickest, most vulnerable citizens. It will be up to our next Congress to expand and modify Medicare to provide the best, most efficient and universal health coverage possible. (And I'm not anxious for the health insurance industry - it will find ways to employ and make profit in supplementary insurances for those services not felt essential.)
It’s impossible to solve the health care crisis until we dismantle both political parties that created the mess! It is impossible to alleviate the consequences if we are not ready to deal with the source of the problem!
1
The fundamental issue remains,Members of Congress will only act against special interests and PAC money if voters threaten their re-electability.Voters will not see healthcare reform as a priority while over 100 million Americans have it provided by their employers, shielding them from most of the current issues, including exploding premiums and deductibles.Given that Tax Reform is the new legislative priority, there is an opportunity to give the majority of Americans first hand experience of the inequities of our current system.Removing the tax deduction companies get for providing coverage and making healthcare costs a deduction for all Americans would go along way to reframing the healthcare discussion and getting our system to be more aligned with other developed countries that spend less and get better outcomes than we do.
Healthcare is, for most average Americans, issue No. 1. It is the one issue that now affects and will affect, virtually every single American.
Because of that, the biggest of sticks in the democratic republic's arsenal need to be employed in dealing with it.
The Constitution is built around protecting American citizens. Protecting them from threats both internal and external. Both the terse text and the spirit of the document make that crystal clear: If you don't have two hours to read the document and then many months more to study the historical and social particulars of 18th Century America and Britain, just read the Preamble.
Elected officials, judges, stockholders and insurance companies all need to be made aware of the big sticks available in the campaign to, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Twice before - in the 1860s and 1930s - Americans and their elected representatives brought out big sticks to the fix massive ills that were posing a direct threat to the republic. It's time again. No American should die from untreatable illness and no hard-working American family should be destroyed by
smothering medical debt.
Because of that, the biggest of sticks in the democratic republic's arsenal need to be employed in dealing with it.
The Constitution is built around protecting American citizens. Protecting them from threats both internal and external. Both the terse text and the spirit of the document make that crystal clear: If you don't have two hours to read the document and then many months more to study the historical and social particulars of 18th Century America and Britain, just read the Preamble.
Elected officials, judges, stockholders and insurance companies all need to be made aware of the big sticks available in the campaign to, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Twice before - in the 1860s and 1930s - Americans and their elected representatives brought out big sticks to the fix massive ills that were posing a direct threat to the republic. It's time again. No American should die from untreatable illness and no hard-working American family should be destroyed by
smothering medical debt.
1
The editorial headline, “Capitol Shocker: Democrats and Republicans Start Working Together on Health Care”, is not accurate.
Neither party is interested in “Health Care”. They are both very interested in “Health Insurance”.
An accurate headline would have stated: “Business as Usual: Democrats and Republicans Continue To Work Together for the Benefit of Health Insurers”.
Neither party is interested in “Health Care”. They are both very interested in “Health Insurance”.
An accurate headline would have stated: “Business as Usual: Democrats and Republicans Continue To Work Together for the Benefit of Health Insurers”.
Wow, it's like SOME in the GOP realize that 2018 is Coming. This is all about preserving their " Jobs".
Medicare For ALL-2020- It's Time.
Medicare For ALL-2020- It's Time.
2
I'm glad they are working together, but frankly I think the better notion is the fact that if the GOP cannot agree on how to fix the ACA--amply demonstrated--then they have a duty to fund the law that currently exists.
The threat by Trump and Price is to essentially break the law. The ACA is the law of the land: where do these two get off by saying they will refuse to fund it as written?
To do so is to promote anarchy. Or sedition. How would Trump feel if the American people refused to pay his salary, or if Congress refused to allocate funds for his Wall or his wars, simply because they dislike both?
Either we're a nation of laws, or we aren't. By threatening to sabotage the ACA, should they make good on those threats, Trump/Price should be held in contempt and slapped with fines commensurate with the funds they are withholding.
The threat by Trump and Price is to essentially break the law. The ACA is the law of the land: where do these two get off by saying they will refuse to fund it as written?
To do so is to promote anarchy. Or sedition. How would Trump feel if the American people refused to pay his salary, or if Congress refused to allocate funds for his Wall or his wars, simply because they dislike both?
Either we're a nation of laws, or we aren't. By threatening to sabotage the ACA, should they make good on those threats, Trump/Price should be held in contempt and slapped with fines commensurate with the funds they are withholding.
3
The law as written does NOT fund the subsidies.
That was the entire point of Congress's lawsuit against the executive, in which Congress prevailed, and which is now under appeal.
That was the entire point of Congress's lawsuit against the executive, in which Congress prevailed, and which is now under appeal.
Premiums keep rising because "costs" keep rising.
The drivers of cost that can be reigned in are (a) profits, (b) administrative costs, (c) wages for highly-paid medical workers, and (d) behaviors that increase health problems.
Reducing the number of people covered should be a non-starter, and coverage should become universal. Improving behavior by cost-incentives is a "cost-savings" that "conservatives" should support as their focus on "individual responsibility," and Democrats should compromise on this point.
Bad luck leading to pre-existing conditions should not affect coverage, but over-eating and lack of exercise must be reigned in, as must excessive profits. Also, the medical system should not support abuse of patents and private appropriation of publicly-funded medical research.
And it might turn out that a single-payer system is the only way to contain costs and administrative costs. (Private insurance has administrative costs about 20% of your premium, while administrative costs of Medicare are about 3%.) There is no "value-added" by more administrative overhead, especially when a large part of the "administration" is figuring out how to not pay the medical bills of their customers.
There is certainly a path forward for bipartisan solutions.
The drivers of cost that can be reigned in are (a) profits, (b) administrative costs, (c) wages for highly-paid medical workers, and (d) behaviors that increase health problems.
Reducing the number of people covered should be a non-starter, and coverage should become universal. Improving behavior by cost-incentives is a "cost-savings" that "conservatives" should support as their focus on "individual responsibility," and Democrats should compromise on this point.
Bad luck leading to pre-existing conditions should not affect coverage, but over-eating and lack of exercise must be reigned in, as must excessive profits. Also, the medical system should not support abuse of patents and private appropriation of publicly-funded medical research.
And it might turn out that a single-payer system is the only way to contain costs and administrative costs. (Private insurance has administrative costs about 20% of your premium, while administrative costs of Medicare are about 3%.) There is no "value-added" by more administrative overhead, especially when a large part of the "administration" is figuring out how to not pay the medical bills of their customers.
There is certainly a path forward for bipartisan solutions.
Craig what do you consider "wages for highly-paid medical workers". Nurse and MRI tech salaries? That would be me. I hope when all this shakes out I don't get a pay cut. I want single payer too.
Yes, he means you.
If you sell healthcare or work for an entity that does, single payer means big pay cut. It means a monopsony buyer that determines all prices by fiat.
It is the opposite of freedom.
If you sell healthcare or work for an entity that does, single payer means big pay cut. It means a monopsony buyer that determines all prices by fiat.
It is the opposite of freedom.
I meant the "highly-paid" workers, not that all workers are "highly-paid." I taught for years and did not complain about my pay because I understood that my pay came from taxes, and I labored to give "the public" "good value" for their "purchase" of my labor, and I understood the value of job security. (I am now in my own little business, fully exposed to the market.) I certainly want everyone to have a living wage, but, in the end, every wage (and every profit) is paid by someone. All that said, I mainly want doctors to be proud of their work and to be happy to make 4 or 5 times the average wage, and not have to make 20 times the average wage. And I really do not want medical corporations turning premiums into profits, and making money from harmful practices. I hope when you see my name, you assume a reasonable person, and please do not assume an "all or nothing" or exaggerated meaning to my words. Thanks, and thank you for your work. We all need it.
Access to healthcare for all should be the starting point for legislation.
Every other industrialized country in the world cannot be wrong.
It is only American hardheadedness that somehow still attaches government support healthcare to Stalin and communism that keeps this fight going.
Every other industrialized country in the world cannot be wrong.
It is only American hardheadedness that somehow still attaches government support healthcare to Stalin and communism that keeps this fight going.
4
Our partisan politicians once elected work hard to protect their special interests, not the national ones!
Of course, even the first graders understand perfectly well that the national interests are much wider and more complex than the partisan ones…
That’s why our elected official lie so much and so often, to persuade us there is no distinction between the political and national interests.
Any serious country in the world should ban any party membership among the elected officials because those people are sworn in to protect the country, not any political organization.
It’s impossible to simultaneously serve two different masters. If any political
parties claims their interests are identical to the national ones they should dissemble their party.
America already exist and there is no need to replicate her!
Solve this fundamental problems first!
Afterwards it should be very easy to develop the best health care system – universal, efficient, reasonable and economical…
When you pay for your benefits and perks, nobody acts recklessly and extravagantly…
Of course, even the first graders understand perfectly well that the national interests are much wider and more complex than the partisan ones…
That’s why our elected official lie so much and so often, to persuade us there is no distinction between the political and national interests.
Any serious country in the world should ban any party membership among the elected officials because those people are sworn in to protect the country, not any political organization.
It’s impossible to simultaneously serve two different masters. If any political
parties claims their interests are identical to the national ones they should dissemble their party.
America already exist and there is no need to replicate her!
Solve this fundamental problems first!
Afterwards it should be very easy to develop the best health care system – universal, efficient, reasonable and economical…
When you pay for your benefits and perks, nobody acts recklessly and extravagantly…
1
Campaign finance reform would change everything, especially healthcare. When the politicians can stop worrying and spending half of their time trying to get special interests and corporations to give them money, they could actually turn their attention to the people they represent. As of right now they work for the special interests and corporations and take their marching orders from them in order to survive. It's a crazy situation that needs to be corrected and I can't believe it has gone on for as long as it has.
1
Perhaps a tentative sign that sabotaging the Obama legacy by any means necessary is no longer the raison d'être of the Republican Party. Imagine if we could go back to just debating differing visions of the role of the federal government.
2
This issue is about financing the national costs of health care. The American policy and tradition has been special populations (seniors, poor, disabled) receive federal and state financed coverage plans while workers receive coverage (or not) as a "benefit" of employment. It worked in the 1950's and has dramatically eroded since the 1990's. This arrangement no longer works and needs to be replaced by a universal plan that provides affordable coverage for every American regardless of age or income level. This is not rocket science and many other countries do this routinely. Why can't we?
2
The cooperation in Congress is goodness, but it only addresses one side of the healthcare equation - consumer payments. What is needed is a focus on the expenses which the ACA covers, too. All along the various medical supply chains, there are ineffective controls on how much each provider bills. The result is ballooning provider billings, which the ACA has to cover. The number of superfluous medical procedures needs to be reduced, as does the cost for each procedure. Prescription medicine needs to be less expensive, and doctor bills need to be lowered. All these costs feed into a fragile ACA coverage system. And this all forces insurance companies to establish unreasonably high premiums and deductibles so they can maintain their own profit margins.
Really, the better solution is single payer for all. But that is a pipe dream right now, so there is a need to shore up the ACA so that it continues to stabilize the individual markets and gets more people insured. A major part of that is the 19 states who decided to forego the Medicaid expansion. They need to finally participate in that, which will bring more healthy people into the risk pools, which will lower premiums across the board.
The ACA is here to stay, so it would behoove Congress to fix its problems and realize that costs will come down once the markets stabilize. But the President needs to stop trying to kill it, especially since he has yet to understand what the ACA really is.
Really, the better solution is single payer for all. But that is a pipe dream right now, so there is a need to shore up the ACA so that it continues to stabilize the individual markets and gets more people insured. A major part of that is the 19 states who decided to forego the Medicaid expansion. They need to finally participate in that, which will bring more healthy people into the risk pools, which will lower premiums across the board.
The ACA is here to stay, so it would behoove Congress to fix its problems and realize that costs will come down once the markets stabilize. But the President needs to stop trying to kill it, especially since he has yet to understand what the ACA really is.
2
Medicare-for-all achieves everyone's goals for healthcare: lower and controlled costs for American citizens and for the governments' support for its citizens, pre-existing conditions guarantees, coverage for everyone, stabilized markets for secondary insurance providers, a robust system of rural hospitals and clinics, and an end to the disgrace that millions of people are without any healthcare at all. Only thing it lacks is gigantic tax breaks for the very rich, who don't need any more tax breaks than they already have. Listen to Bernie. He's got the math right on this.
10
The Heliocentric Theory of Health Care Reform
Before Copernicus and Kepler, people generally believed the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, but as we got more data it became increasing hard to reconcile this basic idea with the observed facts. People thought up the Ptolemaic system in which the heavenly bodies didn't just revolve around the earth, but they revolved in small circles called epicycles as they went around the earth. That eventually turned out not to be sufficient, so they hypothesized epicycles within the epicycles. The last iteration of the Ptolemaic system was an incredible complicated mess that was almost beautiful in it's complexity.
That's what we are doing today with health care reform. We wanted a "uniquely American solution." We wanted to keep the private insurance industry. We wanted the sun to go around the earth.
So we talk about various kinds of subsidies & mandates, exchanges, reference pricing, death spirals, etc. The problem of adverse selection is an example. We need some more epicycles. We wound up with a bill with thousands of pages whose result is unknown. HR676 (improved Medicare for All) had 70 pages.
If Kepler were alive, I am sure he would say, "If you simply give everyone Medicare, you wouldn't need all this complication, and I'll bet it would be cheaper, too."
PS The complications make the ACA easy to attack since all the myriad moving parts must work if the whole thing is not to collapse.
Before Copernicus and Kepler, people generally believed the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, but as we got more data it became increasing hard to reconcile this basic idea with the observed facts. People thought up the Ptolemaic system in which the heavenly bodies didn't just revolve around the earth, but they revolved in small circles called epicycles as they went around the earth. That eventually turned out not to be sufficient, so they hypothesized epicycles within the epicycles. The last iteration of the Ptolemaic system was an incredible complicated mess that was almost beautiful in it's complexity.
That's what we are doing today with health care reform. We wanted a "uniquely American solution." We wanted to keep the private insurance industry. We wanted the sun to go around the earth.
So we talk about various kinds of subsidies & mandates, exchanges, reference pricing, death spirals, etc. The problem of adverse selection is an example. We need some more epicycles. We wound up with a bill with thousands of pages whose result is unknown. HR676 (improved Medicare for All) had 70 pages.
If Kepler were alive, I am sure he would say, "If you simply give everyone Medicare, you wouldn't need all this complication, and I'll bet it would be cheaper, too."
PS The complications make the ACA easy to attack since all the myriad moving parts must work if the whole thing is not to collapse.
12
"The government pays these subsidies, about $7 billion this year, to insurance companies every month. In exchange, the companies reduce the deductibles and co-pays for people who earn between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty line, or $12,060 to $30,150 a year for a single person."
No. The "government" does not pay $7 billion a year to subsidize insurance for low-income people. The middle class does. In return, the middle class gets higher premiums that are not subsidized under Obamacare. Keep squeezing the middle class, let Obamacare stand as it is and you will see Trump re-elected in 2020.
No. The "government" does not pay $7 billion a year to subsidize insurance for low-income people. The middle class does. In return, the middle class gets higher premiums that are not subsidized under Obamacare. Keep squeezing the middle class, let Obamacare stand as it is and you will see Trump re-elected in 2020.
3
Of course when the government pays for something, in reality that means the tax payers and government creditors are footing the bill. Shouldn't we finance universal health care by a progressive system in which each person pays according to one's income? Wouldn't that be an effort to have equality of sacrifice?
During the 80's Reagan made huge cuts to research grants. The result is that drug and medical device companies have taken up some of that slack, commercializing every single idea that could have been free--like the cure for polio, which came out of a government financed laboratory.
Expensive health care is just the chickens coming home to roost.
Expensive health care is just the chickens coming home to roost.
8
The headline: "Democrats and Republicans Start Working Together on Health Care", is a misrepresentation of fact. To accurately reflect reality, it must read: "Republicans must now work together with Democrats on health Care".
But then, who needs facts?
But then, who needs facts?
2
Congress is an underworked and overpaid House of Lords and Ladies. Democrats and Republicans working together towards whatever end and in fulfillment of some purpose brought us to our current cliff-hanging health-care precipice.
In the absence of good faith negotiation and compromise the Founding Fathers divided limited power republic structure tends toward governing gridlock preserving the status quo ante as the preferred outcome. The shocker would be a serious effort that led to meaningful health care reform legislation.
In the absence of good faith negotiation and compromise the Founding Fathers divided limited power republic structure tends toward governing gridlock preserving the status quo ante as the preferred outcome. The shocker would be a serious effort that led to meaningful health care reform legislation.
3
It's time for Single Payer healthcare.
9
Having exhausted all other options, Republicans finally begin to do the right thing. I’m pleased, but let’s not get teary eyed over this or see it as a Grinch-like transformation on Mt. Crumpit. They’re doing this because they have no other choices left, and because they’ve finally come to realize that the costs (to them) of having the ACA fail are greater than the benefits (to them). This is a good first step, but they will need to do much more to convince me that they have anything but their own interests at heart.
4
It has become decidedly clear to the GOP from their angry constituents that health care is becoming a perceived "must" for Americans - a sad day for the GOP, hopefully a sunny day for Americans.
It is my hope that it will be just as clear to the GOP that their true "bosses" are the American people, and not the super-wealthy who have no care in the world for all of us who toil and labor in occupations allowing them to keep their hands clean from actual work.
Congress must once again become "representative" - and not just serve the top 10 citizens on the planet who feel they own the rest of us.
It is my hope that it will be just as clear to the GOP that their true "bosses" are the American people, and not the super-wealthy who have no care in the world for all of us who toil and labor in occupations allowing them to keep their hands clean from actual work.
Congress must once again become "representative" - and not just serve the top 10 citizens on the planet who feel they own the rest of us.
14
Trump, with his non-party affiliation, had some real opportunities early on to gather together conservative democrats/moderate Republicans into a coalition that could have designed an ambitious legislative agenda that would have both delivered to his base what he promised them and enlarged that base to include moderates from both parties who yearn for bi-partisanship. For this scenario to take place, however, Trump needed to build a coalition based on trust and respect and he needed to understand policies, like health care, in order to find strands in the policy that would appeal to both moderates in both parties. Sadly, petulance and incompetence destroyed what could have been a very productive 100 days.
6
Co-pays and deductibles are designed to make the knowledgeable consumer more aware of the cost of the medical care and theoretically more selective in the care they choose to receive. Agree or disagree with the concept as you will. Insurance policies that don't have co-pays and deductibles intentionally have higher premiums because it is assumed that selective thinking will not happen. Hence the fact that the premium support is more expensive than the reimbursements.
A good example of the Obama administration doing things that make government more efficient. Apparently if you don't hate government you can actually be good at governing.
A good example of the Obama administration doing things that make government more efficient. Apparently if you don't hate government you can actually be good at governing.
4
All good that these discussions are happening in the Senate. Does anyone really believe that the same discussions will happen in the house? The republicans will be under tremendous pressure within their districts to not support fixing the ACA.
3
The legislation is going nowhere for a couple of reasons. The fact that we are talking about a massive taxpayer funded bailout of insurance companies is a non starter and proof that Obamacare is not working, contrary to what the article asserts. The core tenet of Obamacare was that it was going to magically "bend the cost curve" down and essentially pay for itself has never been realized for reasons anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics can grasp. Second, politically it would be a death sentence for the Republican Party as a whole, who fundraised and campaigned in repeal (even engaging in a series of theatrical show votes) to now pull a complete 180 and "shore up" the broken program, creating what is in effect stealth single payer. Collaboration with Democrats on this issue will end the Republican majority.
1
Don't forget that this bi-partisanship on healthcare was forged by the Americans who decided to resist the destruction of health insurance by Trump and the GOP. The demonstrations, phone calls, emails, town halls all brought home to representatives and senators who were willing to see and hear that Americans want affordable, effective healthcare. I called both my Senator Rob Portman and my Representative Warren Davidson too many times to count. I did no good in either case as both men voted the Republican Party line rather than in the best interests of their constituents. Voters here in Ohio value their health insurance. Both Portman and Davidson should be warned that there may be rough campaigns ahead for both of them as they seek re-election from folks that they turned their backs on.
11
If Trump and his evolution denying Secretary Price openly work to "pre-emptively weaken the marketplaces" for health insurance under the ACA, is that not a violation of his oath of office to defend the laws of the land? Would that not be an impeachment offense?
5
In praising bi-partisanship activity you should also have mentioned and praised the Problem Solver Caucus in the House, and name the members. A missed opportunity. "SAD!"
I am firmly in support of a single-payer/ regulated market model as being the most economically sound one. But bipartisanship in order to patch up ACA is a promising development, particularly if the Congress listens to real experts for a change instead of demagogues on both sides of the aisle. Having just come back from Italy where a single-payer healthcare works beautifully in maintaining the health and longevity of the population at much less per capita expense than the US, I am even more convinced that eventually the unwieldy compromise of ACA will have to go. It is expensive, unworkable and ridiculously complicated. This said, for the time being it provides some relief. However, and it is important for Democrats to recognize, some of the Republican criticisms of ACA are justified. Specifically, comparing the Italian diet and lifestyle with the American one, I come to the reluctant conclusion that in order for a single-payer system to work here, people who are obese, smokers, drug addicts and others with unhealthy habits, will have to be charged more in premiums or better still, in a mandatory health tax levied on every source of income.
4
Some posters seem to interpret this as a bipartisan initiative to "fix" Obamacare.
It isn't. It simply protects the law better against sabotage by current and future presidents who deliberately want to hurt the American people. That means that the "problem" that they will be addressing is the fact that Obama couldn't imagine that certain Republicans would actively use the power of the government in order to destabilize private insurance markets, whereas in the meanwhile, that's exactly what Trump wants to do.
I don't call that "fixing" an existing law, I call that coming together in a bipartisan way around what Sen. Capito already said (but then immediately forgot, unfortunately): that lawmakers aren't supposed to try to hurt the American people.
"Fixing" it, on the other hand, has many different meanings, according to what your goal actually is. If it is universal coverage, than the 3% of the American people who have to buy individual insurance but don't get subsidies and doesn't earn enough to be able to pay premiums, are the ones who need help.
However, if you consider any healthcare system that puts caps on insurance companies' profits (mandating insurers to for instance spend 80% of what they receive in premiums on care, as the ACA does) to be a fatally flawed system because you prefer the previous system, where Wall Street rewarded insurers that lower that percentage, then of course "fixing" it means allowing them higher profits again, as Ted Cruz wants ... .
It isn't. It simply protects the law better against sabotage by current and future presidents who deliberately want to hurt the American people. That means that the "problem" that they will be addressing is the fact that Obama couldn't imagine that certain Republicans would actively use the power of the government in order to destabilize private insurance markets, whereas in the meanwhile, that's exactly what Trump wants to do.
I don't call that "fixing" an existing law, I call that coming together in a bipartisan way around what Sen. Capito already said (but then immediately forgot, unfortunately): that lawmakers aren't supposed to try to hurt the American people.
"Fixing" it, on the other hand, has many different meanings, according to what your goal actually is. If it is universal coverage, than the 3% of the American people who have to buy individual insurance but don't get subsidies and doesn't earn enough to be able to pay premiums, are the ones who need help.
However, if you consider any healthcare system that puts caps on insurance companies' profits (mandating insurers to for instance spend 80% of what they receive in premiums on care, as the ACA does) to be a fatally flawed system because you prefer the previous system, where Wall Street rewarded insurers that lower that percentage, then of course "fixing" it means allowing them higher profits again, as Ted Cruz wants ... .
8
This is a good start. Now Democrats and Republicans need to have a meeting of the minds and begin impeachment proceedings on the most corrupt, incompetent, and mentally unstable president in our history. Trump is the classic elephant in the room. We all know he has no business serving as Chief Executive. Let's end the madness.
6
The initiative of the members of the Congress of the Republic to work together on a Health Care Act, against President Trump's repudiated goal of taking advantage of a draconian and sickly project, is a really encouraging sign that leads us to retake our faith In the legislative power and in our representatives, a still cautious faith, leads us to emphasize the indelible image of a man, noble, and fair. Perhaps the most respected figure within the legislators and that made it possible for us to find ourselves in a Advanced point about the Satanic solution to the extreme by Trump Obama Care. Obama Care: The honorable and perpetually free patriarch: Senator Mc Cain, who put a brake on what was already a sort of perpetual orgy of follies and attacks on the Health Law of the Presumptive Barack Obama. It would be really beautiful that in the end, when a bipartisan law was passed in this delicate and important camp, it was called Ibana-McCain Law, in recognition of two men who know that duty and decency are above blind partisanship and rebellion perse
As Admiral Ackbar would say ; '' It's a trap ! ''
All kidding aside, there are a few things around the edges that bipartisan efforts can achieve. ( committee hearings are a long ways away from bill introduction, affirmation and then becoming law )
It's hard for me to trust any republican on anything regarding health care, since they have taken 60+ votes to repeal, and pretty much all voted in lockstep. They also went to court to stop the ACA in the first place. ( allowing states to opt out and lessening the pool of people that contribute )
The ACA cannot be improved upon until that basic understanding is acknowledged by all. the costs must be spread out to all. ( or as many as possible ) A government backed public option is required to keep the insurance companies honest. ( republicans are not going to go for that )
They are not going to go for Single Payer either, which is why I see all this posturing as futile and republicans just trying to be magnanimous.
You cannot push\pull extreme right constantly for generations, then stop for a moment to appear ''moderate'' . You just appear hypocritical.
All kidding aside, there are a few things around the edges that bipartisan efforts can achieve. ( committee hearings are a long ways away from bill introduction, affirmation and then becoming law )
It's hard for me to trust any republican on anything regarding health care, since they have taken 60+ votes to repeal, and pretty much all voted in lockstep. They also went to court to stop the ACA in the first place. ( allowing states to opt out and lessening the pool of people that contribute )
The ACA cannot be improved upon until that basic understanding is acknowledged by all. the costs must be spread out to all. ( or as many as possible ) A government backed public option is required to keep the insurance companies honest. ( republicans are not going to go for that )
They are not going to go for Single Payer either, which is why I see all this posturing as futile and republicans just trying to be magnanimous.
You cannot push\pull extreme right constantly for generations, then stop for a moment to appear ''moderate'' . You just appear hypocritical.
6
I now see single payer as the best option and prefer that. But short of that, fixes to the ACA will do. Republicans are talking to democrats because Trump is mentally ill and they all know it. So they are doing what they can to go around him.
5
Hooray! Finally Democrats and Republicans agree to talk to each other and get workable compromises for the Citizens of the US. What a revolutionary idea. Why didn't the forefathers think of that. Oh, excuse me they did. As for the President Ouch! Watch out Trump that train is about to leave the station and you don't seem to be on it.
2
When Amazon Health lets you see your choices about where to get that operation or treatment in whatever geographic region you select, costs will go way down.
2
If Mitch refuses to bring any legislation to the floor because Don and Paul don't want it, then Senators McCain, Murkowski, and Collins should declare themselves independents and caucus with the Democrats.
5
Hooray!! Bipartisanship!! Yippee!! So now the Republicans and the Democrats will compromise... as long as the Dems compromise to the right. It's kind of like the Dems saying, "Sure, we'll roll over and you can kick us. Yup, we compromised."
2
It is about time both parties stopped acting like children and come to compromise to work on the plan. We pay these people to do their jobs. Obama left a mess with a national healthcare program where he let the insurance companies take charge of this; they did what they wanted. It is currently imploding by itself; it does not need help from anyone. President Trump tried to get congress to act and do their job; they refused. This entire fiasco is the mess of congress; do not blame it on the president whose hands are tied.
Jan-If President Trump's hands were tied it would certainly fix his Twitter tirades and I'm sure it would take less rope for such small hands.
1
I wonder if the common ground here is the horror of Trump. Maybe finally both parties can agree on something- we have a charlatan in the white house which is dangerous beyond words. They need to be the grownups and I hope that this portends more work together on sensible immigration policies, infrastructure, and tax reform.
1
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
There is an interesting ideological paradox here. The Trump Administration wants to unravel the administrative state. Justice Gorsuch is onboard. See also P. Hamburger, "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?" If successful, this would return the power to legislate to the place Article I put it and where it belongs--Congress. So far so good. But now, Congress acts on healthcare and the Trump Administration threatens to undermine Congressional action via the administrative state--HHS Tom Price. Sad.
2
For seven years, Republicans mounted a vicious campaign against PPACA that was based on nothing but lies. Ted Cruz shut the US Government down in September of 2013 over PPACA and it cost taxpayers $23 billion. Republicans have a majority in Congress and a, um, erh, uh, Republican "president". They failed miserably in their efforts to repeal and replace PPACA because their prior campaign against it was based on lies and they actually had no real plan of their own. Republicans are now working with Democrats on shoring up PPACA not because they think that is in the best interest of the country, rather, they fear for their jobs at in the mid terms and 2020 should PPACA collapse and they are held responsible by their constituents. The current "bipartisan" effort is nothing to celebrate. It is a Republican marriage of convenience.
1
Finally, a glimpse of true democracy for the good of the many over the few, a basic idea of government, that has been missing over the past seven years! I hope that the Tea Partiers will not sabotage this effort and look at humanity as a whole!
1
The ACA is based on the idea that competition can reduce prices, only the competition has to be among insurance companies, not healthcare providers.
The Republicans have been working to make this competition go away. That amendment by Marco Rubio undermining "risk corridors" was widely seen at the time as a nail in the coffin of ACA.
The lawsuits were also efforts to make ACA go away. Even if they failed, the certainty that insurers need to set prices was undermined.
When Donald Trump says he can make Obamacare implode, he's following the trajectory Republican have set to take insurance away from people who need it. They've used a sophisticated PR campaign to shape public opinion.
Single payer would solve a lot of these problems. It could also impose cost controls on providers. It would change the landscape for insurers, which would be good in the long-run, but would be disruptive in the short-term.
It would be shocking if the politicians can find a way to work together. I'll believe it when I see it.
The Republicans have been working to make this competition go away. That amendment by Marco Rubio undermining "risk corridors" was widely seen at the time as a nail in the coffin of ACA.
The lawsuits were also efforts to make ACA go away. Even if they failed, the certainty that insurers need to set prices was undermined.
When Donald Trump says he can make Obamacare implode, he's following the trajectory Republican have set to take insurance away from people who need it. They've used a sophisticated PR campaign to shape public opinion.
Single payer would solve a lot of these problems. It could also impose cost controls on providers. It would change the landscape for insurers, which would be good in the long-run, but would be disruptive in the short-term.
It would be shocking if the politicians can find a way to work together. I'll believe it when I see it.
One of the biggest bursts of applause at my Congressman's (Peter Defazio) town hall a couple of days ago came after he talked about his support for and involvement in bipartisan health care work.
He held out hope that even with this Putin Play in Washington Americans can have a working health care system, and even, gasp, a working Congress.
Remember the old Start Trek episode where an entity worked to make all the people on the Enterprise fight and kill each other, and Kirk defeated it by having all the crew smile and openly support each other?
It will hurt a bit, but I think the only way we reclaim America is with the same spirit of caring for the other members of our political crew.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
He held out hope that even with this Putin Play in Washington Americans can have a working health care system, and even, gasp, a working Congress.
Remember the old Start Trek episode where an entity worked to make all the people on the Enterprise fight and kill each other, and Kirk defeated it by having all the crew smile and openly support each other?
It will hurt a bit, but I think the only way we reclaim America is with the same spirit of caring for the other members of our political crew.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Unless Democrats agree to end the loathsome Individual Mandate and GOP agrees to leave the (equally loathsome) Medicaid expansion in place, this is all much ado about nothing. But it makes for good editorial fodder I suppose.
1
Churchill once said: “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.”
Now some of the saner Republicans are realizing that they must work with Democrats because even though they control both Houses of Congress, that control in thin. At least twice in this very, very new administration (tho it seems old with the daily soap operas) the VP has had to break a tie vote. And Trump has only one "win" at all: Getting the worst possible SCOTUS nominee ratified, Neil Gorsuch, by the lowest vote margin since Clarence Thomas, another dreadfully bad justice.
So if Trump can't get his "win", he'll just sabotage the game. But it's not a game. Millions of people won't be able to afford or get health insurance, therefore won't get adequate health care, and a sizable percentage of those people will die of preventable causes, deliberately murdered by Donald Trump and Tom Price. Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote. Well, he's planning to do far, far worse, to be a mass murderer of his fellow Americans, and has not one gram of remorse about it, because all he sees is "punishing" the senators who "betrayed" him.
Despite McConnell and his fellow obstructionists, the Senate is returning to normalcy, and even the House is, albeit more slowly. It's not just Alexander and Murray working together, so are Burr and Warner on the Russian election meddling. Even Grassley and Feinstein are returning to normalcy.
Now some of the saner Republicans are realizing that they must work with Democrats because even though they control both Houses of Congress, that control in thin. At least twice in this very, very new administration (tho it seems old with the daily soap operas) the VP has had to break a tie vote. And Trump has only one "win" at all: Getting the worst possible SCOTUS nominee ratified, Neil Gorsuch, by the lowest vote margin since Clarence Thomas, another dreadfully bad justice.
So if Trump can't get his "win", he'll just sabotage the game. But it's not a game. Millions of people won't be able to afford or get health insurance, therefore won't get adequate health care, and a sizable percentage of those people will die of preventable causes, deliberately murdered by Donald Trump and Tom Price. Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote. Well, he's planning to do far, far worse, to be a mass murderer of his fellow Americans, and has not one gram of remorse about it, because all he sees is "punishing" the senators who "betrayed" him.
Despite McConnell and his fellow obstructionists, the Senate is returning to normalcy, and even the House is, albeit more slowly. It's not just Alexander and Murray working together, so are Burr and Warner on the Russian election meddling. Even Grassley and Feinstein are returning to normalcy.
1
This new surge of comity should depend on the resignation of the newest supreme court justice and his replacement by Garland.
1
The trump presidency is a dumpster fire and some Reps are finally getting it. As a healthcare provider, I am intrigued but will not allow for hope just yet.
2
Just yesterday, the Times published an op-ed by Elizabeth Williamson that suggested we all grant Stephen Bannon a little more credit, since he is "one of the steadier hands" on the Trump ship and keeps a list of Trump's promises to his constituents on a white board in his office. There's an organizer!
And today's editorial applauds the slight, conciliatory actions of a few Republicans after their seven years of lazy intransigence, their astonishing failure to compose a replacement for the ACA, and their recent well-publicized, empty campaign to "repeal and replace."
Yet we know that Mitch McConnell is still a thug who resembles a bottom-feeding fish, and Paul Ryan, the heartless pretty boy with the long eyelashes, aspires to kill off Medicare. The Tea Partiers are still partying, and they will oppose any new federal healthcare plan that requires the government spend some money aiding sick, elderly, and/or needy citizens.
Boy. We're really starving for good news, aren't we? And celebrating when any Republican serves us a few crumbs of hope by behaving, briefly, atypically, as a responsible (not hateful) public representative.
And today's editorial applauds the slight, conciliatory actions of a few Republicans after their seven years of lazy intransigence, their astonishing failure to compose a replacement for the ACA, and their recent well-publicized, empty campaign to "repeal and replace."
Yet we know that Mitch McConnell is still a thug who resembles a bottom-feeding fish, and Paul Ryan, the heartless pretty boy with the long eyelashes, aspires to kill off Medicare. The Tea Partiers are still partying, and they will oppose any new federal healthcare plan that requires the government spend some money aiding sick, elderly, and/or needy citizens.
Boy. We're really starving for good news, aren't we? And celebrating when any Republican serves us a few crumbs of hope by behaving, briefly, atypically, as a responsible (not hateful) public representative.
3
The Republicans smell a wave election in 2018. Nothing else to it.
As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles:
"We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen."
Harrumph!
As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles:
"We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen."
Harrumph!
1
Any proposed legislation that even hints at improving ACA would not have any chance of being brought to the floor of the House for a vote, let alone passing. Remember the Republican goal is to eliminate the tax on the rich not to reform health care. That's what the rich paid for in political contributions and won't be satisfied with anything less. Besides, it would make Trump appear as a loser and we all know the extremes he is willing to go to avoid that.
So, is this just a dog and pony side show put on by some select Republicans facing competitive election races back home and vying for the favor of the independent vote. by giving it the "old college try"?
So, is this just a dog and pony side show put on by some select Republicans facing competitive election races back home and vying for the favor of the independent vote. by giving it the "old college try"?
1
You can always count on Sen. Patty Murray to quietly, behind the scenes, try to get postive things done for real people. Guess that's why she gets reelected so easily and so many times. Good on her and Sen. Alexander.
I think Democrats are too generous with public health care spending and Republicans too stingy. But together they might be able to work out something that gives everyone a good amount of protection without indebting the grandkids.
1
Instead of this way overcomplicated wealth--I mean health--care situation, what we need is exactly the so-reviled 'socialized medicine'.
I'm still looking for some well-deserved criticism of the AMA, who were driven kicking and screaming to oppose Trumpnocare.
I'm still looking for some well-deserved criticism of the AMA, who were driven kicking and screaming to oppose Trumpnocare.
While it might appear to have some real bi-partisan health care legislation coming, it will never come to a vote. Speaker Ryan is, and always has been, a strong advocate against ANY government involvement in the American health care system. He will never bring anything that supports this to the floor of the House. This is a shame, as the American people deserve better.
This is good news and should have happened months ago. Since the Republicans did not have a plan to replace the ACA, this bipartisan approach would have made sense from the day President Trump was elected in both the House and the Senate. 8 months have been wasted sadly. The Republicans' insistence on trying to "fix" Medicaid and the Democrats obstructionism are despicable. McConnell and Schumer are two of the most detestable politicians that have ever walked the halls of the Senate.
We should all make a deal: let this bipartisan effort chug along, quietly, without trumpian meddling, press glare, grandstanding on either side or finger-pointing. ACA will not die, trying to deliberately kill it is diabolical, and those in Washington who still have, somewhere deep inside, a will to do what is best for actual regular people may surprise us down the road with some common sense agreements on how to fix it.
Although this is good news, it nevertheless is shameful that it has taken 7 years for Republicans to reach this point. I would like to think that it was the voice of the majority of Americans, along with our doctors and nurses, that pushed them to this point. But there is a good chance that it actually was the lobbying of major health insurance companies, which risked losing a lot of money without the ACA, that made the GOP stop and think.
Whatever the reason, this Washington legislative body is doing what we elected them to do. And, of course, we still need to hold our breaths. It's not done until it's done. One thing is for sure, however. We are daily learning more and more the character and soul, or lack thereof, of an unfit and unstable POTUS. This self-proclaimed "emperor" has lost all his clothes, baring a psyche that is frightening to behold.
Whatever the reason, this Washington legislative body is doing what we elected them to do. And, of course, we still need to hold our breaths. It's not done until it's done. One thing is for sure, however. We are daily learning more and more the character and soul, or lack thereof, of an unfit and unstable POTUS. This self-proclaimed "emperor" has lost all his clothes, baring a psyche that is frightening to behold.
McConnell will never go along with a bipartisan anything.
It goes against his core political credo of being "agin" anything the Democrats might propose simply because they proposed it. It makes no difference to him
whether a given proposal would benefit the country, including his constituents.
He is the paragon of a cynical politician who puts party over the commonweal solely for the sake maintaining political power.
The McConnell doctrine worked well for him during the Obama presidency, especially in robbing the president of a SCOTUS nomination.
Now that the GOP controls the Congress and the White House, McConnell finds that switching gears by doing something constructive legislatively is beyond his capabilities. The utter failure of his approach to gutting the ACA is thankfully one indicia of the GOP reaping what the McConnell doctrine has sewn.
Nothing will change unless he is stripped of his leadership of the Senate. That will probably not happen until an election cycle or two puts the Dems back in control of the Congress and hopefully the Presidency.
It goes against his core political credo of being "agin" anything the Democrats might propose simply because they proposed it. It makes no difference to him
whether a given proposal would benefit the country, including his constituents.
He is the paragon of a cynical politician who puts party over the commonweal solely for the sake maintaining political power.
The McConnell doctrine worked well for him during the Obama presidency, especially in robbing the president of a SCOTUS nomination.
Now that the GOP controls the Congress and the White House, McConnell finds that switching gears by doing something constructive legislatively is beyond his capabilities. The utter failure of his approach to gutting the ACA is thankfully one indicia of the GOP reaping what the McConnell doctrine has sewn.
Nothing will change unless he is stripped of his leadership of the Senate. That will probably not happen until an election cycle or two puts the Dems back in control of the Congress and hopefully the Presidency.
Looks like Trump brought out the fire department buy threatening to burn down the house. That's one way of moving the process along.
It's a shame the Dems didn't reach out on the original Obamacare bill.
It's a shame the Dems didn't reach out on the original Obamacare bill.
Reality Check: What do Republican and Democrat legislators in the US House and Senate have most in common? They're all equally beholden to MASSIVE campaign contributions from the Medical Industrial Complex. Republicans and Democrats alike, they just can't get enough of it. The money is just too, too good. Now, against this reality, ask yourselves this simple question: What would you say are the odds that this massively corrupted system will work together to pass legislation such as Single Payer or Medicare that would actually be for the good of the American people? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris?
1
When the Republicans and the Democrats start working together, run for the closest exits, the worst catastrophe is right behind the corner!
Please, let me remind you of the truly terrible examples of their bipartisanship.
Under the Bush and Obama Administrations they repeatedly cut the tax rates to fill up the national treasury. They have ballooned the national debt from $5 trillion to $20 trillion is short fifteen years.
They exported 70,000 American companies abroad to provide us with the better paid jobs at home and improve our standard of living. They literally obliterated the middle class and saddled them with the colossal debts, especially the students starting their adult lives in very deep hole…
All those claiming that the GOP and the Dems did not have the plans for the aftermath of the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. The plan was clearly presented to the public on the eve of those wars in order to receive the Congressional authorization. Allegedly, the locals were supposed to greet us with the flowers, while dancing and singing on the local streets. That’s why we have waged the longest wars in our national history. Nobody wants to interrupt the party and celebrations…
Only the people incapable of learning from the history still believe the left and the right could come up with the reasonable health care plan.
If they were any smart, they would publically accept their responsibility for the previous failures…
Please, let me remind you of the truly terrible examples of their bipartisanship.
Under the Bush and Obama Administrations they repeatedly cut the tax rates to fill up the national treasury. They have ballooned the national debt from $5 trillion to $20 trillion is short fifteen years.
They exported 70,000 American companies abroad to provide us with the better paid jobs at home and improve our standard of living. They literally obliterated the middle class and saddled them with the colossal debts, especially the students starting their adult lives in very deep hole…
All those claiming that the GOP and the Dems did not have the plans for the aftermath of the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. The plan was clearly presented to the public on the eve of those wars in order to receive the Congressional authorization. Allegedly, the locals were supposed to greet us with the flowers, while dancing and singing on the local streets. That’s why we have waged the longest wars in our national history. Nobody wants to interrupt the party and celebrations…
Only the people incapable of learning from the history still believe the left and the right could come up with the reasonable health care plan.
If they were any smart, they would publically accept their responsibility for the previous failures…
What you are seeing is not Democrats and Republicans coming together. What you see seeing is a Republicans capitulating, and it's not pretty. Republicans believe in a laissez fair free market for goods, including healthcare. If you want healthcare, don't expect others to pay your premiums. Where exactly are the Democratic concessions toward this "fix?" Will Patty Murray agree to cut the outrageously skewed Obamacare taxes? Or are Republicans expected to vote to fix the monstrosity, preserving this redistribution of wealth for all eternity? I say no, Let Obamacare fail. Push it over a cliff if needed. Then repeal the taxes and tell people not to expect their fellow Americans to pay their premiums for them.
1
"partisan": A firm adherent to a party, faction cause or person, esp. one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
A bipartisan effort will not be enough. Only bi-patriotism can make Congress functional.
A bipartisan effort will not be enough. Only bi-patriotism can make Congress functional.
1
CONGRESS Working in comity is as scarce as hen's teeth in the regime of the Trumpenstein Monster and his Thugocracy. Of course Trump and other economic terrorists will block any sensible health bill because it would interfere with the cuts in healthcare benefits to pay for a tax cut for the 1%, while leaving the 99% sick and dying. The fact that there is across the aisle cooperation augers well for a political shift during the 2018 midterm elections. Of course change will depend on getting out the vote, which is easier said than done. Not to mention the KKKonservatives in KKKongress who will block any progress.
Single payer, single payer, single payer. I've been saying it for 30 years and I just keep saying it. Getting tired.
1
This is gonna go well... surely this time, Lucy won't pull the football away?
Remember, garbage collection has been a source of mafia corruption and kickbacks for years, but after some FBI stings and increased bidding transparency, this seems to have improved in most municipalities.
But with all this healthcare garbage, we are only keeping the same old Rube Goldberg machine in operation, ingesting absurdly high costs, happily trying to fix high profit margins for this smelly yet equally essential industry, and prohibiting price negotiations with suppliers.
That ain't no way to run a land-fill.
Repeal and replace with Medicare for all and move on.
Enough already.
But with all this healthcare garbage, we are only keeping the same old Rube Goldberg machine in operation, ingesting absurdly high costs, happily trying to fix high profit margins for this smelly yet equally essential industry, and prohibiting price negotiations with suppliers.
That ain't no way to run a land-fill.
Repeal and replace with Medicare for all and move on.
Enough already.
Does this mean that some-a few- GOP pols will start to be governed by demonstrable facts, reason and the best interests of ALL of their constituents? Just a few who could resist the threats to their careers from Mitch McConnell, POTUS, the NRA, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and the hate radio hosts, the Tea Party, et. al., towards any of their colleagues who start to show honesty and a conscience. It only takes a few heroes though. All they have to do is vote their conscience. Plus you might pick up a few Democratic votes. You know you want to, GOP. We are heading off a cliff otherwise.
1
No reason to trust the GOP. Just days ago it voted without conscience to deny medicine to millions of Americans.
1
This failed repeal is the best thing that could have happened for Republicans. They get to look like they tried without actually bearing the fallout for taking away healthcare from tens of millions of people. What a sham. McCain saved them with his "dramatic thumbs down". Vote these cowards out America. They don't care about you.
A sign of hope for the American people!
Isn't this joint effort what Democrats have been seeking for a long time?
The only garbage the Dems and Repubs will come up will be a government program that lines their pockets, and makes their insurance company partners very wealthy.
Repeal Obamacare. Then let the free market...true capitalism...reign. Let freedom ring and we will all save money. We will all benefit.
Repeal Obamacare. Then let the free market...true capitalism...reign. Let freedom ring and we will all save money. We will all benefit.
1
The republicans in districts that are purple and whose voters depend on ACA are finally getting the message, get off the republican bunker anti ACA mentality or be relegated to the trash heap of history in the next election.
Better late than never, but better never late.
Better late than never, but better never late.
1
Unfortunately, helping people is an anathema to the GOP and Mr. Trump is a con artist and hustler. The country is rolling down the river rudderless and lightheaded from OxyContin in the air. What's to become of us and our families.
The only thing that will foster bipartisanship is Trump continuing to drop in the polls. He has entered the realm of the lower 30's in approval. The lower he goes, the more independent the Republicans in Congress will get. We are seeing the effects of his downward spiral now. The moderates are beginning to stand up to him. They are reaching across the aisle. They are doing this because they actually care about the people they represent.
This cannot be said for Republican leadership. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell only care about political power. They firmly believe that erasing Obama's legacy is politically more beneficial than the pain doing so will cost the public. Trump's rating have to decline so far that even these two soulless shells will allow bipartisanship to run its course for the good of the public.
I am not hopeful. McConnell made statements that if the Senate did not approve the skinny bill, they would have to work with Democrats as if that would be a fate worse worse than death. If he was a true leader, he would have established a bipartisan pathway from the beginning. Even John McCain's impassioned speech didn't phase. Soulless shell is an apt description.
This cannot be said for Republican leadership. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell only care about political power. They firmly believe that erasing Obama's legacy is politically more beneficial than the pain doing so will cost the public. Trump's rating have to decline so far that even these two soulless shells will allow bipartisanship to run its course for the good of the public.
I am not hopeful. McConnell made statements that if the Senate did not approve the skinny bill, they would have to work with Democrats as if that would be a fate worse worse than death. If he was a true leader, he would have established a bipartisan pathway from the beginning. Even John McCain's impassioned speech didn't phase. Soulless shell is an apt description.
1
Shame the Republicans couldn't do this years ago. The country has endured years of wasted time, effort and ridiculous behavior. Now we have a dysfunctional and unhealthy Congress trying to create a bill which will hopefully heal a very sick country. I wish them luck.
194
You're quite generous in using "couldn't". So much respect.
But Nothing prevented them from doing so. It's actually, "wouldn't".
"...,couldn't do this years ago."
But Nothing prevented them from doing so. It's actually, "wouldn't".
"...,couldn't do this years ago."
The Republicans are now trying to blame Democrats for not cooperating in the destruction of a Democratic health-care program. Ironic after Mitch McConnell filibustered Obamacare until Obama had to withdraw the Public Option and install the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation's Individual Mandate in its place (going all the way back to papers written at Heritage in 1989). And still, the GOP spent every moment of Obama's last 7 years trying to destroy the ACA. And, with their new, failed (for now) replacement, they totally ignored Democrats and tried to ram it down our throats with only Republican votes. Blaming Democrats for not being invited to the table in the first place is like blaming rape victims for walking alone at night.
1
"Promote the general welfare". This statement from the Preamble to the Constitution mandates comprehensive healthcare for everyone. No single issue more embodies the "general welfare" than access to reasonable and affordable healthcare. Even if we do not do it for altruistic reasons, the costs to emergency centers as well as the threat of the unchecked spread of contagious diseases from people who cannot obtain treatment should demand it. Though many had tried it before only under the leadership of President Obama has significant progress been made. The fact that it took them 8 years to finally begin to cooperate on this very fundamental need for our nation is a sad statement for Republicanism.
5
Trump, Ryan and McConnell want to death the final insult to Obama and his legacy. They think the way to do this is to force the ACA to collapse thru a process of subtle and not so subtle sabotage. When they are successful in this they will try to blame Obama and the Democrats. The corporate media will tut tut and agree "The Democrats should have worked across the aisle".
But the game, as they say, is up. Everyone, even the most uninformed Foxatarian, thinks the GOP owns the healthcare system and its plusses and minuses. Even the most diehard Rush bro likes his or her healtcare access.
The GOP leadership can block this very modest effort to make some fixes to the ACA, but they do so at their peril, and in doing so, hasten the move to Medicare for all driven by a desperate citizenry.
But the game, as they say, is up. Everyone, even the most uninformed Foxatarian, thinks the GOP owns the healthcare system and its plusses and minuses. Even the most diehard Rush bro likes his or her healtcare access.
The GOP leadership can block this very modest effort to make some fixes to the ACA, but they do so at their peril, and in doing so, hasten the move to Medicare for all driven by a desperate citizenry.
157
The "legacy" you so cherish left 27 million people still without insurance, 15 million who don't want it (according to the CBO), leaving a net gain of 7 million people. That's a pretty pathetic legacy.
"Insurers have said they will no longer sell policies in 20 counties in Indiana, Nevada and Ohio, and many are proposing to raise premiums because of the uncertainty created by Mr. Trump’s threats. "
hmmm..."because of the uncertainty created by Mr. Trump's threats." ....really? Can i have that fact checked please? I could have sworn i understood this to be a tad more complicated. I seem to remember that these problems started before Trumpy became president.
Let's be careful, two lies don't make a truth..
hmmm..."because of the uncertainty created by Mr. Trump's threats." ....really? Can i have that fact checked please? I could have sworn i understood this to be a tad more complicated. I seem to remember that these problems started before Trumpy became president.
Let's be careful, two lies don't make a truth..
3
Those 20 counties also had Republican state governments sabotaging themselves. It is like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles taking himself hostage to save himself from the crowd.
2
Whether what you say is true or not, insurers have been saying exactly these things for weeks, unless of course you believe news organizations like the New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR are just making things up.
1
This is the NYT, remember? That means that they tend to fact-check BEFORE they publish any editorial or story.
In this case, they did so last month already:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/us/counties-with-one-or-n...
In this case, they did so last month already:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/us/counties-with-one-or-n...
1
Access to healthcare should not be based on the profit such services earn for the providers. Healthcare is a right. Government is here to make sure we get the best care at the best price – and if some of that price ust be paid by the government, that's what taxes are for. We deserve healthcare for all.
1
Good luck getting providers to treat you for what you are willing to pay.
You do not have a right to another persons education. You have to pay for that.
You do not have a right to another persons education. You have to pay for that.
The best thing for America is to constitutionally outlaw both the Republicans and the Democrats and have the fresh start.
I hate the polarization, divisiveness, bitterness, corruption, animosity and endless bickering in our national capitol.
However, there is one far worse thing. That’s their bipartisanship.
It doomed us with the public corruption, bribery in the shape of the campaign contributions that is now legalized as the freedom of speech, the endless tax cuts for the global corporations that saddled the country with the colossal national debt, the free trade that resulted in the export of 70,000 American companies abroad, the policing of the world that mandated the gigantic defense budgets and resulted in the century of the endless foreign wars, inability to balance the federal budgets in order to protect the historically high profitability of multinational corporations…
If all the aforementioned does not substantiate a subversive attack on our country and an act of treason, then we are going to stay on the current course, if that’s what we construe these days as the winning and victories!
I hate the polarization, divisiveness, bitterness, corruption, animosity and endless bickering in our national capitol.
However, there is one far worse thing. That’s their bipartisanship.
It doomed us with the public corruption, bribery in the shape of the campaign contributions that is now legalized as the freedom of speech, the endless tax cuts for the global corporations that saddled the country with the colossal national debt, the free trade that resulted in the export of 70,000 American companies abroad, the policing of the world that mandated the gigantic defense budgets and resulted in the century of the endless foreign wars, inability to balance the federal budgets in order to protect the historically high profitability of multinational corporations…
If all the aforementioned does not substantiate a subversive attack on our country and an act of treason, then we are going to stay on the current course, if that’s what we construe these days as the winning and victories!
1
This editorial underscores how the for-profit health insurance system is inefficient. The government subsidies go into the coffers of for-profit private insurers. Surely we would save billions by cutting out these corporate middlemen and providing Medicare for all.
2
Observer, please do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Medicare for all is an admirable destiny. However, as on any journey we should not stop traveling because we have not yet reached our destination.
1
I support this effort even if it is not a perfect fix. It's important to throw the radical partisans out of the room and start working together for real solutions. If a large portion of the voting public gets behind this, maybe our representatives will start acting as they should. That would be great for all of us.
4
It's a sign of political maturity and democratic accountability that at a time when President Trump and the Republican party leadership guided by their negative impulses and selfish motives are adamant to deprive millions of their healthcare access, simply to benefit the rich and the private insurers, several members of Congress rising above the partisan differences are actively trying to save and further improve the ACA to arrest the drift, so that the common man's access to the healthcare remains unhindered.
2
"Democrats and Republicans Start Working Together"...I'm sorry, but that's a another example of a pundit trying to blame both sides of the aisle, trying to create a sense of governing false equivalency. The Republicans REFUSED to contribute to the formulation of the ACA, they REFUSED to make changes to improve it, they REFUSED to design something meaningful to replace it, they simply REFUSE to enact measures to safeguard the heath of citizens in this country. The only reason they are even deigning to speak to a few Democrats at the moment is the fact that their party is woefully ill prepared to tackle the problems at hand.
37
It's a capital error to expect liberals to think strategically. While their hearts usually are in the right places, their heads almost always are firmly embedded in a fog of Kumbaya -- NO ability to see implications.
The reason I supported Donald Trump during the Republican nominating convention last year once JEB self-immolated on a pyre of candidate incompetence was that I saw the potential that our frozen political parties might FINALLY make common cause if he were elected, universally rejecting what he personally represented and seeking some semblance of sanity even in the very arms of those whom they despised so assiduously. It seems to be working, and only six months after the inaugural -- and you guys STILL are surprised. You STILL don't see it.
If good policy emerges painfully from bipartisan efforts for no OTHER reason than it provides cover for resisting Trumpish policy and as statements of contempt for his persona, then I'll take it and run like a thief. If we renovate old but workable modalities for forging compromises that nobody loves but with which most can just barely live, then Trump will have served his historical purpose, and perhaps the second four years won't be necessary. Genuflect before your secular burning bush and pray for such an outcome.
But nothing says liberal blindness like this liberal insistence that the ACA IS American healthcare and worth saving at any cost. It's not, it's dysfunctional and we need to re-imagine healthcare entirely.
The reason I supported Donald Trump during the Republican nominating convention last year once JEB self-immolated on a pyre of candidate incompetence was that I saw the potential that our frozen political parties might FINALLY make common cause if he were elected, universally rejecting what he personally represented and seeking some semblance of sanity even in the very arms of those whom they despised so assiduously. It seems to be working, and only six months after the inaugural -- and you guys STILL are surprised. You STILL don't see it.
If good policy emerges painfully from bipartisan efforts for no OTHER reason than it provides cover for resisting Trumpish policy and as statements of contempt for his persona, then I'll take it and run like a thief. If we renovate old but workable modalities for forging compromises that nobody loves but with which most can just barely live, then Trump will have served his historical purpose, and perhaps the second four years won't be necessary. Genuflect before your secular burning bush and pray for such an outcome.
But nothing says liberal blindness like this liberal insistence that the ACA IS American healthcare and worth saving at any cost. It's not, it's dysfunctional and we need to re-imagine healthcare entirely.
3
You always stop short of saying what healthcare system you would propose. Until we have single payer, the ACA is the law of the land and it needs to be improved, not undermined, by a mindless and callous president.
1
I guess I must be one of those "liberals" that people rant and rave about. Kumbaya, no I don't think that's my motivation. It is the notion that if we do not find a way of living on this planet together, ultimately none of us will be living here at all. Richard I will assume that using Trump as a mechanism to obtain bipartisanship was your strategy. If so it was deeply flawed. It assumed that a person holding 1/3 of the government could not wreak irreparable damage over a four year period. I think that you are the one engaged in Kumbaya.
2
Anna:
I have defined that preferred healthcare system innumerable times in this forum. I'm just getting powerfully tired of repeating myself.
I have defined that preferred healthcare system innumerable times in this forum. I'm just getting powerfully tired of repeating myself.
1
"Who knew healthcare could be so complicated." It's not. Politics is complicated. What is really complicated is trying to help one's constituents, one's wealthy contributors, and the special lobbyists all at the same time. The good news: constituents have more votes than the contributors or the lobbyists.
54
"The good news: constituents have more votes than the contributors or the lobbyists."
That does not help very much when those constituents allow themselves to be manipulated to vote against their own interests---which is just what happened when Trump and a Republican Congress were elected.
That does not help very much when those constituents allow themselves to be manipulated to vote against their own interests---which is just what happened when Trump and a Republican Congress were elected.
4
But wealthy contributors and lobbyists have money and Supreme Court rulings that finance their propaganda campaigns. These efforts effectively confuse voters into believing that mandatory health insurance represents a tyrannical threat to individual liberty.
2
Michael, I agree with you 1000%. But the solution, like it or not, requires the voters to pay attention, think, and vote. No staying home on election day in protest. No voting for the Green Party or some other protest party. Vote, make your vote count, and get others to vote.
2
Congress will come together on issues that are dire enough, like war, keeping Trump from capitulating to Putin, and a healthcare system in an imminent state of crumbling without any other means of shoring it up. It does not mean they are newly bipartisan. The usual dynamic will return when the pressure is off and votes can be gotten with only one party playing.
2
There is always bi-partisanship when Republicans are in charge. Republicans will only cooperate if they are in charge. Whenever Democrats hold majorities in any part of government, Republicans practice obstructionism. Democrats want to build and grow the country, Republicans want to rule the country.
112
The "one side is good, one side is bad" thinking, perfectly exemplified by this comment, is precisely why we have the political gridlock we have. Sorry to tell you, but neither party has a lock on ethical or moral goodness in all things, though trying to convince a partisan of that is like beating your head against the wall.
3
With all due respect I would change that word "rule." Republicans are "fixers" who arrange unlimited benefits for the wealthy in their false belief that only big money investors are the job creators who deserve to benefit from economic activity. In fact, the wealthy are the job financers and door openers for Republican ideologues and view employees as liabilities.
1
This sort Of "The other side is evil" comment is unhelpful. You should be sentenced to reading the comments in The Wall Street Journal for one month.
1
I don't see much sympathy here for the real victims of the ACA: the 3% of the population forced to buy on the individual market without subsidy. Their premiums/deductibles have tripled, all paid out of after tax income. Everyone else gets insurance subsidized by the federal government, and are unscathed by the ACA. The 3%, typically moderate income small business, professional, tradesmen and craftsmen, are being priced out of the market and are dropping coverage. The underlying cause is the single risk pool dictated by the ACA for the entire individual market in an effort to have the healthier participants subsidize the unhealthy (actually to reduce the ACA subsidies the government has to pay). This might work in a balanced market, but the individual market is not balanced: 78% qualify for ACA subsidies with average incomes under $35,000, with the remaining 22% getting no subsidy. The 78% appear to have roughly triple the medical problems and per capita costs of the 22%. So you have each non-subsidized family paying its own costs plus part of the much higher costs of four non-subsidized families. It is outrageous that the ACA puts this level of penalty onto a small a group of people who manifestly cannot support it. It should be completely supported out of general tax revenue. The best solution is to change the ACA to enable separate risk pools for the subsidized marketplace exchange buyers and for the non-subsidized off marketplace buyers.
2
Except that all studies show that a separate risk poll doesn't solve the problem of those 3%, whereas a small, additional tax increase for the wealthiest Americans, providing $110 billion in subsidies for those 3% so that they can buy insurance too, not only solves the problem, it also lowers premiums for those who already buy insurance.
And candidate Trump explicitly supported higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans, so a bipartisan vote can very easily solve this problem.
As to calling those 3% "victims" of the ACA though, that's a bit weird, as the fines aren't that high at all, whereas before the ACA, 20 million more Americans couldn't buy insurance ... so how do you call the people who aren't covered yet by a new bill that covers tens of millions more, somehow "victims" of that new bill ... ?
Nobody on the left disagrees with the fact that those 3% have the right to get access to affordable insurance too, and nobody stopped trying to fix Obamacare in order to get there.
The only ones refusing to do so are the same ones who tried to pass legislation that would destroy the insurance of tens of millions Americans. THAT's when talking about "victims" becomes the appropriate thing to do.
And candidate Trump explicitly supported higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans, so a bipartisan vote can very easily solve this problem.
As to calling those 3% "victims" of the ACA though, that's a bit weird, as the fines aren't that high at all, whereas before the ACA, 20 million more Americans couldn't buy insurance ... so how do you call the people who aren't covered yet by a new bill that covers tens of millions more, somehow "victims" of that new bill ... ?
Nobody on the left disagrees with the fact that those 3% have the right to get access to affordable insurance too, and nobody stopped trying to fix Obamacare in order to get there.
The only ones refusing to do so are the same ones who tried to pass legislation that would destroy the insurance of tens of millions Americans. THAT's when talking about "victims" becomes the appropriate thing to do.
5
Once again, to leftists there is no problem in our polity that cannot be solved by more taxes and more subsidies.
Sad sad sad.
I need more freedom, not a subsidy!
Sad sad sad.
I need more freedom, not a subsidy!
No, the real victims of the ACA are those of us wrongfully paying Obamacare surtaxes to fund the subsidies. I'm frankly sick of this redistribution of MY FAMILYs property. I curse Obama for his legacy.
The GOP/Reagan once declared that ketchup was a "vegetable" to undermine childrens' school lunch programs. The fantasy was necessary to cut costs so the wealthy could steal the money for tax cuts.
Some things never change.
Today the GOP seeks to deprive millions of medicine so billionaires can steal gratuitous tax cuts.
A+ for consistency and cruelty.
Some things never change.
Today the GOP seeks to deprive millions of medicine so billionaires can steal gratuitous tax cuts.
A+ for consistency and cruelty.
105
They may not change but they do evolve.
That ketchup was being replaced with Blood by not fully implementing ACA and trying to sabotage it.
That ketchup was being replaced with Blood by not fully implementing ACA and trying to sabotage it.
What is our goal?
Is small government and free market so important a goal, that depriving tens of millions of people reasonable healthcare is a reasonable cost?
And, if as the right argues, the free market can fix the problem, why didn't it? Why was there no affordable option for the tens of millions without government intervention, and why did the options that existed drive high bankruptcy rates? What changed between 2005 and now that will suddenly make it work?
We cannot continue to make insurance affordable to some people who have the right jobs, while denying it to other working people who cannot get a job with insurance. We cannot balance healthcare supply and demand by excluding tens of millions off people, simply to make the equation work.
And we have to stop pretending that a market that exists with many on government insurance, as retired people, military people, government employees, and children in poverty, and many more on corporate plans which essentially mandate insurance be paid for by all, can ever be a free market. It isn't, and never will be. .
Congress sounds as if it is finally gaining a majority that believes that healthcare is a real goal, and will get down to arguing about the how to do it rather than whether to do it. A small breeze in the winds of change.
Is small government and free market so important a goal, that depriving tens of millions of people reasonable healthcare is a reasonable cost?
And, if as the right argues, the free market can fix the problem, why didn't it? Why was there no affordable option for the tens of millions without government intervention, and why did the options that existed drive high bankruptcy rates? What changed between 2005 and now that will suddenly make it work?
We cannot continue to make insurance affordable to some people who have the right jobs, while denying it to other working people who cannot get a job with insurance. We cannot balance healthcare supply and demand by excluding tens of millions off people, simply to make the equation work.
And we have to stop pretending that a market that exists with many on government insurance, as retired people, military people, government employees, and children in poverty, and many more on corporate plans which essentially mandate insurance be paid for by all, can ever be a free market. It isn't, and never will be. .
Congress sounds as if it is finally gaining a majority that believes that healthcare is a real goal, and will get down to arguing about the how to do it rather than whether to do it. A small breeze in the winds of change.
42
Freedom is about the most important goal there is for the United States I remember, but is perhaps sadly no more.
It is very encouraging to see both sides having conversations about this. But there is no solution that doesn't include additional revenue and so long as Republican leadership is unwilling to belly up to that bar I have little confidence this will lead to smart solutions.
4
Why bother. The leader of the Senate recently stated Republicans have no intention of working with the Democrats concerning infrastructure and tax overhaul since both require only a simple majority to pass.
Republicans obstructed President Obama for many years and now it is time for payback. But the Democrats are wimps and are begging to be a part. That is why Democrats have lost control of every branch of government and from now on will always be the minority party.
Republicans obstructed President Obama for many years and now it is time for payback. But the Democrats are wimps and are begging to be a part. That is why Democrats have lost control of every branch of government and from now on will always be the minority party.
2
The purpose of being a representative in DC is to work for the American people, rather than for your own party's benefits.
Millions of low-income Americans would go without health insurance if Congress doesn't act, and I don't see how first passing Obamacare and then not fighting for it would be a coherent political position.
If anything, it's precisely because part of the American people who agree with Democrat policies and are wise enough to not become a victim of fake news, reject the only political progress that is possible in a democracy - step by step progress - and then refuse to go voting, that Republicans end up winning so much elections even though their policy proposals are only supported by a small minority in this country.
More than ever, progressives need to read "Rules for Radicals" written by Saul Alinsky, which explains just how it is that real, lasting, radical change can be obtained in a democracy. Merely "taking a stand" in Congress, even though that costs ordinary citizens their healthcare and lives, is NOT part of those strategies ... .
Millions of low-income Americans would go without health insurance if Congress doesn't act, and I don't see how first passing Obamacare and then not fighting for it would be a coherent political position.
If anything, it's precisely because part of the American people who agree with Democrat policies and are wise enough to not become a victim of fake news, reject the only political progress that is possible in a democracy - step by step progress - and then refuse to go voting, that Republicans end up winning so much elections even though their policy proposals are only supported by a small minority in this country.
More than ever, progressives need to read "Rules for Radicals" written by Saul Alinsky, which explains just how it is that real, lasting, radical change can be obtained in a democracy. Merely "taking a stand" in Congress, even though that costs ordinary citizens their healthcare and lives, is NOT part of those strategies ... .
9
Two groups of Muppets destined to prop up the failed insurance model. An individual healthcare savings account/mortgage model is best.
2
Why does my family have to pay for the Obamacare disaster, for which I did not vote or want, in the form of higher deductibles and premiums, and why does Congress and their staff get their "Obamacare" plans subsidized 75%, and why am I paying for this subsidy for people who have hurt the middle class while the top 1% have flourished during the economic "recovery"? Will someone please explain why all of this is not an outrage?
2
Scott K:
This "disaster" was largely caused by Republican state and federal representatives who went about attempting to dismantle the plan some time ago: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1707593#t=article ("Turmoil in the Individual Insurance Market — Where It Came From and How to Fix It", New England Journal of Medicine, 27 July 2017).
Partisan bumper-sticker assertions will not help anything here. Things can be substantively improved, if we can get around the federal and state legislative attempts to undermine the ACA.
Your comment reflects a serious problem: relying on individual testimonial and grievance as a basis for national health care. All sides can trot out testimony that whips emotion. Nothing will help if the leaders cannot get past the hyper-polarized battle-cries of their bases.
This "disaster" was largely caused by Republican state and federal representatives who went about attempting to dismantle the plan some time ago: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1707593#t=article ("Turmoil in the Individual Insurance Market — Where It Came From and How to Fix It", New England Journal of Medicine, 27 July 2017).
Partisan bumper-sticker assertions will not help anything here. Things can be substantively improved, if we can get around the federal and state legislative attempts to undermine the ACA.
Your comment reflects a serious problem: relying on individual testimonial and grievance as a basis for national health care. All sides can trot out testimony that whips emotion. Nothing will help if the leaders cannot get past the hyper-polarized battle-cries of their bases.
53
For the same reason that you and everyone else pays taxes which we did not vote for or want. It's called a Democracy. Look it up.
6
You just want to "pay" for programs you "agree" with, but that's not how our system works.
I, for example, resent funding the annual bloated blank check to the Pentagon which engages in pointless wars killing innocent victims.
I find this outrageous.
I, for example, resent funding the annual bloated blank check to the Pentagon which engages in pointless wars killing innocent victims.
I find this outrageous.
4
The whole deal over insurance is about will.
Sadly, this mish mash called the ACA is a sop to a political system that is run mostly for those with money who can turn financing of campaigns into profit. So we celebrate a supposedly free market where insurance companies bribe politicians to insure they have a market subsidized by tax payers. Does anyone really believe anymore that there is a true private sector subject to an invisible hand?
This money will ultimately prevent doing what is right: reining in costs and rationalizing the delivery system.
While the signs of cooperation are really welcome, care for Americans will still be hampered and made unnecessarily expensive due to the profit motive. There is no will to rein that in. Until then, tax dollars will make companies and executives wealthy while the extreme right will continue to fight for the right of the 1% to not contribute to the welfare of other Americans. This is not a formula for success by any stretch even if both parties decide to work together.
Sadly, this mish mash called the ACA is a sop to a political system that is run mostly for those with money who can turn financing of campaigns into profit. So we celebrate a supposedly free market where insurance companies bribe politicians to insure they have a market subsidized by tax payers. Does anyone really believe anymore that there is a true private sector subject to an invisible hand?
This money will ultimately prevent doing what is right: reining in costs and rationalizing the delivery system.
While the signs of cooperation are really welcome, care for Americans will still be hampered and made unnecessarily expensive due to the profit motive. There is no will to rein that in. Until then, tax dollars will make companies and executives wealthy while the extreme right will continue to fight for the right of the 1% to not contribute to the welfare of other Americans. This is not a formula for success by any stretch even if both parties decide to work together.
11
I would appreciate it if the New York Times could explain to its readers how the insurance plan that Senate, the Congress and their staffs works. How much money do we tax payers cover for these people? What part of the premium do they pay, what are their deductibles, do they get prescription coverage? How much of their benefits do we pay for?
What is the total cost of their insurance that the tax payers pay for our representatives and staff in D.C.? How many billions does it cost us?
Between the insurance companies and the Congress blackmailing those on the ACA, threatening to raise premiums, not cover costs to the same degree when it was first enacted, taking away pre-existing conditions, it is more than disgraceful. If insurance companies can't handle the business than maybe we should follow the Medicare Model, including how it is paid for, by employers and employees.
What is the total cost of their insurance that the tax payers pay for our representatives and staff in D.C.? How many billions does it cost us?
Between the insurance companies and the Congress blackmailing those on the ACA, threatening to raise premiums, not cover costs to the same degree when it was first enacted, taking away pre-existing conditions, it is more than disgraceful. If insurance companies can't handle the business than maybe we should follow the Medicare Model, including how it is paid for, by employers and employees.
37
Yes, I too would like to see an analysis of how much US taxpayers pay to support Senate, Congress, and their staff health care, their deductibles, premiums, annual medical costs, etc. Is the insurance only provided to these folks or also available to their families? And do these folks get to keep their special health insurance once out of office? NYT: let's see a report that shows this information, a fact-based comparison to what options non-Congressional citizens have, and the cost we, the people, pay.
1
It all all comes down to what McConnell, Ryan and Trump will do to advance this effort. Am not optimistic.
4
Recently Trump, Ryan and McConnell made claims about ACA that were so strident and false that it will be difficult for them to support only fixes to core provisions of the ACA.
However, some of Republicans' original criticisms of ACA were true. For example, several million people who earned too much to get subsidies lost their (skinny) plans and had trouble paying higher premiums. And, several components of the House and Senate bills would have been helpful. For examples, high risk pools and promoting HSAs.
The leaders might save face and support a bi-partisan solution that includes:
Funding the income-related subsidies but also including HCRA-like subsidies for those with higher incomes. The HCRA subsidies could be tax free federal contributions to HSAs equal to the deductible in the plan chosen
70% subsidies of all infants, children and youth through age 29 (not enrolled in employer or other government plans). These cohorts are least costly and, if included in the exchanges, would lower premiums for all
70% federal/30% state funding of state high risk pools and of Medicare coverage of those in state unemployment programs for more than 6 months. These 2 components would lower premiums in exchanges of states that opt to participate
Federal negotiation of lower drug prices with manufacturers and Medicare-type reimbursement of doctors and hospitals who treat patients enrolled in the exchanges
These 4 changes to ACA would lower premiums and Repub leaders might support
However, some of Republicans' original criticisms of ACA were true. For example, several million people who earned too much to get subsidies lost their (skinny) plans and had trouble paying higher premiums. And, several components of the House and Senate bills would have been helpful. For examples, high risk pools and promoting HSAs.
The leaders might save face and support a bi-partisan solution that includes:
Funding the income-related subsidies but also including HCRA-like subsidies for those with higher incomes. The HCRA subsidies could be tax free federal contributions to HSAs equal to the deductible in the plan chosen
70% subsidies of all infants, children and youth through age 29 (not enrolled in employer or other government plans). These cohorts are least costly and, if included in the exchanges, would lower premiums for all
70% federal/30% state funding of state high risk pools and of Medicare coverage of those in state unemployment programs for more than 6 months. These 2 components would lower premiums in exchanges of states that opt to participate
Federal negotiation of lower drug prices with manufacturers and Medicare-type reimbursement of doctors and hospitals who treat patients enrolled in the exchanges
These 4 changes to ACA would lower premiums and Repub leaders might support
3
If our congressional representatives can sit down--and not dredge up every old political grievance pushed by their bases--we have a shot. Are we witnessing the early stirrings of a Political Theological Reformation? We can hope that the orthodoxies lose their grip.
I wonder how long this recently announced cooperation had been in planning stages behind closed doors? Did it just occur after McCain's final thumb-down vote?
There are people in congress, whose names we've not heard much in the press, who likely know a good bit about health care. Who will talk with health care systems and care experts. Who will speak with health care economists who aren't tied to partisan think-tanks.
We'll hear the usual demands for single-payer, although I seriously doubt we'd see that soon. It will be tough enough to get a public option as part of the choices. Senator Sanders knows this, but he and others are willing to begin the process of going after several elements of our over-priced health care system, including medications.
Insurance companies need immediate help to stabilize availability. Past demands to get rid of the individual mandate must be tempered--otherwise no nation-wide insurance market can function. There can be some added flexibility arranged to meet the needs of varied state situations, without devolving the whole process to the states (which would only make more of a mess). The demands to use Medicaid as a piggy-bank for tax cuts has to disappear.
I wonder how long this recently announced cooperation had been in planning stages behind closed doors? Did it just occur after McCain's final thumb-down vote?
There are people in congress, whose names we've not heard much in the press, who likely know a good bit about health care. Who will talk with health care systems and care experts. Who will speak with health care economists who aren't tied to partisan think-tanks.
We'll hear the usual demands for single-payer, although I seriously doubt we'd see that soon. It will be tough enough to get a public option as part of the choices. Senator Sanders knows this, but he and others are willing to begin the process of going after several elements of our over-priced health care system, including medications.
Insurance companies need immediate help to stabilize availability. Past demands to get rid of the individual mandate must be tempered--otherwise no nation-wide insurance market can function. There can be some added flexibility arranged to meet the needs of varied state situations, without devolving the whole process to the states (which would only make more of a mess). The demands to use Medicaid as a piggy-bank for tax cuts has to disappear.
3
These last 7 months have been devastating to the Nation on so many fronts. Healthcare, International Diplomacy, Climate Agreement, Nuclear threats and no end in sight.
Seeing Congress working in a bipartisan manner is so needed. When I learned of the overwhelming vote on the Russian sanctions it was just such a relief. Now with both sides working to strengthen the ACA it may be a sign of things to come. Congress like the American people are in of some good news and having Republicans and Democrats trying to bolster the Affordable Care Act is very positive.
Seeing Congress working in a bipartisan manner is so needed. When I learned of the overwhelming vote on the Russian sanctions it was just such a relief. Now with both sides working to strengthen the ACA it may be a sign of things to come. Congress like the American people are in of some good news and having Republicans and Democrats trying to bolster the Affordable Care Act is very positive.
11
I fear we won the battle and lost of the war. Anthem announced it was leaving 16 of 19 areas in California; announced it was pulling out of the individual off-exchange market in Colorado. Anthem announced price increases exceeding 30% in both of those states. Molina just announced it was pulling out of Utah and Wisconsin, and it will raise prices by 55% for the areas where they will still sell policies. So, just as the CBO predicted, the actions of the Republicans will cause millions of people to be priced out of the insurance market. The Republican sabotage initiative succeeded.
8
Ann,
As bad as some things appear, they can be fixed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1707593#t=article ("Turmoil in the Individual Insurance Market — Where It Came From and How to Fix It," 27 July 2017 from the "New England Journal of Medicine").
The last paragraph tells you some of why this has occurred:
"The threat to the stability of the individual market is real. But if the market collapses in parts of the country, the reason will be recent decisions by elected officials that have undermined insurers’ confidence, not shortcomings in the ACA’s design. For the sake of the millions of people whose financial security and access to health care depend on this market, policymakers should change course before it is too late."
In spite of this situation, current bipartisan efforts need to move quickly. They can resume sniping later.
As bad as some things appear, they can be fixed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1707593#t=article ("Turmoil in the Individual Insurance Market — Where It Came From and How to Fix It," 27 July 2017 from the "New England Journal of Medicine").
The last paragraph tells you some of why this has occurred:
"The threat to the stability of the individual market is real. But if the market collapses in parts of the country, the reason will be recent decisions by elected officials that have undermined insurers’ confidence, not shortcomings in the ACA’s design. For the sake of the millions of people whose financial security and access to health care depend on this market, policymakers should change course before it is too late."
In spite of this situation, current bipartisan efforts need to move quickly. They can resume sniping later.
4
CNN's Don Lemon recently interviewed the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield who praised Mitch McConnell as being our best hope for sensible health care reform. Lemon did not challenge the CEO who doubtless is making in the millions, how promoting legislation that would cause millions of Americans to lose their insurance and re-institute the barbaric practice of denying--or pricing out--those with preexisting conditions would be sensible. But the answer was clearly that what insurance companies most want is stable profits--they could care less about quality of care or access.
The insurance companies are clearly part of the problem adding layers of costs while maximizing their own profits. In California, we are trying to get to single payer. Governors in other states should consider a public option as well as legislation that addresses costs. Ours is a system where an IV bag costs one dollar to manufacture and is billed out at $500. The "free" market has failed. Just look at the numerous examples from around the world where prices are a fraction of what Americans pay, outcomes are better, and care is universal.
The insurance companies are clearly part of the problem adding layers of costs while maximizing their own profits. In California, we are trying to get to single payer. Governors in other states should consider a public option as well as legislation that addresses costs. Ours is a system where an IV bag costs one dollar to manufacture and is billed out at $500. The "free" market has failed. Just look at the numerous examples from around the world where prices are a fraction of what Americans pay, outcomes are better, and care is universal.
1
As always, the answer is more taxpayer $$$ in the form of subsidies. Until we introduce true healthcare rationing, like all the other first world government-run health systems the Times loves to champion, right and left will never be in agreement.
1
I really do not know what the final answer needs to be. However it seems this group wants to do what should of been done years ago, Hold public hearings and interview insurance companies, professional groups and experts in the field. For this to work both parties need to have the same overarching goal, to provide affordable health care to all Americans.
19
It is a relief to see at least some in Congress behaving like grown-ups for a change. Sadly, there are "my way or the highway" elements and there are those who are operating out of a hatred for Mr. Obama. The former group will not tolerate anything but their own ideological preferences; the latter group cannot stand to have anything which whiffs of Obama "legacy" hanging around, even if it is doing a good thing for their constituents.
25
Again, costs must be directly addressed or all efforts will fail. A public option, drug patent reform, device patent reform, caps on pain and suffering or real tort reform, caps on end of life spending, are all needed to control costs. Its how other countries do it. Call it rationing, call it "death panels ", call it breaching our rights to sue, but without addressing these areas, costs will NEVER be under control and all your best bipartisan plans will fall apart.
14
Is this really true? Don't the insurance companies bear some fault. Do they really need to make as much PROFIT as they do? I am all for common sense in healthcare policy, but I am also sick of greed in the insurance industry. Why do some institutions never have to compromise?
Who is "your?" Are you not an American?
Yes. I should have included insurance companies. One only needs to look up the annual salaries of their CEOs. Maybe their profits over a certain amount should be taxed at a higher rate and then return that money to healthcare, research or low income insurance.
If Washington really wanted to fix this, then an honest bipartisan government would come up with something fair and sustainable.
If Washington really wanted to fix this, then an honest bipartisan government would come up with something fair and sustainable.
The article points out the insurers need to make their decision within the next few weeks. However, the House of Representatives is on their well-deserved break until after Labor Day. This may actually help, if the legislation then appears critically necessary to reverse the insurers' announced premium increases and entice them to re-enter some of those abandoned (red state) counties.
3
I hope you are being facetious about the House of Representatives being on a well-deserved vacation. They do not deserve any time off until they turn this country around. If most Americans did their job in the same way as the House they would not be employed. Maybe their donors are getting their money's worth, but the tax payer certainly is not.
4
House members apparently spend about 4 hours a day soliciting donations, like dogs begging for scraps from the table. That's their "hard work."
1
Maintaining subsidies to support the insurance markets of the ACA are essential steps....but they are only short term solutions for a complex problem. Unless Congress finds a way to reduce the amount we spend on healthcare, then with each passing year, increasing premiums and deductibles will be accompanied by growing resistance to the ACA. Reducing the costs of healthcare is the only real long term solution. A single payer is the simple solution but is plagued with huge political hurdles. Converting our current system to a free market with transparency about pricing and quality, and freedom to purchase medications outside of the US is an alternative. We need long term solutions in addition to short term fixes.
10
The call for universal single payer is getting louder. Congress hopes that working to repair Obamacare will get Americans to calm down and forget about what it is they do in all the other civilized countries. Just forget about the whole thing with Trump, and let's go back to having the most expensive, inaccessible, profit driven health care system in the world.
12
Firstly, you have to make the markets stable but certain markets are not attractive to insurers without considerable additional subsidies. The GOP is right in thinking that these subsidies might increase fast from the current level of $30B+. However, this is a "drop in the bucket" when compared to total subsidies of $1.1T without which most Americans cannot afford access to comprehensive healthcare services. The population is getting older and sicker so we should expect higher volumes going forward. Somehow, we have to both arrest the volume increases and above all reduce unit service costs. A couple of ideas:
All adults would be required to enter into a Health Services Contract whereby in return for: a fee equal to 5% of their taxable income (up to $250,000) and conforming with common-sense healthcare practices (monitored remotely through implanted chips) they would receive healthcare free at the point of service. Non-conformity would result in higher fees and/or elimination from the Program.
All health care service providers servicing such Contracts would be required to establish healthcare systems which would bid for the right to service all these contracts in an open transparent bidding contest by County. The States would seek to ensure that best practices and lowest cost procedures would be employed in a system which is no longer a fee for service based system administered through very expensive intermediaries.
All adults would be required to enter into a Health Services Contract whereby in return for: a fee equal to 5% of their taxable income (up to $250,000) and conforming with common-sense healthcare practices (monitored remotely through implanted chips) they would receive healthcare free at the point of service. Non-conformity would result in higher fees and/or elimination from the Program.
All health care service providers servicing such Contracts would be required to establish healthcare systems which would bid for the right to service all these contracts in an open transparent bidding contest by County. The States would seek to ensure that best practices and lowest cost procedures would be employed in a system which is no longer a fee for service based system administered through very expensive intermediaries.
1
"Having treated Obamacare as a political piñata for seven years, Republicans might find it hard to actually help the program." Yes, we do find it difficult to support Obamacare. And I do not see why this surprises liberals ? The left tries to paint conservatives as duplicitous asserting that we loved the program when it was implemented in MA (by Republican Romney) but now dislike it because of its association with Obama.
That's simply re-writing history. Conservatives simply disfavor the expansion of government redistribution - taking from one pocket to give to another.
Even beyond this, there are significant problems with Obamacare that will not go away easily. Per the CBO's latest analysis, roughly 40% of the reduction in premium for a 64-yr old is supplied not by tax subsidies (poor redistribution) but rather by overcharging young beneficiaries. This is called "community rating" and springs from Obamacare's restriction on the premium charged to the elderly to be no more than 3x that charged to the young (even though costs are more like 5x). The result is what is called "adverse selection" where many young beneficiaries prefer not to participate rather than being over charged. The result is increased premiums and eventual insurer exits - which is what we've seen.
Why would conservatives want to promote this kind of disruption ?
That's simply re-writing history. Conservatives simply disfavor the expansion of government redistribution - taking from one pocket to give to another.
Even beyond this, there are significant problems with Obamacare that will not go away easily. Per the CBO's latest analysis, roughly 40% of the reduction in premium for a 64-yr old is supplied not by tax subsidies (poor redistribution) but rather by overcharging young beneficiaries. This is called "community rating" and springs from Obamacare's restriction on the premium charged to the elderly to be no more than 3x that charged to the young (even though costs are more like 5x). The result is what is called "adverse selection" where many young beneficiaries prefer not to participate rather than being over charged. The result is increased premiums and eventual insurer exits - which is what we've seen.
Why would conservatives want to promote this kind of disruption ?
4
Too funny. Conservatives are just fine with taking money from the middle class to pay for ER care for the uninsured or social services for the underpaid employees of companies like Walmart.
92
"Conservatives simply disfavor the expansion of government redistribution - taking from one pocket to give to another. "
EXCEPT when it comes to the annual blank check to the Pentagon, or corporate welfare, or tax cuts to billionaires, or "shareholders" in dubious endeavors.
Then it's ALL SYSTEMS GO.
EXCEPT when it comes to the annual blank check to the Pentagon, or corporate welfare, or tax cuts to billionaires, or "shareholders" in dubious endeavors.
Then it's ALL SYSTEMS GO.
222
Of course, this program began as a conservative program, designed as a market based universal health care program. That's why the GOP couldn't come up with anything better this year. Their best attempt was already legislated into law by the Democrats. So we already have a bipartisan health care program that both sides can take credit for and both sides can work together to fix it.
48
It is heartening to see that at least some Republicans are finally willing to work on a bipartisan effort with Democrats to rescue Obamacare from the ravages of presidential whiplash and wavering and the obstructionism of the Republican leadership. The specter that we have witnessed of our fellow citizens begging their elected representatives to save their healthcare has been appalling for a nation like ours. I hope this particular group of leaders who have emerged is successful in putting us on a path to better health care offerings with these first steps and can hold the line on those who want to take health care away to make a political point - as embodied in the obstructionist leadership of both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Perhaps out of the ashes, something constructive might just happen. After all, in spite of the current administration, this is still America and anything is possible when we remember to stay true to our course to benefit the entire country, not just strident factions.
7
"Still, it’s good to see politicians actually doing their jobs."
Better late than never, I suppose, but isn't it just sad that there needs to be an editorial written to point it out?
Better late than never, I suppose, but isn't it just sad that there needs to be an editorial written to point it out?
11
nope.
insurance market stability maybe, but not health care and letting this hasn't-happened-yet bipartisan cooperation go forward under that name sets the terms in a way that democrats (if there were any) would not allow in the first place and that even the present lot of k street subversives will regret when the time comes to test republicans at the ballot box.
a genuine health care initiative would begin with health care, what's needed to cope with medical matters, treatment of preexisting and occasional conditions and preventive care/maintenance (an investment that will pay societal and economic dividends)...the rest can follow and can, no doubt be worked out just as other government programs are through services, from x-rays to insurance, provided by contracts won by bids for lowest cost per strict medical specification.
vigorous oversight against waste and fraud will also go a long way toward making costs manageable (see daily press accounts of millions stolen, adding up to billions) and if the system includes everyone, contributions, assessments, like those we pay to social security from earnings, (subsidy arrangements for those who are not working) or protection we have to purchase to insure our cars, will get us close to "affordable" (national health need not be a for-profit business).
but first, we have to write the plan in some degree of day-to-day, what-if detail.
insurance market stability maybe, but not health care and letting this hasn't-happened-yet bipartisan cooperation go forward under that name sets the terms in a way that democrats (if there were any) would not allow in the first place and that even the present lot of k street subversives will regret when the time comes to test republicans at the ballot box.
a genuine health care initiative would begin with health care, what's needed to cope with medical matters, treatment of preexisting and occasional conditions and preventive care/maintenance (an investment that will pay societal and economic dividends)...the rest can follow and can, no doubt be worked out just as other government programs are through services, from x-rays to insurance, provided by contracts won by bids for lowest cost per strict medical specification.
vigorous oversight against waste and fraud will also go a long way toward making costs manageable (see daily press accounts of millions stolen, adding up to billions) and if the system includes everyone, contributions, assessments, like those we pay to social security from earnings, (subsidy arrangements for those who are not working) or protection we have to purchase to insure our cars, will get us close to "affordable" (national health need not be a for-profit business).
but first, we have to write the plan in some degree of day-to-day, what-if detail.
2
This is encouraging.
Our government works best when the 2 parties work together. A mix of Democratic and Republican principles usually result in a good outcome.
Compromise is not a 4 letter word, and does not mean one side gets 100% and the other side just gives in.
"United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs." - Patrick Henry
Our government works best when the 2 parties work together. A mix of Democratic and Republican principles usually result in a good outcome.
Compromise is not a 4 letter word, and does not mean one side gets 100% and the other side just gives in.
"United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs." - Patrick Henry
25
I still believe single payer Medicare for All should be the goal - no matter which party line one supports. It is Health Care that the American people need -- not insurance.
338
The British on average live longer than Americans. We have a single payer system which costs less than half what Americans spend to cover only part of their population.
177
I agree that single payer is the way to go, but that isn't going to happen as long as Republicans are in control. The best we can hope for is a "fix" to Obamacare with input from both Democrats and Republicans.
13
It is healthcare that Americans want, that is 60% of Americans want.
3
Until Congress focuses on the source of the expense of health care, namely the barriers to entry for research, development and getting a good medical education, prices will continue to skyrocket.
What we need is something truly innovative, to do for medical research, what the internet did for data.
We need to take the price of developing a new cure out of the billions of dollars and make it practically free for the Jonas Salks of the next generation. How?
By subsidizing medical education, research for cures, and development of devices and drugs so that the motive to make these things will be to make America healthy again, instead of making a profit off of sick people.
Until we get the profit out of medicine and make it more of an academic affair, we are not going to get anywhere.
What we need is something truly innovative, to do for medical research, what the internet did for data.
We need to take the price of developing a new cure out of the billions of dollars and make it practically free for the Jonas Salks of the next generation. How?
By subsidizing medical education, research for cures, and development of devices and drugs so that the motive to make these things will be to make America healthy again, instead of making a profit off of sick people.
Until we get the profit out of medicine and make it more of an academic affair, we are not going to get anywhere.
115
Your'e right about what you say but the Universities now do much of the basic research and then the drug companies swoop in and get the patents which gives them the ability to soak the public. This should be changed.
3
One positive step might be to dramatically expand accredited medical school enrollments which amount to about 20,000 students per year (minus some attrition). Current enrollment is way too low. Too few care providers are part of the problem that drives this issue.
No, new cures are going to be more expensive. Our problem is not the cures, it is the inefficiency of the delivery. We end up with the least effective, and most expensive delivery system (ambulance transport to Emergency) of people desperately sick, who require massive intervention to be made sort of well, and ready for the next emergency. Illness avoidance, and hospital avoidance, are the routes to both better health and lower cost healthcare.
We need more people visiting doctors (or doctor's assistants) more often.
Yes, we need more trained professionals, and we need to allow those we train who are not doctors to use their training. The AMA has a stranglehold on the medical education system, and fights allowing other trained professionals to do anything other than change bedpans. Still, a system that ensures (with high co-pays and limited insurance) that we avoid treating people early ensures very high cost, low overall effectiveness.
We need more people visiting doctors (or doctor's assistants) more often.
Yes, we need more trained professionals, and we need to allow those we train who are not doctors to use their training. The AMA has a stranglehold on the medical education system, and fights allowing other trained professionals to do anything other than change bedpans. Still, a system that ensures (with high co-pays and limited insurance) that we avoid treating people early ensures very high cost, low overall effectiveness.
The Republican leadership will have to act fast. The longer the bipartisan effort goes on , the more the people will clamor for it to continue. That will reduce McConnell and Ryan's power over the process. And we simply can't have that.
72
Press might help by dropping the term 'Obamacare' and instead using 'Affordable Care' or 'ACA' for short. That would help focus on real issues.
321
True. However, unfortunately, Affordable Care Act is an ungainly phrase and ACA does not resonate at all. Obamacare has the virtue of fitting the paradigm of a well known program, Medicare. The Democrats keep coming up with the lamest sounding labels and slogans. "A Better Deal" , really? "Stronger Together"? No music.
1
Better yet, call it Romneycare or Heritagecare.
1
While I don't disagree, wouldn't it be great if it were still referred to as "Obamacare" in 5 years when it's working better, or has be come Medicare for all?
3
The chaos caused by the multiple attempts to repeal Healthcare, along with Trump's promises not to pay for the health care subsidies, have already guaranteed that premiums will go up more than was necessary.
104
<< Republicans might find it hard to actually help the program.>>
They should remember that it isn't "the program" that needs helping. It is the people that elected them that needs the help. Well, perhaps not the 10% that mostly financed their campaigns, but the rest of Americans.
They should remember that it isn't "the program" that needs helping. It is the people that elected them that needs the help. Well, perhaps not the 10% that mostly financed their campaigns, but the rest of Americans.
231
The Republicans are playing a con.
Expect a Rider or some poison pill to be inserted and the a spin and lie making Dems the patsy.
That is what they do. Nothing good will come from this pack of jackals.
Worse, my own party will fall for it, get played again and look weak while giving away the farm for a piece of nothing.
SMDH...face~palm....