It's time to turn on the lights and watch the cockroaches run for cover.
House Freedom Caucus files petition for Obamacare 'clean repeal'
The House Freedom Caucus on Friday filed a petition aimed at allowing lawmakers to vote on a "clean" Obamacare repeal bill that Congress passed in 2015.
If the so-called discharge petition receives 218 signatures, a simple majority in the House, it would remove the bill from committee and force a floor vote on the second or fourth Monday of the month. Sponsors are hoping the signatures are in place by September.
READ MORE
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-freedom-caucus-files-petition-for-obamacare-clean-repeal/article/2631250
Quote from: Bronx on August 11, 2017, 11:42:08 AM
It's time to turn on the lights and watch the cockroaches run for cover.
House Freedom Caucus files petition for Obamacare 'clean repeal'
The House Freedom Caucus on Friday filed a petition aimed at allowing lawmakers to vote on a "clean" Obamacare repeal bill that Congress passed in 2015.
If the so-called discharge petition receives 218 signatures, a simple majority in the House, it would remove the bill from committee and force a floor vote on the second or fourth Monday of the month. Sponsors are hoping the signatures are in place by September.
READ MORE
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-freedom-caucus-files-petition-for-obamacare-clean-repeal/article/2631250
Good for the Freedom Caucus. Make these clowns go record and this is the exact intent of this action. This sums it up:
"This is an effort by House conservatives to force a vote on the bill most already supported before, but also to get members on the record for or against clean repeal," Alyssa Farah, spokeswoman for the House Freedom Caucus, said in an email.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 11, 2017, 11:56:15 AM
Good for the Freedom Caucus. Make these clowns go record and this is the exact intent of this action. This sums it up:
"This is an effort by House conservatives to force a vote on the bill most already supported before, but also to get members on the record for or against clean repeal," Alyssa Farah, spokeswoman for the House Freedom Caucus, said in an email.
:thumbsup: :lol:
I can hear heads exploding in Washington D.C., all the way back in Washington state.
By state with the current, sitting Senator:
Arizona: Jeff Flake (R)
California: Dianne Feinstein (D)
Connecticut: Chris Murphy (D)
Delaware: Tom Carper (D)
Florida: Bill Nelson (D)
Hawaii: Mazie Hirono (D)
Indiana: Joe Donnelly (D)
Maine: Angus King (I)
Maryland: Ben Cardin (D)
Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren (D)
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow (D)
Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (D)
Mississippi: Roger Wicker (R)
Missouri: Claire McCaskill (D)
Montana: Jon Tester (D)
Nebraska: Deb Fisher (R)
Nevada: Dean Heller (R)
New Jersey: Bob Menendez (D)
New Mexico: Martin Heinrich (D)
New York: Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp (D)
Ohio: Sherrod Brown (D)
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (D)
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Tennessee: Bob Corker (R)
Texas: Ted Cruz (R)
Utah: Orrin Hatch (R) (possibly retiring)
Vermont: Bernie Sanders (I)
Virginia: Tim Kaine (D)
Washington: Maria Cantwell (D)
West Virginia: Joe Manchin (D)
Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin (D)
Wyoming: John Barrasso (R)
TWICE today, I had the radio on, and nearly drove off the darn roadway, thanks to Newt Gingrich's failing memory (Yes, I genuinely like the guy, but he's really starting to LOSE IT lately).
1st, he's putting part of the blame for the failure to repeal Obamacare on Trump. WRONG!!!
2nd, he's claiming Trump's focus should be on the dozen or so Democrats where their state, Trump won easily. WHY?!?!?
3rd, he's blaming the divide between the White House and Senate/House on Donald Trump. STUPID!
a. The Republicans ran on repealing Obamacare years before Trump was a candidate for this election run. They did more than just say, "We'll vote for repeal", they PROMISED to repeal, and voted for repeal bills, over and over and over. I don't care if it was symbolic, because my vote wasn't symbolic - I voted for the real thing - repeal Obamacare, PERIOD!
b. Trump's focus is right where it belongs, on Mitch McConnell - he should also include Paul Ryan, IMO, and let Ole-insider, my backroom-dealmaker, work his own "magic" and knock a few heads, get them back in line! Mitch has a problem with Susan Collins? Well, guess which state is gonna suffer, Susan! Start flooding her state's airwaves with campaign material, "Why did Susan vote against repealing Obamacare? Call your Senator, NOW!" Use that HUGE treasure chest of GOP money to start a recall election, against Collins.
BTW... why are you spending a DIME fighting against Conservatives in Primaries? Hey, Mitch & Newt, this is exactly what Mitch wanted, a Senate full of Dems & RINOs - don't blame Trump for that, it's all Mitch McConnell's doing!
c. The divide between the WH and other branches, is also a divide between the American Public and the other branches of government. This is where Newt really doesn't "get it", and is thinking like Hillary won instead of Donald. The House and Senate *created* this adversarial relationship with the WH, and they've yet to realize the public, Republicans & Democrats are on Donald Trump's side - regardless of the MSM incessant pounding. Trump is on the correct side of the issues - it's the RINO House & RINO Senate who's dead wrong & fighting against the will of the American People.
Newt... I'm trying really hard to keep liking you, but keep up this BS, and I'll classify you with John Boerhner, a guy who showed promise in the beginning, went soft-in-the-head, becoming utterly useless to Conservative causes.
Seems like a classical case of insanity. We're going to go through the whole process again and hope for a different outcome in the Senate?
This feels like a re-run. Didn't we already just do this in the last vote that went down 45 - 55 against? And aren't the obstructionist Dims and subversive RINOs already on record? What is significant about doing this all over again. I guess we're just trying to get the House subversives on record? The subersives in the House can still vote for the repeal knowing full well it won't get through the Senate - same crap as when BO was in the veto check-mate position.
What a waste of time and money. But that's about all Congress can do - waste the taxpayers (our) time and money. And they really don't seem to care about it. Just excuses from a bunch of victims who pretend they represent the constituents - what a joke.
By the way, did I mention this week how Rob Portman, an elected Senator (R) from Ohio, voted against the Obamacare repeal. He's a RINO traitor and needs to resign. The reasons he posted either show his stupidity or what a liar he is ... either way he needs to go. Turncoat. The only thing more disappointing than Portman is that Trump hasn't sentenced Congress to Obamacare yet. What's holding him back?
Hey. Here's a thought I haven't heard yet. Maybe I missed it.
Why not build some motivation for repeal.
POTUS should ask the HC industry's best representatives for a real plan that will balance HC across the US. Then, armed with an actual plan which seems to be entirely missing from the Pubs, a repeal would make more sense. If timed with the continued Obamacare failure, even some Dims may sign up - if there's something in it for them of course.
The difference in this idea from others is that Congress isn't the ones who come up with the HC plan. Conservatives claim that the free market is the way to go. Why not let those in the free market show how great they are. They actually know what they are talking about and can produce actual data to establish a real HC approach. I keep hearing poor plans from congress and a repeal doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so lets hear from people who actually work that industry instead of politicians who don't know a thing except how to feather their own beds.
Quote from: topside on August 13, 2017, 10:12:52 AM
Hey. Here's a thought I haven't heard yet. Maybe I missed it.
Why not build some motivation for repeal.
POTUS should ask the HC industry's best representatives for a real plan that will balance HC across the US. Then, armed with an actual plan which seems to be entirely missing from the Pubs, a repeal would make more sense. If timed with the continued Obamacare failure, even some Dims may sign up - if there's something in it for them of course.
The difference in this idea from others is that Congress isn't the ones who come up with the HC plan. Conservatives claim that the free market is the way to go. Why not let those in the free market show how great they are. They actually know what they are talking about and can produce actual data to establish a real HC approach. I keep hearing poor plans from congress and a repeal doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so lets hear from people who actually work that industry instead of politicians who don't know a thing except how to feather their own beds.
I agree input from the medical community could be beneficial. However, they would need to be balanced with true free marketeers who do not worry about PC solutions such as covering all pre-existing conditions. That in and of itself blows affordability out the window. Also, would have to be leery of the health insurance industry as they sold their soul on Obamacare.
Quote from: topside on August 13, 2017, 10:12:52 AM
Hey. Here's a thought I haven't heard yet. Maybe I missed it.
Why not build some motivation for repeal.
POTUS should ask the HC industry's best representatives for a real plan that will balance HC across the US. Then, armed with an actual plan which seems to be entirely missing from the Pubs, a repeal would make more sense. If timed with the continued Obamacare failure, even some Dims may sign up - if there's something in it for them of course.
The difference in this idea from others is that Congress isn't the ones who come up with the HC plan. Conservatives claim that the free market is the way to go. Why not let those in the free market show how great they are. They actually know what they are talking about and can produce actual data to establish a real HC approach. I keep hearing poor plans from congress and a repeal doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so lets hear from people who actually work that industry instead of politicians who don't know a thing except how to feather their own beds.
Capitalism, sounds great on the surface, till you factor in, it was the corporate fatcat insurance agencies that helped craft Commiecare in the first place. Yes, the govt created rules that chose winners and created losers, and the latter was the people.
No, there's but one option, get govt, the fuck out of the free market and let water find the least path of resistance.
Water being the fluid market place. People will always buy the best and most affordable policy, or they'll work a deal with the doctor, barter coin, matters not, but govt does nothing more than place barriers and make it nearly impossible for a fair playing field.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 13, 2017, 11:18:21 AM
I agree input from the medical community could be beneficial. However, they would need to be balanced with true free marketeers who do not worry about PC solutions such as covering all pre-existing conditions. That in and of itself blows affordability out the window. Also, would have to be leery of the health insurance industry as they sold their soul on Obamacare.
Yeah - there is only so many dollars to go around. It's not feasible to cover every pre-existing condition, chase some illnesses to the nth potential cure, rehab every addict as many times as the fall down, and pay for weird stuff like sex-change. Take any dollar out of the HC bucket and hold it up: it can't go everywhere. Do you want it to go to treating an addict that has entered a program for the ninth time or vaccinating children? There simply isn't enough funds to do it all and a company with a spine needs to be allowed to price plans to balance it (no govt. hinderence) then the market needs to be allowed to act freely without government interference.
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2017, 12:29:01 PM
Capitalism, sounds great on the surface, till you factor in, it was the corporate fatcat insurance agencies that helped craft Commiecare in the first place. Yes, the govt created rules that chose winners and created losers, and the latter was the people.
No, there's but one option, get govt, the fuck out of the free market and let water find the least path of resistance.
Water being the fluid market place. People will always buy the best and most affordable policy, or they'll work a deal with the doctor, barter coin, matters not, but govt does nothing more than place barriers and make it nearly impossible for a fair playing field.
You're missing me - we're on the same page as to the final position but the free market needs to help defeat Obamacare and win a full repeal. The point to this thought / idea is to establish a plan in the free market (independent companies or a consortium) to define an approach then win more support to do a full repeal.
I'm just suggesting a transition that will gain more support to repeal. Obviously Congress has no plan to operate HC. As far as I can tell, I can't see a clear plan for insurance companies to do it either in the midst of all the conditions that groups want covered. But if insurance companies put up a well-reasoned plan to operate under in the free market then, maybe, more people could vote for the full repeal as they would have more confidence that the free market has a strategy.
Quote from: topside on August 13, 2017, 04:34:08 PM
You're missing me - we're on the same page as to the final position but the free market needs to help defeat Obamacare and win a full repeal. The point to this thought / idea is to establish a plan in the free market (independent companies or a consortium) to define an approach then win more support to do a full repeal.
I'm just suggesting a transition that will gain more support to repeal. Obviously Congress has no plan to operate HC. As far as I can tell, I can't see a clear plan for insurance companies to do it either in the midst of all the conditions that groups want covered. But if insurance companies put up a well-reasoned plan to operate under in the free market then, maybe, more people could vote for the full repeal as they would have more confidence that the free market has a strategy.
You missed the point, not one company wants it repealed in full, they along with pharmaceutical Co's want govt setting rules for the game, that means huge subsidies that make their shareholders money.
It's akin to asking the fox to design a hen house.
Quote from: topside on August 11, 2017, 04:09:00 PM
Seems like a classical case of insanity. We're going to go through the whole process again and hope for a different outcome in the Senate?
As long as Mitch and his RINO cronies are in office, the outcome will never change.
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2017, 05:04:45 PM
You missed the point, not one company wants it repealed in full, they along with pharmaceutical Co's want govt setting rules for the game, that means huge subsidies that make their shareholders money.
It's akin to asking the fox to design a hen house.
Your forgetting the pay raise and bonus each year for insurance Co's
I know a woman that got a 5.000$ pay raise this year and last year a 4.000$ bonus check. From the Company she works for. You talk about designing a hen house.
Quote from: walkstall on August 13, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
Your forgetting the pay raise and bonus each year for insurance Co's
I know a woman that got a 5.000$ pay raise this year and last year a 4.000$ bonus check. From the Company she works for. You talk about designing a hen house.
Yep, their profits are screaming because of govt setting the rules in their favor while screwing the public.
Most real conservatives, including those on this site, agree that full repeal and returning to a free market is the approach that is best and consistent with conservative values.
We also see that the full repeal isn't happening under the current administration - in the current climate with the existing data in front of the congressional sheep.
Several have identified problems with the approach of bringing in the actual HC market to set up a system to move to. The key flaw cited is that the insurance companies are crony capitalists - it it for one thing ... to fill their pockets at our expense. I'm not so sure it's true that all are, but even if they are can we not find an incentive for them to work toward repeal? Trump set one model - he told companies that they needed to do business in the US ... and now what do we see? What if Trump worked with businesses and told them they needed to work for full repeal which contains the explicit assumption that those who work in his direction will be rewarded and those who don't will be punished. We only threatened to build a wall and immigration went down very substantially; will probably come back up, but the point is that there are other levers that we need to look at on HC.
I feel that Mitch McConnell has become the whipping post. He was told to do the repeal / replace and just get it done. I've worked for so many managers who haven't a clue how and have told their subordinates to get things done. And if they don't come through on the blind demand, they throw gas on them and hit them with the flame thrower. You KNOW Trump is that kind of leader; he gets away with it most of the time because he's on the right side of the matter and has the money / power to persuade it. Rather than beating McConnell senseless, how about someone help him find a path that could work. I haven't followed Mitch's career closely, but I get the sense that he one that works hard in the right direction most of the time.
Get creative Conservatives! These last few posts sound like we're a bunch of victims satisfied to sit on the white lane markers waiting for the next Semi-truck to make road kill of us. Let's find some alternatives and try and coerce our congress toward a full repeal. We need about five senate votes to make that happen.
A real plan from some of those who really know the HC industry - along with publicity that teaches why it's a good approach - might be enough to move the votes. Maybe there is an adjustment to the idea that you can see and I can't - find the carrot to put on the stick and find those in the HC industry for whom our conservative values mean more than raping the public for profit.
Quote from: topside on August 14, 2017, 05:39:17 AM
Most real conservatives, including those on this site, agree that full repeal and returning to a free market is the approach that is best and consistent with conservative values.
We also see that the full repeal isn't happening under the current administration - in the current climate with the existing data in front of the congressional sheep.
Several have identified problems with the approach of bringing in the actual HC market to set up a system to move to. The key flaw cited is that the insurance companies are crony capitalists - it it for one thing ... to fill their pockets at our expense. I'm not so sure it's true that all are, but even if they are can we not find an incentive for them to work toward repeal? Trump set one model - he told companies that they needed to do business in the US ... and now what do we see? What if Trump worked with businesses and told them they needed to work for full repeal which contains the explicit assumption that those who work in his direction will be rewarded and those who don't will be punished. We only threatened to build a wall and immigration went down very substantially; will probably come back up, but the point is that there are other levers that we need to look at on HC.
I feel that Mitch McConnell has become the whipping post. He was told to do the repeal / replace and just get it done. I've worked for so many managers who haven't a clue how and have told their subordinates to get things done. And if they don't come through on the blind demand, they throw gas on them and hit them with the flame thrower. You KNOW Trump is that kind of leader; he gets away with it most of the time because he's on the right side of the matter and has the money / power to persuade it. Rather than beating McConnell senseless, how about someone help him find a path that could work. I haven't followed Mitch's career closely, but I get the sense that he one that works hard in the right direction most of the time.
Get creative Conservatives! These last few posts sound like we're a bunch of victims satisfied to sit on the white lane markers waiting for the next Semi-truck to make road kill of us. Let's find some alternatives and try and coerce our congress toward a full repeal. We need about five senate votes to make that happen.
A real plan from some of those who really know the HC industry - along with publicity that teaches why it's a good approach - might be enough to move the votes. Maybe there is an adjustment to the idea that you can see and I can't - find the carrot to put on the stick and find those in the HC industry for whom our conservative values mean more than raping the public for profit.
My God man, what you're proposing is capitulation, compromise with the enemy. What you don't realize is, by allowing govt any control over the market place, is certain to bring socialized medicine, govt is not our friend, IT IS THE ENEMY!!!
We don't need that bastard interfering in our lives, the less influence it has, the better our lives will be.
You propose the carrot stick approach, yet all I hear is govt threat via stick, while no incentive is offered, so here's one, let insurance Co' cross state lines for a free mkt approach, and guess what? That again means less govt interference.
My entire point is you are somehow under the illusion that the very entity causing strife and turmoil in a free mkt industry can somehow be trusted, when in fact, its very presence is why HC costs went through the roof over the decades.
I remember when Kaiser was $12.00 a month with a $1.00 copay, based on COLA, we should be closer to $60.00 per month, but instead, were at an average $2500.00 per month.
Quote from: topside on August 14, 2017, 05:39:17 AM
Most real conservatives, including those on this site, agree that full repeal and returning to a free market is the approach that is best and consistent with conservative values.
We also see that the full repeal isn't happening under the current administration - in the current climate with the existing data in front of the congressional sheep.
Several have identified problems with the approach of bringing in the actual HC market to set up a system to move to. The key flaw cited is that the insurance companies are crony capitalists - it it for one thing ... to fill their pockets at our expense. I'm not so sure it's true that all are, but even if they are can we not find an incentive for them to work toward repeal? Trump set one model - he told companies that they needed to do business in the US ... and now what do we see? What if Trump worked with businesses and told them they needed to work for full repeal which contains the explicit assumption that those who work in his direction will be rewarded and those who don't will be punished. We only threatened to build a wall and immigration went down very substantially; will probably come back up, but the point is that there are other levers that we need to look at on HC.
I feel that Mitch McConnell has become the whipping post. He was told to do the repeal / replace and just get it done. I've worked for so many managers who haven't a clue how and have told their subordinates to get things done. And if they don't come through on the blind demand, they throw gas on them and hit them with the flame thrower. You KNOW Trump is that kind of leader; he gets away with it most of the time because he's on the right side of the matter and has the money / power to persuade it. Rather than beating McConnell senseless, how about someone help him find a path that could work. I haven't followed Mitch's career closely, but I get the sense that he one that works hard in the right direction most of the time.
Get creative Conservatives! These last few posts sound like we're a bunch of victims satisfied to sit on the white lane markers waiting for the next Semi-truck to make road kill of us. Let's find some alternatives and try and coerce our congress toward a full repeal. We need about five senate votes to make that happen.
A real plan from some of those who really know the HC industry - along with publicity that teaches why it's a good approach - might be enough to move the votes. Maybe there is an adjustment to the idea that you can see and I can't - find the carrot to put on the stick and find those in the HC industry for whom our conservative values mean more than raping the public for profit.
I worked in the insurance industry for 47 years. One has to understand insurance companies are money transfer operations with holding enough for a profit, usually less than 10% of revenues. They will cover anything if they are able to collect enough money to cover expenses and claim payments with the minimal profit. Which leads to the question why they jumped on Obamacare. It was simple. The plan guaranteed no chance of losses through subsidies. Not a bad deal if you an get it.
Quote from: Solar on August 14, 2017, 06:04:26 AM
My God man, what you're proposing is capitulation, compromise with the enemy. What you don't realize is, by allowing govt any control over the market place, is certain to bring socialized medicine, govt is not our friend, IT IS THE ENEMY!!!
We don't need that bastard interfering in our lives, the less influence it has, the better our lives will be.
You propose the carrot stick approach, yet all I hear is govt threat via stick, while no incentive is offered, so here's one, let insurance Co' cross state lines for a free mkt approach, and guess what? That again means less govt interference.
My entire point is you are somehow under the illusion that the very entity causing strife and turmoil in a free mkt industry can somehow be trusted, when in fact, its very presence is why HC costs went through the roof over the decades.
I remember when Kaiser was $12.00 a month with a $1.00 copay, based on COLA, we should be closer to $60.00 per month, but instead, were at an average $2500.00 per month.
:thumbsup: Yes indeed, we should be closer to $60.00/mo for health care. Government interference in healthcare is not a good thing, IMHO it will only lead to single payer healthcare and an increase in a system already overburdened by countless regulations and record keeping which is exactly what Billy Bob Clinton's universal billing and coding created. In reality HIPAA allowed the government to control the insurance industry, physicians and pharmaceutical companies all under the guise of protected health information. Your health information is far from protected from the government. Universal billing, coding and sharing of electronic health records isn't limited to the U.S. The World Health Organization has set up electronic health record manuals for developing countries to utilize.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on August 14, 2017, 09:06:39 AM
:thumbsup: Yes indeed, we should be closer to $60.00/mo for health care. Government interference in healthcare is not a good thing, IMHO it will only lead to single payer healthcare and an increase in a system already overburdened by countless regulations and record keeping which is exactly what Billy Bob Clinton's universal billing and coding created. In reality HIPAA allowed the government to control the insurance industry, physicians and pharmaceutical companies all under the guise of protected health information. Your health information is far from protected from the government. Universal billing, coding and sharing of electronic health records isn't limited to the U.S. The World Health Organization has set up electronic health record manuals for developing countries to utilize.
Exactly!!!! Bureaucracies cost money and that's all govt interference is, a way of forcing business accountability with needless govt regulations.
Paperwork is a trail anyone can follow, despite HIPPA rules, without a paper trail, HC records would simply return to pre 1970 standards and be private information between doctor and patient.
I've always viewed HC like the Bill of Rights, we don't need governments permission to see a doctor, and by allowing govt intervention, becomes an admittance govt has unapproved power over our health care and how we pursue it.
Solar! Read these two lines again:
QuoteMost real conservatives, including those on this site, agree that full repeal and returning to a free market is the approach that is best and consistent with conservative values.
We also see that the full repeal isn't happening under the current administration - in the current climate with the existing data in front of the congressional sheep.
See ... there is no govt. involvement in the objective. The goal is full repeal. But we need to work with reality to get to the full repeal. How do we get there. Oh - wait until Conservatives control the House, Senate, and Presidency? I think we need ideas that try and move the group we have now toward full repeal no matter how difficult it may seem.
How do we get the five votes more that we need to get it to happen? I'm looking to foster some brainstorming on it. The objective of the approaches I'm vetting is to get the five votes we need for full repeal. Nothing else will do!
Let's come up with something that can move the bar. Ms. Indy contributed some experience - that the industry will insure anything to make a buck. So who can influence that industry to stand for Conservative values instead of crony capitalism in the name of serving our country? Is there no one? Is there no plan that insurance industries can put out that serves our republic? Something that would attract insurance companies over Obamacare? They may make money in the short term, but I doubt if they really want the govt. in their nickers continually.
Assuming it passes it will never make it through the senate.
Quote from: topside on August 14, 2017, 05:27:13 PM
Solar! Read these two lines again:
See ... there is no govt. involvement in the objective. The goal is full repeal. But we need to work with reality to get to the full repeal. How do we get there. Oh - wait until Conservatives control the House, Senate, and Presidency? I think we need ideas that try and move the group we have now toward full repeal no matter how difficult it may seem.
Herein lies the issue, you keep alluding to working out some sort of deal, that would mean capitulation to the leftists in the party, playing right into their hands.
If the camel sticks it nose under the tent, I assure you, it will come all the way in for single payer.
QuoteHow do we get the five votes more that we need to get it to happen? I'm looking to foster some brainstorming on it. The objective of the approaches I'm vetting is to get the five votes we need for full repeal. Nothing else will do!
Let's come up with something that can move the bar. Ms. Indy contributed some experience - that the industry will insure anything to make a buck. So who can influence that industry to stand for Conservative values instead of crony capitalism in the name of serving our country? Is there no one? Is there no plan that insurance industries can put out that serves our republic? Something that would attract insurance companies over Obamacare? They may make money in the short term, but I doubt if they really want the govt. in their nickers continually.
Come 2018 we will have a majority, it really is that simple and the entire issue will be dead because we'll control the purse.
Quote from: Solar on August 14, 2017, 07:27:08 PM
Herein lies the issue, you keep alluding to working out some sort of deal, that would mean capitulation to the leftists in the party, playing right into their hands.
If the camel sticks it nose under the tent, I assure you, it will come all the way in for single payer.
Come 2018 we will have a majority, it really is that simple and the entire issue will be dead because we'll control the purse.
THAT young man is what the GOP's are afraid. They will not control the party.
Quote from: topside on August 14, 2017, 05:27:13 PM
Solar! Read these two lines again:
See ... there is no govt. involvement in the objective. The goal is full repeal. But we need to work with reality to get to the full repeal. How do we get there. Oh - wait until Conservatives control the House, Senate, and Presidency? I think we need ideas that try and move the group we have now toward full repeal no matter how difficult it may seem.
How do we get the five votes more that we need to get it to happen? I'm looking to foster some brainstorming on it. The objective of the approaches I'm vetting is to get the five votes we need for full repeal. Nothing else will do!
Let's come up with something that can move the bar. Ms. Indy contributed some experience - that the industry will insure anything to make a buck. So who can influence that industry to stand for Conservative values instead of crony capitalism in the name of serving our country? Is there no one? Is there no plan that insurance industries can put out that serves our republic? Something that would attract insurance companies over Obamacare? They may make money in the short term, but I doubt if they really want the govt. in their nickers continually.
If companies are given the freedom to develop their own plans they will. They just cannot be shackled with burdens and mandates such as "pre existing conditions".
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 15, 2017, 04:10:50 AM
If companies are given the freedom to develop their own plans they will. They just cannot be shackled with burdens and mandates such as "pre existing conditions".
Yes. Agreed. So the question is how you convince the voting body that affordable health care means that you can only cover so many maladies. Certainly not every pre-existing condition.
The pre-existing condition coverage that has been sold is a primary component driving the costs up. But it's become an entitlement and it seems that some in the house and senate can't see that it's unsustainable. That is just one of the symptoms of why HC should not be under govt. control.
Quote from: Solar on August 14, 2017, 07:27:08 PM
Herein lies the issue, you keep alluding to working out some sort of deal, that would mean capitulation to the leftists in the party, playing right into their hands. If the camel sticks it nose under the tent, I assure you, it will come all the way in for single payer.
Agree - we need to shoot the camel; not looking for some sort of deal. Looking for a real plan that thinking people could point to and say that this is the value the free market adds and is a much better alternative ... without all the administrative and regulatory costs that the govt. implies. The goal is to show how a free market plan brings truly affordable HC so the votes swing and the repeal happens.
QuoteCome 2018 we will have a majority, it really is that simple and the entire issue will be dead because we'll control the purse.
Yes - that's our hope. But we need Plans A, B, C, D, ... We should be coming up with ideas that can improve the situation under the current governance. These plans could succeed ... or not. There is a much better conservative position now than there was a year ago and we should try to coerce it to conservative values and results.
So much can go wrong and turn the tides against 2018. What if wars break out and the economy craters? Then the Dims get control back? I'm not so confident that 2018 belongs to the conservatives. I even believe it's in our favor for now but so much can change.
But - have it your way Solar. Let's just grouse about the Marxist Dims. Let's blame the RINOs (rightfully) for killing the full repeal. Let's be embarrassed that the Pubs had no real plan to get HC repeal done. Let's just stand by and do nothing now - and hope something changes in 2018. And if it doesn't go our way, we can blame the Dims and RINO's again while the constitution continues to burn.
Sup ... yes, the GOP is afraid they will lose control. If things go well in this administration, they may NOT lose control and we end up with more years of RINOs. We need more than one strategy on any given issue, including HC. It's not easy - it never is easy to do the right thing because there are always those who want to take the easy way and hope someone else will figure it out for them.
The thing to do is to pick the best model and work with it. But also choose several alternate conditions and try and optimize under those assumptions too. My best prediction (model) is the Status Quo model - that at this point is that Trump will continue to build business in the economy. The left will continue to attack at every opportunity. Wars will continue, the economy will hold up and the voters will put similar RINOs back in at the 2018 election. So that's the model I believe we need to face.
Meanwhile, I'll be praying that conservatives gain strength and be the most elated if my status-quo model is wrong. I still believe God intervened to put HiLIARy out and he might choose to do it again if the faithful come to him in humility and ask him to rescue us. But dealing with the alternative isn't a lack of faith. It's understanding the hearts that have shown in our nation to worship themselves; a heart that needs to be turned toward the creator.
Quote from: topside on August 15, 2017, 04:41:41 AM
Yes. Agreed. So the question is how you convince the voting body that affordable health care means that you can only cover so many maladies. Certainly not every pre-existing condition.
The pre-existing condition coverage that has been sold is a primary component driving the costs up. But it's become an entitlement and it seems that some in the house and senate can't see that it's unsustainable. That is just one of the symptoms of why HC should not be under govt. control.
The toothpaste is out of the tube and cannot be put back. Politicians told the folks pre existing conditions should be covered, even conservatives. This cannot be done for a reasonable expense. Hence the need for subsidies.
Quote from: topside on August 15, 2017, 05:12:47 AM
Yes. Agreed. So the question is how you convince the voting body that affordable health care means that you can only cover so many maladies. Certainly not every pre-existing condition.
Yes - that's our hope. But we need Plans A, B, C, D, ... We should be coming up with ideas that can improve the situation under the current governance. These plans could succeed ... or not. There is a much better conservative position now than there was a year ago and we should try to coerce it to conservative values and results.
Allow insurance to offer the most basic of coverage, it really is that simple, assuming there is no govt interference, I would be allowed to purchace anything my imagination could create, even covering one office doctor visit a year and all labs.
QuoteSo much can go wrong and turn the tides against 2018. What if wars break out and the economy craters? Then the Dims get control back? I'm not so confident that 2018 belongs to the conservatives. I even believe it's in our favor for now but so much can change.
Because nothing is going to change the ire of the nation.
QuoteBut - have it your way Solar. Let's just grouse about the Marxist Dims. Let's blame the RINOs (rightfully) for killing the full repeal. Let's be embarrassed that the Pubs had no real plan to get HC repeal done. Let's just stand by and do nothing now - and hope something changes in 2018. And if it doesn't go our way, we can blame the Dims and RINO's again while the constitution continues to burn.
Lets say I don't want to buy HC for the next 40 years, does the country need a Bill stating so?
Does the country need a Bill telling us what cars we should be allowed to buy?
No, and I don't want the govt dictating in any matter. Point is, you are still under the illusion that a Bill of any kind is necessary, but when you stop and think about it, regardless of what the Bill is attempting to protect, it's shackling someone else at the expense of another.
QuoteSup ... yes, the GOP is afraid they will lose control. If things go well in this administration, they may NOT lose control and we end up with more years of RINOs. We need more than one strategy on any given issue, including HC. It's not easy - it never is easy to do the right thing because there are always those who want to take the easy way and hope someone else will figure it out for them.
I don't think you have yet to explain this so called strategy beyond standing our ground and holdiniug these Marxists accountavble.
QuoteThe thing to do is to pick the best model and work with it. But also choose several alternate conditions and try and optimize under those assumptions too. My best prediction (model) is the Status Quo model - that at this point is that Trump will continue to build business in the economy. The left will continue to attack at every opportunity. Wars will continue, the economy will hold up and the voters will put similar RINOs back in at the 2018 election. So that's the model I believe we need to face.
See, there you go again, asking Conservatives to compromise their principles out of fear.
QuoteMeanwhile, I'll be praying that conservatives gain strength and be the most elated if my status-quo model is wrong. I still believe God intervened to put HiLIARy out and he might choose to do it again if the faithful come to him in humility and ask him to rescue us. But dealing with the alternative isn't a lack of faith. It's understanding the hearts that have shown in our nation to worship themselves; a heart that needs to be turned toward the creator.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin.
In other words, you rely on govt to do the right thing while usurping your Freedom to choose and willingly give up Liberty to an oppressor.
Stop empowering govt! The Bill of Rights was written quite clearly, that the Fed has zero say in a set of Ten Enumerated Rights, yet what did these Bozos do the moment govt attempted to usurp said Rights?
They empowered the very entity barred from interference of said Rights to decide what their Rights were and allowed it to set parameters, which is why we have so many issues surround the 2nd.
So I'll ask again, why do you want the very entity that's trying to control what you purchase on the open market, the power to dictate what's good for you?
Let me be as clear as possible. We Don't need govt permission to purtchase anything, or when and what we buy, that is the Conservative message of this forum!
Quote from: Solar on August 15, 2017, 08:36:02 AM
Allow insurance to offer the most basic of coverage, it really is that simple, assuming there is no govt interference, I would be allowed to purchace anything my imagination could create, even covering one office doctor visit a year and all labs.
Because nothing is going to change the ire of the nation.
The problem is people don't want basic coverage anymore. They want their pre existing conditions covered, they want their kids covered till they're 26 ( why should insurance deal with someone else's kids is beyond me), they want the free birth control ,Viagra, the whole deal! It's this culture of dependency that needs to be combative otherwise nothing long lasting can ever get done.
Quote from: Gunbunny42 on August 15, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
The problem is people don't want basic coverage anymore. They want their pre existing conditions covered, they want their kids covered till they're 26 ( why should insurance deal with someone else's kids is beyond me), they want the free birth control ,Viagra, the whole deal! It's this culture of dependency that needs to be combative otherwise nothing long lasting can ever get done.
By repealing obamacare and letting the free market work, none of what "the people" want is eliminated. You just have to buy it now. Want your kids covered from cradle to grave, you got it, just pay for it. Toenails need clipping and you want it covered, great, just pay for it. Want a policy that will cover and protect your family without breaking the bank, you would be able to work out a policy that will fit those needs too. In fact, this would be the way the vast majority would go, people tend to be a little more conservative with their own $.
Quote from: Gunbunny42 on August 15, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
The problem is people don't want basic coverage anymore. They want their pre existing conditions covered, they want their kids covered till they're 26 ( why should insurance deal with someone else's kids is beyond me), they want the free birth control ,Viagra, the whole deal! It's this culture of dependency that needs to be combative otherwise nothing long lasting can ever get done.
No one would stop them either, the only difference is, you won't be subsidizing their BS plan.
They can still pay out the ass if they want, it'll just cost them more that's all.
Quote Topside:
Yes. Agreed. So the question is how you convince the voting body that affordable health care means that you can only cover so many maladies. Certainly not every pre-existing condition.
Yes - that's our hope. But we need Plans A, B, C, D, ... We should be coming up with ideas that can improve the situation under the current governance. These plans could succeed ... or not. There is a much better conservative position now than there was a year ago and we should try to coerce it to conservative values and results.
Quote Solar:
Allow insurance to offer the most basic of coverage, it really is that simple, assuming there is no govt interference, I would be allowed to purchace anything my imagination could create, even covering one office doctor visit a year and all labs.[/color
The free market can offer the most basic coverage - that is the lowest price offer. They could also choose many other mixes. As you said, anything you could imagine. Different pools would come with different costs so the companies could sustain the product they offer. It's free market - pure and simple. That's where we want to get. We want a clean repeal to get there.
The suggestion I put forth is to encourage constituents and congress to do a clean repeal - that means to repeal Obamacare and eliminate government from meddling in our HC. Clean repeal removes government involvement. That's what I'm going for. Simply to add impetus to move those who are obstacles toward clean repeal. That's all I've said in the last few posts.
Quote Topside:
So much can go wrong and turn the tides against 2018. What if wars break out and the economy craters? Then the Dims get control back? I'm not so confident that 2018 belongs to the conservatives. I even believe it's in our favor for now but so much can change.
Quote Solar:
Because nothing is going to change the ire of the nation.
I don't think you really believe that as a whole. The ire of the conservative minority won't change. And the ire of the leftists seems to stick together. But those who are twisting in the wind will blow with whatever fits them best at the time. The primary motivator is economy. And if the economy turns, the pubs will lose their small advantage. IMO it's not a given that the conservatives will gain in 2017 - not even likely.
Quote
Topside: But - have it your way Solar. Let's just grouse about the Marxist Dims. Let's blame the RINOs (rightfully) for killing the full repeal. Let's be embarrassed that the Pubs had no real plan to get HC repeal done. Let's just stand by and do nothing now - and hope something changes in 2018. And if it doesn't go our way, we can blame the Dims and RINO's again while the constitution continues to burn.
Quote Solar:
Lets say I don't want to buy HC for the next 40 years, does the country need a Bill stating so?
Does the country need a Bill telling us what cars we should be allowed to buy?
No, and I don't want the govt dictating in any matter. Point is, you are still under the illusion that a Bill of any kind is necessary, but when you stop and think about it, regardless of what the Bill is attempting to protect, it's shackling someone else at the expense of another.
Not sure why you keep bringing up a Bill. We're working for clean repeal of a corrosive law. We don't need a Bill. I've not suggested it once in this thread. The point to a clean HC repeal is to get the government out of our personal lives on HC.
Quote Topside:
Sup ... yes, the GOP is afraid they will lose control. If things go well in this administration, they may NOT lose control and we end up with more years of RINOs. We need more than one strategy on any given issue, including HC. It's not easy - it never is easy to do the right thing because there are always those who want to take the easy way and hope someone else will figure it out for them.
Quote Solar:
I don't think you have yet to explain this so called strategy beyond standing our ground and holdiniug these Marxists accountavble.
Now we're getting somewhere. I did not give a substantive approach but only a general idea to gain feedback. In thinking about your reply, you have hit on what I think is the key to an approach that could gain traction. It's all about the money. If the HC industry would establish a plan (not a Bill) and publish prices that were favorable to most of the industry then there would be some real pressure to repeal. Trump and the conservatives could help the HC industry publicize the huge savings over Obamacare in the free market. A minority would lose out on their plan as not all pre-existing conditions would be covered but the MAJORITY would see a substantive reduction in costs. Posting competitive plans would also get the insurance companies on-board for fear of losing out to their competitors. I understand that it's inherently true, but it would be made plain an simple and explained for those who don't seem to get it. Now, Congress would still likely vote against the clean repeal because of the RINOs - the voices of the constituents would probably not be enough. Certainly putting Congress on Obamacare would help move the vote in the right direction too. If we could get both the straight reduction in costs publicized and Congress on Obamacare then we'd have a fighting chance of getting the clean repeal.
Quote Topside:
The thing to do is to pick the best model and work with it. But also choose several alternate conditions and try and optimize under those assumptions too. My best prediction (model) is the Status Quo model - that at this point is that Trump will continue to build business in the economy. The left will continue to attack at every opportunity. Wars will continue, the economy will hold up and the voters will put similar RINOs back in at the 2018 election. So that's the model I believe we need to face.
Quote Solar:
See, there you go again, asking Conservatives to compromise their principles out of fear.
I've not ask for one thing that compromises the values of the conservatives. Not one. I'm not sure where you are reading that. This only is saying that we should try to do something to move toward a clean repeal now - that is aligned with Conservative values. And we should work for it now because my best prediction is that Conservatives won't get gains in 2018. If we do, it will be easier. But we need to work more than one plan.
Quote Topside:
Meanwhile, I'll be praying that conservatives gain strength and be the most elated if my status-quo model is wrong. I still believe God intervened to put HiLIARy out and he might choose to do it again if the faithful come to him in humility and ask him to rescue us. But dealing with the alternative isn't a lack of faith. It's understanding the hearts that have shown in our nation to worship themselves; a heart that needs to be turned toward the creator.
Quote Solar:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin.
In other words, you rely on govt to do the right thing while usurping your Freedom to choose and willingly give up Liberty to an oppressor.
Stop empowering govt! The Bill of Rights was written quite clearly, that the Fed has zero say in a set of Ten Enumerated Rights, yet what did these Bozos do the moment govt attempted to usurp said Rights?
They empowered the very entity barred from interference of said Rights to decide what their Rights were and allowed it to set parameters, which is why we have so many issues surround the 2nd.
I have not once said that govt. should be involved in HC. Or with most other aspects of our lives. Govt. should stick with military and infrastructure - the rest moves to the state and local level. Even then, there should be limited involvement with our personal lives - for example with HC. HC should be governed by the free market. We're on the same page.
Quote Solar:
So I'll ask again, why do you want the very entity that's trying to control what you purchase on the open market, the power to dictate what's good for you?
Let me be as clear as possible. We Don't need govt permission to purtchase anything, or when and what we buy, that is the Conservative message of this forum!
HC on the open market - that's my stance too. No govt. involvement in our HC. Agreed. Govt. will only screw it up and steal from us. We don't want or need govt. involvement. We're in violent agreement. Not sure where you picking up that I think otherwise. But I think it's cleared up now.
The silver lining in this post is the idea of using the financial saving of free market HC to motivate a clean repeal. I think Trump and the conservative congress might be able to make progress if they used our idea or a derivative.
Quote from: topside on August 16, 2017, 05:25:18 AM
The free market can offer the most basic coverage - that is the lowest price offer. They could also choose many other mixes. As you said, anything you could imagine. Different pools would come with different costs so the companies could sustain the product they offer. It's free market - pure and simple. That's where we want to get. We want a clean repeal to get there.
The suggestion I put forth is to encourage constituents and congress to do a clean repeal - that means to repeal Obamacare and eliminate government from meddling in our HC. Clean repeal removes government involvement. That's what I'm going for. Simply to add impetus to move those who are obstacles toward clean repeal. That's all I've said in the last few posts.
I don't think you really believe that as a whole. The ire of the conservative minority won't change. And the ire of the leftists seems to stick together. But those who are twisting in the wind will blow with whatever fits them best at the time. The primary motivator is economy. And if the economy turns, the pubs will lose their small advantage. IMO it's not a given that the conservatives will gain in 2017 - not even likely.
Not sure why you keep bringing up a Bill. We're working for clean repeal of a corrosive law. We don't need a Bill. I've not suggested it once in this thread. The point to a clean HC repeal is to get the government out of our personal lives on HC.
Now we're getting somewhere. I did not give a substantive approach but only a general idea to gain feedback. In thinking about your reply, you have hit on what I think is the key to an approach that could gain traction. It's all about the money. If the HC industry would establish a plan (not a Bill) and publish prices that were favorable to most of the industry then there would be some real pressure to repeal. Trump and the conservatives could help the HC industry publicize the huge savings over Obamacare in the free market. A minority would lose out on their plan as not all pre-existing conditions would be covered but the MAJORITY would see a substantive reduction in costs. Posting competitive plans would also get the insurance companies on-board for fear of losing out to their competitors. I understand that it's inherently true, but it would be made plain an simple and explained for those who don't seem to get it. Now, Congress would still likely vote against the clean repeal because of the RINOs - the voices of the constituents would probably not be enough. Certainly putting Congress on Obamacare would help move the vote in the right direction too. If we could get both the straight reduction in costs publicized and Congress on Obamacare then we'd have a fighting chance of getting the clean repeal.
I've not ask for one thing that compromises the values of the conservatives. Not one. I'm not sure where you are reading that. This only is saying that we should try to do something to move toward a clean repeal now - that is aligned with Conservative values. And we should work for it now because my best prediction is that Conservatives won't get gains in 2018. If we do, it will be easier. But we need to work more than one plan.
I have not once said that govt. should be involved in HC. Or with most other aspects of our lives. Govt. should stick with military and infrastructure - the rest moves to the state and local level. Even then, there should be limited involvement with our personal lives - for example with HC. HC should be governed by the free market. We're on the same page.
HC on the open market - that's my stance too. No govt. involvement in our HC. Agreed. Govt. will only screw it up and steal from us. We don't want or need govt. involvement. We're in violent agreement. Not sure where you picking up that I think otherwise. But I think it's cleared up now.
The silver lining in this post is the idea of using the financial saving of free market HC to motivate a clean repeal. I think Trump and the conservative congress might be able to make progress if they used our idea or a derivative.
There you go again. You now claim it's not a bill, yet it needs to be enforced because the HC industry as it stands, is nothing more than a middle man, an entity that takes money from one individual and gives a portion to the one doing the actual services.
There's a reason the insurance Co's don't want govt out of the HC industry, govt guarantees profit.
Commiecare wasn't HC either, it was govt enforced insurance, we the people were forced to buy at exorbitant rates to offset the cost so others didn't have to pay.
Don't make the mistake of thinking insurance agencies are in some way actual Healthcare, they are not, they are simply brokers taking a cut of the pie whether you need it or not.
You can dance all you like, but this still looks like the leftist two step being performed with two left feet, and the fact remains, you want some form of HC enforced.
There is but one way to assure lower costs for all Americans, get Govt the fuck out of the way, completely!!!
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2017, 05:45:56 AM
There you go again. You now claim it's not a bill, yet it needs to be enforced because the HC industry as it stands, is nothing more than a middle man, an entity that takes money from one individual and gives a portion to the one doing the actual services.
There's a reason the insurance Co's don't want govt out of the HC industry, govt guarantees profit.
Commiecare wasn't HC either, it was govt enforced insurance, we the people were forced to buy at exorbitant rates to offset the cost so others didn't have to pay.
Don't make the mistake of thinking insurance agencies are in some way actual Healthcare, they are not, they are simply brokers taking a cut of the pie whether you need it or not.
You can dance all you like, but this still looks like the leftist two step being performed with two left feet, and the fact remains, you want some form of HC enforced.
There is but one way to assure lower costs for all Americans, get Govt the fuck out of the way, completely!!!
Nailed it! :thumbup:
Politicians have conveniently blurred the lines between health insurance and healthcare. They are very different subjects. The insurance companies are "for profit" entities. The CEO's primary responsibility is deliver a profit for the stockholders. When the government guaranteed a profit the CEO's would have remiss not to jump on the opportunity.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 16, 2017, 08:19:52 AM
Nailed it! :thumbup:
Politicians have conveniently blurred the lines between health insurance and healthcare. They are very different subjects. The insurance companies are "for profit" entities. The CEO's primary responsibility is deliver a profit for the stockholders. When the government guaranteed a profit the CEO's would have remiss not to jump on the opportunity.
Exactly! I have no issue with insurance Co's, they fulfill a very needed service, but they don't need assistance from Govt.
Just imagine going to a hospital and buying one of their personal packages for HC, though it would only be good for that single hospital, making it a fraction of the cost of a national policy, then imagine a hand full of hospitals working out an agreement to cover each others patients policies, as Kaiser does today.
If anything, it is the health industry, doctors, and hospitals that need to be unchained even more, by limiting trial lawyers profit margins and a number of payouts courts grant as punitive, instead recompensive.
Thing is, when you punish hospitals and doctors, you punish those that pay for services, but when you recompense the victim, you punish the doctor for their mistakes to the point no insurance Co. will bond them.
Many times the hospital is drug into the equation simply because it happened on their grounds, and far too often, they are the deep pocket targets trial lawyers go after, causing all of our costs to rise.
In principle we don't need the insurance companies - I agree with that too. In fact, I don't have traditional insurance - have Medishare as I've said prior.
But the insurance companies are so intertwined with HC that they are synonymous. At some of the offices I've recently visited, I tried to just pay directly without going through any other organization. The offices didn't know what to do with it. I was blown away. I know that's not everyone, but it is many HC providers and probably almost all hospitals.
I tried to put forward a possible idea to do SOMETHING to entice a full repeal. But you just want to argue about an alternative universe absent from the reality we live in now. Let's just sit around and whine about the repeal failure and hope the Easter Bunny gives us a Conservative Congress in 2018. No need to respond - I'm tired of wasting my energy on this thread. You've missed the whole point and have discouraged a fellow Conservative. No one else seems interested anyway so I'm dropping it.
Quote from: topside on August 16, 2017, 03:47:12 PM
In principle we don't need the insurance companies - I agree with that too. In fact, I don't have traditional insurance - have Medishare as I've said prior.
But the insurance companies are so intertwined with HC that they are synonymous. At some of the offices I've recently visited, I tried to just pay directly without going through any other organization. The offices didn't know what to do with it. I was blown away. I know that's not everyone, but it is many HC providers and probably almost all hospitals.
I tried to put forward a possible idea to do SOMETHING to entice a full repeal. But you just want to argue about an alternative universe absent from the reality we live in now. Let's just sit around and whine about the repeal failure and hope the Easter Bunny gives us a Conservative Congress in 2018. No need to respond - I'm tired of wasting my energy on this thread. You've missed the whole point and have discouraged a fellow Conservative. No one else seems interested anyway so I'm dropping it.
Yeah, that's the Conservative thing to do, run away. :rolleyes:
You float this magical illusion that "some kind of
"deal" can be struck" yet failed in explaining what that entails. Go ahead, give it a shot, I've been waiting to hear your plan, but all you do is claim that I don't get it, get what?
Here's a simple fact, give them an inch and they'll take 100 miles, then compromise and give you a pittance of what you demand.
We've been down this road the last 3 decades and you still live under the illusion you can work with these scum.
You claim we're in agreement with full repeal, so why are you looking for a compromise with the enemy? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever, because being Conservative means working from a set of core values and principles, and in this case, that means no govt intrusion into the free market place.
Remember how much cheaper HC was
before Commiecare? So why in the world, (while we have the RINO on the run), are you willing to give into these scum?
All business works off a profit and loss system and hospitals are one of those entities, doctors too, and they will gladly take cash and give you the best care far cheaper. The cut insurance takes out of his payment for your care is close to half, so you can work a better deal by paying cash yourself, assuming govt doesn't stand in the way.
I get it, you think there's a solution, problem is, it somehow involves govt.
So here's the way it works, you go to a doctor, you pay cash, you need surgery, he calls a hospital, he explains that you are willing to pay cash, they rent him a surgical facility, it's that simple, you just cut out the middle man, the insurance company.
So why in the world are you wanting govt involved in something that's between you, your doctor and the hospital?
Do you even understand this subject? Something tells me you do not and that's why you're tripping and stumbling through this thread.
I get it, you think there's a solution, problem is, it involves govt meddling.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 16, 2017, 08:19:52 AM
Nailed it! :thumbup:
Politicians have conveniently blurred the lines between health insurance and healthcare. They are very different subjects. The insurance companies are "for profit" entities. The CEO's primary responsibility is deliver a profit for the stockholders. When the government guaranteed a profit the CEO's would have remiss not to jump on the opportunity.
Exactly Sup, once this debacle took place under the Marxist, people thought letting Govt dictate the rules would somehow simplify and cut costs, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, Medicare for example.
Yet people still fail to grasp the fact that even the tiniest amount of Fed interference, isn't on behalf the people, it's to pay off the crony connection.
Our Founders warned us about growing govt exponentially and the loss of Liberties and Freedom that would entail.
There were no mechanisms in Obmacare to cut costs. In fact as written it prevents premiums from being lowered. Any democrat healthcare plan is all about control.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 16, 2017, 06:41:48 PM
There were no mechanisms in Obmacare to cut costs. In fact as written it prevents premiums from being lowered. Any democrat healthcare plan is all about control.
That's why the Establishment wanted to keep in intact.
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2017, 07:11:59 PM
That's why the Establishment wanted to keep in intact.
Which is ironic on the GOP side because they don't have the energy or the inclination to control
anything.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 16, 2017, 07:34:30 PM
Which is ironic on the GOP side because they don't have the energy or the inclination to control anything.
Yeah, blame Dims while they sign off on continuing Resolutions/OMNIBUS Bills and further running up our debt, but hey, it was all somehow the Dims fault. :rolleyes:
Did I mention just how much I hate Libs? In Both Party's!!!
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2017, 05:13:31 AM
No one would stop them either, the only difference is, you won't be subsidizing their BS plan.
They can still pay out the ass if they want, it'll just cost them more that's all.
You know as well as I no one is going to want to pay for something they once got for free and they're going to bah like sheep to their Congress critters to keep it that way. It's this selfish mentality that's dooming healthcare in this country :cursing:
Quote from: topside on August 15, 2017, 04:41:41 AM
Yes. Agreed. So the question is how you convince the voting body that affordable health care means that you can only cover so many maladies. Certainly not every pre-existing condition.
The pre-existing condition coverage that has been sold is a primary component driving the costs up. But it's become an entitlement and it seems that some in the house and senate can't see that it's unsustainable. That is just one of the symptoms of why HC should not be under govt. control.
Or to put it another way, can we convince congress in 2018 that caving into voting for the few who receive those entitlements and voting against those who pay the taxes for those entitlements is bad for their career? Here's hoping the people paying for those entitlements wake up.
Quote from: Gunbunny42 on August 16, 2017, 09:03:54 PM
You know as well as I no one is going to want to pay for something they once got for free and they're going to bah like sheep to their Congress critters to keep it that way. It's this selfish mentality that's dooming healthcare in this country :cursing:
Those freeloaders aren't constituency of the gop'E, so they have no influence, the real culprit is the money backers that want Marxist Medicine, that's who the RNC works for, not the voter, not you or I. This is why we need more than ever to purge the gop'E of Marxists like McStain and Lyndsy Graham, McCONnel etc.
These scum leftist traitors care nothing for the country, nor do they care about the voter, left or right, they care only about their bottom line and the here and now with DC partying.
Remember the argument over taxing medical devices? This was where the RNC/gop'E came into play, exposing how this was always about money and had nothing to do with actually caring for people.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66717-obamacare-endorsements-what-the-bribe-was
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2017, 04:50:08 PM
Yeah, that's the Conservative thing to do, run away. :rolleyes:
You float this magical illusion that "some kind of "deal" can be struck" yet failed in explaining what that entails. Go ahead, give it a shot, I've been waiting to hear your plan, but all you do is claim that I don't get it, get what?
Here's a simple fact, give them an inch and they'll take 100 miles, then compromise and give you a pittance of what you demand.
We've been down this road the last 3 decades and you still live under the illusion you can work with these scum.
You claim we're in agreement with full repeal, so why are you looking for a compromise with the enemy? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever, because being Conservative means working from a set of core values and principles, and in this case, that means no govt intrusion into the free market place.
Remember how much cheaper HC was before Commiecare? So why in the world, (while we have the RINO on the run), are you willing to give into these scum?
All business works off a profit and loss system and hospitals are one of those entities, doctors too, and they will gladly take cash and give you the best care far cheaper. The cut insurance takes out of his payment for your care is close to half, so you can work a better deal by paying cash yourself, assuming govt doesn't stand in the way.
I get it, you think there's a solution, problem is, it somehow involves govt.
So here's the way it works, you go to a doctor, you pay cash, you need surgery, he calls a hospital, he explains that you are willing to pay cash, they rent him a surgical facility, it's that simple, you just cut out the middle man, the insurance company.
So why in the world are you wanting govt involved in something that's between you, your doctor and the hospital?
Do you even understand this subject? Something tells me you do not and that's why you're tripping and stumbling through this thread.
I get it, you think there's a solution, problem is, it involves govt meddling.
Well, if you call working toward a clean repeal government meddling, then I understand you. I don't run - but I don't keep running at brick walls either. A few falls tells me that I should find a more productive vector. I respect you Solar but sometimes you get so stubborn. Probably comes with the age. I've yet to see you ever admit you are wrong on any point. But the value you add exceeds the cost - so you're worth the trouble. :cool:
BTW - medicare and medicaid also need to go. More government meddling. It's a ponzi scheme. But good luck with that - right. The only way it will go is when it collapses hard - after about 10000 attempt to prop it up.
Also - to some of the other comments. Thanks for the response. It does seem nearly impossible to repeal an entitlement in the US culture. It's because we seem to act like a democracy even though we're not. That selfish nature dominates many / most in our nation and can't get past itself. When you get right down to it, that's the root cause of all of the HC gap.
Quote from: topside on August 17, 2017, 11:03:46 AM
Well, if you call working toward a clean repeal government meddling, then I understand you. I don't run - but I don't keep running at brick walls either. A few falls tell me that I should find a more productive vector. I respect you Solar but sometimes you get so stubborn. Probably comes with the age.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Right you are, and it's backed by wisdom.
QuoteI've yet to see you ever admit you are wrong on any point.
That's because I'm never wrong where Conservatism is concerned.
QuoteBut the value you add exceeds the cost - so you're worth the trouble. :cool:
Wait, I'm not all that irritating? I'll have to work on that. :biggrin:
QuoteBTW - medicare and medicaid also need to go. More government meddling. It's a ponzi scheme. But good luck with that - right. The only way it will go is when it collapses hard - after about 10000 attempt to prop it up.
That's kind of been my point all along, once a social program gets a green light, there's no reversing it.
QuoteAlso - to some of the other comments. Thanks for the response. It does seem nearly impossible to repeal an entitlement in the US culture. It's because we seem to act like a democracy even though we're not. That selfish nature dominates many / most in our nation and can't get past itself. When you get right down to it, that's the root cause of all of the HC gap.
And this is why I've been hammering the point, that you can't compromise, the Marxists see this as a weakness and exploit it.
The only way we're going to stop this leftward downfall, is if we stand our ground and quit looking for middle ground within to work.
A perfect example is our recent history of the last 70 years in the way the left demands the world, and the gOP compromised and gave a little acreage.
It's time we stopped and demanded the world for ourselves and make the scum compromise for a change.
I do not want to derail the primary subject of this thread, but I am going to vent.
Notice we are hearing a lot about a "clean" healthcare bill and a "clean" tax bill. "Clean" has apparently become the exception in Washington. Damn, shouldn't every bill be "clean"? However congress critters have to add their own bells and whistles to expand the national debt. Throw them all out.
Thanks, now back to original thread.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 17, 2017, 11:37:37 AM
I do not want to derail the primary subject of this thread, but I am going to vent.
Notice we are hearing a lot about a "clean" healthcare bill and a "clean" tax bill. "Clean" has apparently become the exception in Washington. Damn, shouldn't every bill be "clean"? However congress critters have to add their own bells and whistles to expand the national debt. Throw them all out.
Thanks, now back to original thread.
You're right, "Clean" is the new disguise term for writing new Legislation from scratch and throwing on trailers Bills to get the pork they can't get with the existing Bills.
Which begs the question, Why do we need a "Clean Repeal Bill" when one has already been put to a vote?
What's in this so called "Clean Bill", what's different from the first one demanding all of Commiecare be heaped on the bonfire?
Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2017, 11:44:39 AM
You're right, "Clean" is the new disguise term for writing new Legislation from scratch and throwing on trailers Bills to get the pork they can't get with the existing Bills.
Which begs the question, Why do we need a "Clean Repeal Bill" when one has already been put to a vote?
What's in this so called "Clean Bill", what's different from the first one demanding all of Commiecare be heaped on the bonfire?
My thoughts, exactly. Interesting discussion. Sincerely hope we get the government OUT of the insurance business, so they quit screwing up the Healthcare - the very thing that matters.
Quote from: Hoofer on August 17, 2017, 12:26:36 PM
My thoughts, exactly. Interesting discussion. Sincerely hope we get the government OUT of the insurance business, so they quit screwing up the Healthcare - the very thing that matters.
Though I'd love that, I doubt that's ever going to happen. It's like unions, it's a cancer that keeps looking for new victims.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 17, 2017, 11:37:37 AM
I do not want to derail the primary subject of this thread, but I am going to vent.
Notice we are hearing a lot about a "clean" healthcare bill and a "clean" tax bill. "Clean" has apparently become the exception in Washington. Damn, shouldn't every bill be "clean"? However congress critters have to add their own bells and whistles to expand the national debt. Throw them all out.
Thanks, now back to original thread.
Hmm. Maybe Sup found the disconnect. My understanding of a "clean HC repeal" means that the current Obamacare law is repealed and there is no replacement. HC returns to the private sector under capitalistic competition. I'll avoid the use of "clean" from now on ... Solar beat it out of me! Rather, we simply want to work toward a full repeal of Obamacare and return the HC market and it's related insurance market to the free market. That's exactly what I've been trying to say in this thread - maybe the "clean" term was confusing the issue? This thread was trying to find ways to motivate that and the finding was that the best way is probably to pit those who want entitlements against those who want low costs ... I think low costs have more representation and could be a catalyst for the simple full repeal.
One surprise in the thread is how Solar separated insurance from HC. I do try and just work directly with the HC organizations in Ohio since I have no classical insurance. I hate insurance companies. But HC costs are high and the insurance products are the norm. So it's more nominal to be coupled than not. While I appreciate your view, Solar, that insurance companies (probably because they are under lots of govt. regulations) are about govt. control, there is no real movement that I've seen to get rid of them or deregulate them. Insurance companies with no government involvement and acting on their own will would be a conservative's view of insurance companies. That's a far reach today - maybe someday. But if you, Solar, or others act directly with the doctors and hospitals then it's definitely more supported of the Conservative way than working through insurance companies. But, unless you're really wealthy, one heart issue that requires surgery is more than most of us can pay. So a real conservative would either take out a loan and pay it back or realize they can't afford it and choose to die. Most people, even conservatives, don't think in those terms. Insurance is a synonomous with HC these days. So the point about removing insurance companies from the equation is pure from a conservative viewpoint, but not the normative reality. There are many more conservative hoops we'll have to make progress on before we see much progress on "conservative" insurance companies.
And, Sup, you bring up a good point about the coming tax reforms (we hope are coming). I've not heard "clean" associated with "tax reform" but maybe I'm out of date. But a reduction in taxes with a related reduction in either / or in laws and regulations amounts to reducing government control - a move toward conservatism.
Oh ... we also need to repeal Social Security ... another ponzi scheme that will be defended by Congress to the teeth until it becomes unsupportable and fails hard.
We were only a few votes from full repeal. Seems like it's more workable than some of these other issues.
Quote from: topside on August 17, 2017, 05:45:15 PM
Hmm. Maybe Sup found the disconnect. My understanding of a "clean HC repeal" means that the current Obamacare law is repealed and there is no replacement. HC returns to the private sector under capitalistic competition. I'll avoid the use of "clean" from now on ... Solar beat it out of me! Rather, we simply want to work toward a full repeal of Obamacare and return the HC market and it's related insurance market to the free market. That's exactly what I've been trying to say in this thread - maybe the "clean" term was confusing the issue? This thread was trying to find ways to motivate that and the finding was that the best way is probably to pit those who want entitlements against those who want low costs ... I think low costs have more representation and could be a catalyst for the simple full repeal.
One surprise in the thread is how Solar separated insurance from HC. I do try and just work directly with the HC organizations in Ohio since I have no classical insurance. I hate insurance companies. But HC costs are high and the insurance products are the norm. So it's more nominal to be coupled than not. While I appreciate your view, Solar, that insurance companies (probably because they are under lots of govt. regulations) are about govt. control, there is no real movement that I've seen to get rid of them or deregulate them. Insurance companies with no government involvement and acting on their own will would be a conservative's view of insurance companies. That's a far reach today - maybe someday. But if you, Solar, or others act directly with the doctors and hospitals then it's definitely more supported of the Conservative way than working through insurance companies. But, unless you're really wealthy, one heart issue that requires surgery is more than most of us can pay. So a real conservative would either take out a loan and pay it back or realize they can't afford it and choose to die. Most people, even conservatives, don't think in those terms. Insurance is a synonomous with HC these days. So the point about removing insurance companies from the equation is pure from a conservative viewpoint, but not the normative reality. There are many more conservative hoops we'll have to make progress on before we see much progress on "conservative" insurance companies.
And, Sup, you bring up a good point about the coming tax reforms (we hope are coming). I've not heard "clean" associated with "tax reform" but maybe I'm out of date. But a reduction in taxes with a related reduction in either / or in laws and regulations amounts to reducing government control - a move toward conservatism.
Oh ... we also need to repeal Social Security ... another ponzi scheme that will be defended by Congress to the teeth until it becomes unsupportable and fails hard.
We were only a few votes from full repeal. Seems like it's more workable than some of these other issues.
Again, the problem isn't HC, it's govt forcing people to purchase insurance, that's not how it was before Commiecare, but now insurance has become synonymous with HC, giving the illusion that one can't see a doctor without it, and to date, this still is not the case.
Health insurance is no different than any other insurance, you purchase it if you need it. Take hurricane policies, where I live I don't need it, so I don't purchase it.
This is the problem with Commiecare, it mandates that even women in their 80s buy pregnancy insurance, and guess why that is?
That's right, insurance companies profit heavily from selling you shit you don't need.
So you raise the point about heart surgery and claim you'd have to be rich to afford it on your own, yes, this is true, but if you're in your 20s and healthy, you'd be an idiot to purchase it over that of catastrophic insurance. (It's Hurricane insurance all over again)
Instead, you should take that money and invest it for when the day comes you may need to purchase HC.
Even though you say you now see a separation between HC and insurance, it would appear in your mind you still conflate the two as necessary evils, regardless.
Try and wrap your mind around the fact that it's the insurance and pharmaceutical companies were the ones behind designing Commiecare in the first place.
Now, with that knowledge in mind, look at the Establishment RINO and try and guess why they're fighting to keep certain mandates in place and refuse a full repeal.
That's Right, Money!!!