1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

House Passes Health Care Bill

Discussion in 'Politics Forum (Local/National/World)' started by searcher, May 4, 2017.



  1. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Silver stacker
    Location:
    America!


    Republicans are a joke.
     
    Ensoniq, andial and searcher like this.
  2. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the only good way out of the health care mess is socialized medicine. Every other industrialized country on the planet has it but the US. Wonder why that is?
     
    gnome likes this.
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Congressional Budget Office says 22 million uninsured under Senate plan - 1 million fewer than House bill
    • The Congressional Budget Office released its score of the Senate GOP's health care bill Monday afternoon
    • The CBO had already predicted that the passed version of the House bill would see 23 million fewer Americans insured than on Obamacare over 10 years
    • Monday's estimate had 22 million, one million fewer, uninsured under the Senate plan - though saved $321 billion in federal spending by 2026


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640916/CBO-set-score-Senate-health-care-bill.html#ixzz4lCSV9JrO
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  4. Professur

    Professur Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    4,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because every other country in the world that has it is on the verge of system collapse. You guys have the claim that people die because they can't afford treatment. We have the claim that we already paid for the treatment ... but die before we get it administered.
     
  5. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republicans Craft the Next Great Healthcare Failure

    By: Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital

    -- Published: Wednesday, 28 June 2017

    Those who claim that the Senate Republican proposal to replace Obamacare will kick millions of people out from health insurance coverage are dead wrong. Yes, it will cause the number of insured people to decline, but that will happen because millions of healthy individuals will be incentivized to voluntarily opt-out of traditional health insurance. For those people, the law will make traditional insurance a sucker bet. Instead of buying comprehensive health insurance policies, as they are currently known, they will either go without insurance for as long as possible or purchase a new type of low-cost insurance that the new proposals will likely create if they become law.

    Let's be clear. No one really wants to buy health insurance. When you do, you are effectively making a bet with your insurance company that you will get sick while they are betting you don't. If you do get sick, you get a potential payoff. If you don't, the insurance company keeps your premium. The same is true with all insurance. No one wants to buy auto or fire insurance, but we do in case we get into a car accident or our house burns down. But if the laws were changed so that fire insurance claims could be made after the fact, then consumer behavior would change significantly. People would simply opt-out, and then put in claims when and if they have a fire. But the only reason insurance companies can afford to rebuild houses is because so many of their customers pay premiums but never file claims. So if fire insurance companies could not discriminate against people with pre-existing fire conditions, they would cease to exist as businesses.

    The architects of Obamacare saw this problem in advance and attempted to solve it by imposing financial penalties on those who made the rational decision not to buy. The Law's fatal flaw was that the penalties were not stiff enough to stop people from opting-out. (If they were that high the law would have likely been declared unconstitutional). When the healthy individuals left the system, many insurance companies experienced huge losses, forcing them to either exit markets completely or to raise premiums steeply on those who remained.

    Amazingly, despite the many clear warning signs that too many people were dropping out, the original version of the Senate bill did even less than Obamacare to encourage healthy people to stay. That version allowed such individuals to forgo insurance when they didn't need it, but guaranteed that they could buy, without penalty, when they did. This would have exacerbated the huge losses that insurance companies are already seeing under Obamacare and would have forced the government to step in and transfer those losses to taxpayers. But, on Monday, the Senate belatedly recognized what they should have realized from the start, and came up with what purports to be a solution to prevent people from gaming the system. But like the veiled attempt made by the House, the Senate version falls well short of the mark.

    The House attempts to keep healthy people in the system by imposing a 30% surcharge on insurance for one year after a person with lapsed coverage (of 63 days or more) came back into the system. In fact, it was this provision that prompted Present Trump to call the plan "mean." But the 30% one year bump is a small price to pay for those who may go years, or even decades, paying nothing at all.

    Once the Senate realized that they needed some kind of penalty, they devised something that is even "meaner" by Trump's standards. They now propose a 6-month waiting period on people with a 63 day lapse in coverage. This means those hoping to get a free ride will risk exposing themselves to six months of bills if they get injured or sick. On paper at least, that could be a steep incentive to keep coverage current. But, already, Democrats have jumped on the proposal as unfair.

    But like every far-reaching regulatory proposal, this plan does not anticipate the changes in the market that it may itself create. It is likely that insurance companies will respond to this provision by offering "waiting period insurance" that will pay medical bills only between the time a real health insurance policy is purchased and the waiting period for that policy ends. To submit a claim under such a policy, the insured would only need to provide proof that he had already purchased an actual health insurance policy. Only then would the "waiting period policy" actually kick in to pay claims during the interim.

    Since these waiting period policies would only provide coverage for a short time period, the risk to insurance companies would be relatively low. That means that the costs to consumers would be considerably lower than long-term plans. Some consumers could maintain such policies for years, and save lots of money in the process. To further reduce costs, buyers could opt for waiting period policies with higher deductibles, or that exclude coverage for things like pregnancy. The Senate bill makes the cost even lower by providing that premiums on traditional policies do not kick in until the waiting period ends, meaning consumers will never be on the hook for paying both waiting period and longer term health insurance premiums at the same time. To guard against people waiting until they are sick to buy waiting period policies, those selling those policies can also impose a 6-month waiting period of their own on people with pre-existing conditions. This will ensure that only healthy people buy these policies, keeping premiums as low as possible for buyers, while maintaining profitability for sellers.

    People would not opt to buy real health insurance policies until after they were sick enough to need one. But such policies would no longer constitute insurance at all in the traditional sense, as buyers would know the outcome in advance of placing their bets. Since they would only place winning bets, the insurance companies would be guaranteed to lose money on every policy sold. This will create a vicious cycle of rising premiums, more dropouts, and ever-greater government bailouts until taxpayers were responsible for everything.

    While many Republicans originally and correctly opposed Obamacare, their concerns seem to have evaporated in the face of political gamesmanship. In order to achieve some kind of victory they are now promising the impossible. Trump is the leading figure on this bandwagon. He doesn't seem to care in the slightest what is actually in the law or what it will do to health care. He just wants something to pass so that he can take credit for the victory. But another layer of regulation surely won't help.

    Over the past half-century, U.S. health care costs have risen sharply because of a raft of government policies and tax incentives that have shifted routine health care payments from individuals to insurance companies. Believe it or not, before the 1960s a very large percentage of Americans paid for medical care out of pocket, according to a 1963 study by the Social Security Administration called Survey of the Aged. At that point, health care as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product hovered around five per cent.(1) Today that figure is more than three times that at around seventeen per cent.(1) Despite the huge increase in costs, health outcomes are not radically different from what you would have expected in light of the medical breakthroughs, technological improvements and the decline of smoking.

    As it turns out, insurance is a very inefficient way to pay for many of the health care services we use, the vast majority of which are actually highly predictable. Our current insurance system incentivizes consumers to over utilize health care without any regard for its cost and removes any market based restraints on prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. As a result, health care costs have risen considerably faster than the rate of inflation.

    The advocates of greater government involvement have always said that health care is too important to be left to the free markets. But you could make the same claims about food, clothing and shelter as well. The free market is perfectly capable of delivering those necessities at costs that fit all budgets. In fact, the relative costs of all three of those things have stayed the same, or come down, over the years. But health care, distorted by regulations, subsidies and tax incentives, has seen costs spiral out of control.

    Republicans are now presented with a rare opportunity to make the radical departure that they promised when they did not control the White House. The best approach would be to seek to eliminate the entire insurance apparatus, reduce regulation, increase free market choice, legalize interstate and international competition, and clamp down on malpractice lawsuits. The money currently being over spent on health and malpractice insurance, excess paperwork and unnecessary defensive medicine, could then be used to fund the kind of charity hospitals that once served as the backbone of our health care system.

    But since Republicans do not have the guts to stand up for the free market principles they pretend to stand for, they should not make the fatal political mistake of affixing their brand to a sinking ship. Better to let the S.S. Obamacare sink, and then come up with a free market system that will actually float.

    1. SOURCE: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; and U.S. Bureau of the Census.

    Read the original article at Euro Pacific Capital

    Best Selling author Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital. His podcasts are available on The Peter Schiff Channel on Youtube.

    http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1498659182.php
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  8. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    1,945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Insurance company backdoor bail out.

    What happened to plain Ole repeal?
     
    D-FENZ likes this.
  9. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump Calls For "Immediate" Repeal Of Obamacare If Senate Deal Fails

    [​IMG]
    by Tyler Durden
    Jun 30, 2017 7:59 AM


    Instead of lashing out at various media personalities on Twitter this morning, President Trump has instead pivoted to Healthcare Law, and in an early morning tweet has endorsed a strategy for replacing Obamacare may resonate with conservatives like Kentucky’s Rand Paul: Repeal now, replace later. Trump tweeted: "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!"

    The tweet is notable because it is the polar opposite of what Trump told Paul Ryan shortly after he won the election and shortly before Congress went into session, as Axios reminds us. And, more confusing, part of the reason why the House GOP leadership didn't run with a clean repeal vote, as they'd done many times under President Obama, was because Trump had made it clear to Ryan he wouldn't sign the bill.

    Furthermore, Axios adds that Trump is "frustrated, like every other Republican involved in the jammed-up health care negotiations. HHS Secretary Tom Price met with senior officials at the White House yesterday, and a source familiar with the meeting said the mood was far more negative than the day before" which means that moderate Republican senators "aren't buying what Mitch McConnell is offering them. At least not yet."

    So with a deal seemingly out of the question, Trump is preparing for a Plan B, even if it is with a 6 month delay and 180-degree the opposite of what he pitched at the start of the year.

    As for the Senate, after originally planning to go ahead with a planned “do or die” vote, McConnell said Wednesday he would delay the vote until after the July 4 recess, as the GOP still lacks the votes.

    The question now is how will moderates like Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski react to Trump’s plan? Both have raised questions about the revised bill’s cuts to medicare spending in their states, something that would negatively impact chronically ill elderly constituents who tend to vote in larger numbers than younger cohorts of the population.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-should-repeal-obamacare-now-replace-it-later
     
  10. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indiana GOP solicits Obamacare 'horror stories' and gets bombarded with testimonials about how it saved people's lives, as GOP senators take more flack over repeal bill
    • The Indiana Republican Party asked people to share their Obamacare 'horror stories'
    • Instead, thousands of people said it helped them combat ailments including asthma, chronic brain disease, and cancer
    • Many of the replies came from out of state
    • 'Did you lose a doctor that you liked? Have your premiums increased? Did your insurer leave the exchange? ...'


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4668964/Indiana-GOP-plea-Obamacare-horror-stories-backfires.html#ixzz4lzyaJRWC
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
    gnome likes this.
  12. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Ensoniq

    Ensoniq Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    6,238
    Likes Received:
    9,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Free Marketeer
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Trump should (Pareto) rank the support he gets (or doesn't get) from every member of Congress

    Some easy to search and view graphic so you can see how bad your guy sucks. Let's call them out while there's still a chance to win. If they won't do the right thing for the country, maybe they'll do it to save their own hides.

    The pubs are going to lose the Senate and maybe the house because they are either too chicken shit to do something or are closet big state lovers. Then the maniacs would be back in charge.

    It's a choice between a punch in the eye or a kick in the nuts - again
     
  15. andial

    andial Sir Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,961
    Likes Received:
    9,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama care was a bailout of medicare. Young people being forced to buy insurance they don't need. Of course you can avoid buying if you make sure you OWE the irs money at the end of the year NOT getting a refund. They will keep the refund money but can not take the money from your pay or bank account.
     
    Cigarlover, Joe King, D-FENZ and 2 others like this.
  16. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BREAKING NEWS - Senate to delay Obamacare repeal vote over GOP fears it wouldn't have enough votes after John McCain undergoes surgery to remove blood clot from above his left eye
    • US Senator John McCain will remain in Arizona next week to recuperate from a medical procedure that removed a 2-inch blood clot above his left eye
    • McCain's absence forced the Republican-led Senate to delay a vote on legislation to dismantle and replace Obamacare
    • McCain's office was not immediately available to comment on when the lawmaker would return to Washington


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4700370/McCain-surgery-remove-blood-clot-eye.html#ixzz4mzAhnuYs
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  17. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The public has been, for whatever reason, convinced that the Republican plan wont work and the plan is described with an assortment of evil adjectives by people who really do not know what they are talking about. None of us, including them, has actually read the full bill and so can not provide a true opinion on it. However Obamacare is failing and the Republicans should just let it fail, then come in like a white knight, pick up the pieces and fix them.
    Oh no though. McConnell and the crew can not wait to inflict more bad vibes upon the party by not biding their time to let the former plan bury itself. None of this makes any sense but to be sure it will have an effect on future elections. McConnell is the best rally person for future Democrat votes next election.
    ( Actually in my opinion no health care package will solve the problems until the FSA situation is solved. Paying a premium for health care and then having to pay more for those that don't pay is the real issue here but as always...it's for the children)
     
    Son of Gloin, searcher and Uglytruth like this.
  18. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Other countries with socialized medicine also have an additional set of private plans. Charlie Munger, of Berkshire Hathaway fame, recently said that this was what the US needed.
    I was in the hospital for Laryngeal cancer some years ago. One of the Doctors was a Canadian and I asked him the difference between the USA and Canada with my set of facts. HE told me that Canada does not have the availability of PET scan machines as they are in the USA. Because of that my situation would not be qualifying for the scan and so he would not operate. Most probably he said, under the public plan, my airway would begine to close in 6 to 9 months and then a radical surgery would be performed. HE went on to say though that if I had one of the private Canadian plans I could either one of the private PET scan clinics that are set up at the USA Canadian border lands for just that purpose. Additionally I could do the same out of pocket as well. So, yes they have socialized medicine but they have private plans as well.
    I could go on about a similar situation while in Mexico, but won't bore you. Suffice it to say though there are private plans there as well.
    So in the other countries those willing to pay for their care get the best treatments; those that don't simply get public care. The big issue in the States is that those that won't pay feel they should get the best care thanks to a situational plan of divide and conquer by politicians seeking to garner the FSA and bleeding hearts at election time.
    Go to any ER and see the room clogged with people. many of whom can't speak English, demanding to see the doctor. Unless I am mistaken there is a Federal Law that demands that these people be seen signed by no other that Ronald Reagan who was just another RINO if you really look into it.
    Correct me if I am wrong on Reagan because to me he was just another neocon rino warhawk keeping the money flowing to the military complex and doing the usual politicians do...buy public votes with the public'es money. DO things ever change?
     
  19. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah. Just keeps getting worse in my opinion (fwiw.)

    Wonder when the day of reckoning will arrive and what it will be like?
     
  20. D-FENZ

    D-FENZ Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    2,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the repugnants get anything done on repeal/replace it will likely just be a patch for that refund escape clause. Then everyone is doomed.
     
    Uglytruth and andial like this.
  21. andial

    andial Sir Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,961
    Likes Received:
    9,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    D-FENZ you are right first thing i thought of after i typed that was " those cock sucking repukes are going to block that escape exit!!!"
     
  22. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Want cheaper healthcare? Ban health insurance. Everything for everyone is done out of pocket. Costs per person and costs for any given treatment would plummet 70% within a year.
     
  23. Ensoniq

    Ensoniq Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    6,238
    Likes Received:
    9,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Free Marketeer
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I'm against any solution that begins by restricting my freedom. Who is the Gooberment to tell me I can't decide to purchase insurance?

    The current bill sucks but don't go by the CBO - they say 22 million will lose insurance without qualifying that half are freely choosing to dump insurance which will be allowed when the individual mandate is replaced

    The camels nose is already under the tent I think he's going to be a permanent guest

    Current bill has the bailout for insurance companies and keeps the taxes but does eliminate gov paid abortions and the mandate

    The solution is to make it legal to sell unregulated insurance and let the market sort it out
     
  24. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I don't actually think the govt will ban insurance or think it should ban it (although i'd prefer that over the alternative to mandate it). I was making the point that insurance *is* the reason prices are so high. Face it, people "get sick" more often, take more medicine, care less at the price of service, etc when they have insurance. Hospitals are more likely to add extra proceedures, keep people longer, charge more for services when it's going to be paid by a big company rather than a granny's pocketbook. Not to mention the extra layers of bureaucracy and administrative needs to audit, bill, approve, appeal, regulate, insurance claims and bills.

    You can get a glimpse of what free-market out-of-pocket prices for procedures would be if you go to a few hospital websites that do cash payments and publish prices. It's like a half to a third of what insurance prices go for if I remember correctly.
     
    Cigarlover likes this.
  25. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  26. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,539
    Likes Received:
    4,274
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Yep.

    Nope. That'd be the time to bury it for good.

    Yep. All that money has to be added into the cost of healthcare and/or the cost of the insurance.
    ....but you don't really gotta ban it, just make it so the patient is the one who has to deal with the insurance company, not the providers.
     
  27. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    goldielox1 likes this.
  28. dacrunch

    dacrunch Platinum Bling Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,067
    Likes Received:
    2,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting... Liked what Trump said 4 days ago =

     
  29. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Local paper.............

    On health care, history is watching
    • By E.J. DIONNE JR.
    • Jul 18, 2017 Updated 7 hrs ago


    Over the last century, there has been a characteristic American cycle of response to far-reaching social reforms.

    When the breakthroughs are first proposed, conservatives fight them with a devout passion, warning that the measures on offer would move the nation toward socialism and perdition. Then, over time, the disastrous consequences never materialize, the reforms prove their worth, and Americans come to see the once-new benefits as rights.

    This was certainly the case with two of our nation's greatest social programs.

    In the debate over Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan for Social Security, Rep. James Wadsworth said the system would make government "so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants."

    Rep. John Taber, like Wadsworth a conservative Republican from New York, was equally apocalyptic: "Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people."

    As it happened, the pillars of the temple remained firmly in place, and so today does Social Security.

    The story is the same with Medicare. An eloquent conservative actor named Ronald Reagan warned in 1961 that if the plan passed, "behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country."

    Reagan saw only darkness ahead if Americans did not rise up against this scheme. "One of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

    The Gipper also offered this: "It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it."

    As well they should be, and this is why the coming weeks will be among the most important in the history of American social policy. A handful of Republican senators will decide whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain part of the fabric of our nation's life, the latest in a long series of steps toward a more humane society.

    The Obamacare repeal bill unveiled last week by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell after the failure of his first try is, if anything, worse than the original, primarily because its insurance "reforms" (really a rollback of the ACA's actual reforms protecting those with pre-existing conditions and limiting premiums for older Americans) will render coverage unaffordable for millions of our citizens who face the most severe health problems.

    In the meantime, the bill keeps the worst aspect of the earlier GOP draft in place. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, bravely and correctly identified the "still deep cuts to Medicaid" as the central reason why this bill deserves to die. Because Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also said he would vote no and the 48 members of the Democratic caucus are prepared to oppose McConnell's bill as well, only one more Republican vote will be needed to continue our nation's painfully slow but necessary march toward guaranteeing every American health insurance.

    Here's a suggestion to Dean Heller, Rob Portman, Shelley Moore Capito and Lisa Murkowski, Republican senators who should feel morally bound to vote no. Like Collins, they have spoken strongly against damaging cuts to Medicaid. If they announced their opposition together, they would lessen the political risk of standing alone and create a critical mass of GOP senators who could join Collins in her declared intention of working with Democrats "to fix flaws" in the ACA.

    That's the other thing about enduring social reforms: They have lasted not only because they demonstrated their value, but also because Congress improved them over the years. Social Security, for example, is better because of changes made in the early 1950s and again in the 1970s.

    To oppose this wretched Senate repeal bill thus does not mean declaring that the ACA is perfect. (Exempt the Ten Commandments if you will, but no legislation is perfect.) It means accepting that Obamacare moved the nation in the right direction -- and, by the way, used some conservative ideas to do it.

    We can be grateful that earlier generations ignored those who regularly equated social advances with oppression. As Reagan might say, our children and our children's children will ask whether we shared the courage of our forebears.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    E.J. Dionne writes this column for The Washington Post. Email: ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_b6aefd53-7ec3-5307-a756-eccf22ed86db.html
     
  30. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A house divided cannot stand
    • By Thomas L. Knapp
    • Jul 18, 2017 Updated 7 hrs ago


    The latest healthcare initiative from the Trump administration and the Republican Party's leaders in Congress seems set to sink just like the last version. Mitch McConnell can't seem to round up the votes to push it through the Senate, if anything the House is more likely to tear apart than pass the Senate version, and the White House isn't getting anywhere with its attempt to mobilize the nation's governors behind attempts to modify the Affordable Care Act, aka "ObamaCare."

    Good. Even the most ambitious proposal up for serious consideration -- repealing ObamaCare and reverting to pre-2010 rules -- is just nibbling around the edges of the problems of maximizing care availability and minimizing costs, as was ObamaCare itself. Sooner or later (and the sooner the better) one of two radical solutions will be adopted.

    Note: "Radical" does not mean "extreme." Per Oxford Dictionaries, it means "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough."

    Let me define the problem by mangling a famous Abraham Lincoln speech: A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this healthcare system cannot endure, permanently, half government-run and half kind-sorta private. I do not expect healthcare to disappear -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

    The two real alternatives before us are:

    Adopting a "single-payer" system in which the state takes complete top-to-bottom charge of healthcare; or

    Radically reducing -- even eliminating -- the state's role in healthcare.

    As a libertarian, I support the latter course. Every government involvement in healthcare, starting with guild socialism and occupational licensure in the late 19th century (at the urging of the American Medical Association, to prop up profits for doctors) and proceeding through socialized healthcare for veterans (the VA), socialized healthcare for the elderly (Medicare), socialized healthcare for the poor (Medicaid) and partially socialized healthcare for everyone (from the Health Maintenance Organization Act to ObamaCare) has impeded care and raised costs at the expense of patients. A constitutional amendment requiring separation of medicine and state would be the best possible outcome.

    But that seems unlikely to happen, doesn't it? The big business players in healthcare (pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, "insurance" companies, et al.) would rather use government to protect their monopolies and pass burgeoning administrative costs on to the rest of us than compete in a free market. And the customers (patients) themselves have good reason to distrust what's been falsely advertised to them as a "private sector" system.

    I predict that the US government will adopt a "single-payer" healthcare system no later than 2030, and probably sooner. And while I oppose that outcome and believe its results will be far worse than a real free-market system would produce, I also suspect that those results will be better than the current half-fish, half-fowl, largely socialized but with fake "private" players sucking it dry, system.

    Ultimately, it must be free-market or "single-payer." Either way, I mostly just wish the politicians would stop tinkering and make up their minds.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida. Twitter: @thomaslknapp

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_e04f8687-8796-53a7-9145-c0fdf3e50199.html
     
  31. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Let Obamacare fail!' Trump promises eventual replacement for medical insurance law after Senate bill collapses – but says it will require current system to fall apart first
    • President is predicting that a collapse of the Obamacare system will be the catalyst that propels Congress to action on a replacement
    • Fifty votes were needed to pass a Senate replacement bill but enough Republicans defected Monday night to doom it
    • Most likely scenario now is a straight 'repeal' vote that would take effect in two years, giving lawmakers time to craft a new system
    • Trump said Monday night that the GOP should repeal Obamacare first and 'start from a clean slate'
    • But now he's also predicting that even without a 'repeal' vote the current system will fail on its own
    • Trump also appears to be calling for the end of Senate rules that require 60-vote super-majorities to pass bills that don't impact the federal budget


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4707064/Trump-promises-Obamacare-replacement-Senate-collapse.html#ixzz4nByuZlAt
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  32. the_shootist

    the_shootist The war is here on our doorstep! Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    15,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Oxygen Breather
    Location:
    Somewhere out there!
    Our US house has been divided for decades and we no longer stand for the things we used to stand for
     
  33. andial

    andial Sir Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,961
    Likes Received:
    9,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let it fail is a good idea, feck em, Feck em all!
     
  34. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    93
    LOL this guy is so unschooled that he thinks Abraham Lincoln coined this phrase. Mark 3:25, Matthew 12:25

    Ignorance today is amazing even amongst those that are supposedly learned journalists. We really no need to put the Bible back in the classroom.
     
    hammerhead likes this.
  35. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Let Obamacare fail,' Trump says after GOP plan collapses
    • By ALAN FRAM and ERICA WERNER Associated Press
    • Jul 18, 2017 Updated 17 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump declared Tuesday he's going to "let Obamacare fail" after the Republicans' effort to rewrite the 2010 health care overhaul imploded in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a vote on a backup plan simply repealing the statute, but desertions by his own party seemed to ensure that would fail, too.

    Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said they opposed McConnell's Plan B. That's enough to spell defeat and could send a message to conservative Republicans that it is time to abandon efforts to tear down Obama's law.

    All Senate Democrats are opposed to the GOP changes.

    In the morning, Trump tweeted a barrage of criticism over his party's failure on its flagship legislative priority. For seven years, the GOP has pledged to repeal President Barack Obama's law.

    "Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard," Trump tweeted. "We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans."

    Later, the president went further, describing a legislative tactic and political outcome that contradicts the views of many in the GOP.

    "I'm not going to own it," he said as he opened a White House event with military officers. "I can tell you that the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us and they're going to say how do we fix it?"

    Many Republicans worry that the public already views health care as their responsibility, since they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

    Trump has talked before about discontinuing federal payments to insurers that have let the companies subsidize out-of-pockets costs for millions of low-earning customers. Insurers say the threat of such disruption has already encouraged them to leave some markets and seek higher premiums.

    Two GOP senators — Utah's Mike Lee and Jerry Moran of Kansas — sealed the doom of McConnell's bill replacing much of Obama's law late Monday when they announced they would vote "no" in an initial, critical vote that had been expected as soon as next week. That meant that at least four of the 52 GOP senators were ready to block the measure — two more than Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had to spare in the face of unanimous Democratic opposition.

    On the Senate floor Tuesday, McConnell conceded that the legislation repealing the 2010 law and replacing it with GOP-preferred programs "will not be successful," essentially waving a white flag.

    He said instead, the Senate would vote on legislation dismantling much of Obama's statute that would take effect in two years, which Republicans say would give Congress time to approve replacement legislation. But such legislation seems unlikely to be approved, with many Republicans concerned the two-year gap would roil insurance markets and produce a political backlash against the GOP.

    Moderate Republican Sen. Capito said she'd oppose scuttling Obama's statute "without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians." She's criticized the GOP bill's cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people that her state relies on heavily.

    Another moderate, Susan Collins, also said she'd oppose McConnell's measure. She said repealing the law without an immediate replacement would produce "great anxiety for individuals" who benefit from Obama's statute and "cause the insurance markets to go into turmoil."

    Alaska has extremely high medical costs because many residents live in remote areas, and it also benefits from Obama's expansion of Medicaid coverage. Murkowski has been wary of anything that would jeopardize federal funds for her state.

    The three women are helping sink a McConnell repeal effort that initially saw him appoint an all-male group of senators to try crafting an overhaul bill. McConnell opened those closed-door meetings to all GOP senators after the women complained.

    This is the second stinging setback on the issue in three weeks for McConnell, whose reputation as a legislative mastermind has been marred as he's failed to unite his chamber's Republicans behind a health overhaul package that highlighted jagged divides between conservatives and moderates. In late June, he abandoned an initial package after he lacked enough GOP support to pass.

    The episode has also been jarring for Trump, whose intermittent lobbying and nebulous, often contradictory descriptions of what he's wanted have shown he has limited clout with senators. That despite a determination by Trump, McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to demonstrate that a GOP running the White House and Congress can govern effectively.

    McConnell's failed bill would have left 22 million uninsured by 2026, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a number that many Republicans found unpalatable. But the vetoed 2015 measure would be even worse, the budget office said last January, producing 32 million additional uninsured people by 2026 — figures that seemed likely to drive a stake into that bill's prospects for passing Congress.

    That would seem to leave McConnell with an option he described last month — negotiating with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. That would likely be on a narrower package aimed more at keeping insurers in difficult marketplaces they're either abandoning or imposing rapidly growing premiums.

    Similar to legislation the House approved in May after its own setbacks, McConnell's bill would repeal Obama's tax penalties on people who don't buy coverage and cut the Medicaid program for the poor, elderly and nursing home residents. It rolled back many of the statute's requirements for the policies insurers can sell and eliminated many tax increases that raised money for Obama's expansion to 20 million more people, though it retained the law's tax boosts on high earners.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_47cc3849-a06b-5bde-b232-82d9496593d0.html
     
  36. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stinging defeat for Republicans
    • 7 hrs ago


    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law on March 23, 2010. A day before President Obama even signed the bill, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal it.

    Most of those same Republicans — none of whom voted for the law — have been trying since then to get rid of it. While Obama was still in office, dozens of GOP efforts to undermine the ACA were unsuccessful. While the law was imperfect from the start and flaws were acknowledged by both parties, it did provide health coverage for millions of previously uninsured and uninsurable individuals. No serious attempt was ever made, by either Democrats or Republicans, to make the law better, however. For Republicans, the prime objective — the only objective, really — was doing away with Obamacare.

    Last year's election seemed to hand the GOP the opportunity it had been waiting for: a Republican Congress and a Republican president. During the campaign, Donald Trump promised wonderful new health care. And with seven years to work on a new, better health care bill, the GOP stood poised to deliver.

    Earlier this year, the House barely passed its version of "repeal and replace." It was a disaster. Even President Trump called the bill "mean," particularly for its massive cuts to Medicaid. Some senators, among them Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, assured worried Americans that the Senate would craft much better, much fairer, much more compassionate health care legislation.

    They lied. The Senate bill still promised to put the brakes on Medicaid funding — funding that the poor and the elderly rely on. The Congressional Budget Office predicted many millions of people would still lose coverage. Enough Republican senators to assure the bill's defeat said they could not support it, prompting Senate leaders to recraft the legislation.

    But the second attempt was hardly better than the first. The thin Republican lead in the Senate, 52-48, allows only two defectors, and GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky said they would not vote for the bill. Then Republican John McCain of Arizona became unavailable following his surgery. (His vote for the bill wasn't certain anyway.) On Monday, two more GOP senators bailed. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to concede there would be no "repeal and replace" legislation.

    This is a stinging defeat and a colossal embarrassment for congressional Republicans, not to mention for President Trump. To add insult to injury, both he and McConnell are now focusing on simply repealing the ACA, with no immediate plans to replace it. They want to move on to other things, such as tax legislation.

    Here's Toomey's take: "I intend to proceed to a full Obamacare repeal bill that would take effect in two years so that Congress can use this time to craft a legislative replacement...." Republicans have already had seven years to do that. Why not give them another two? Or five? Or 10?

    Toomey said he is "disappointed with the failure of the draft Senate bill." We're disappointed with Toomey and the rest of Congress. Our lawmakers have clearly demonstrated they have no idea how to fix health care.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_ce6a2102-9149-5c0a-b70c-65bed2aea329.html
     
  37. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  38. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  39. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
  40. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,117
    Likes Received:
    38,245
    Trophy Points:
    113

Share This Page