Trumpcare: Making America Healthy Again

[Eddie]

So - I'm starting to hear from my more liberal leaning friends on Facebook that the problems with the ACA were all caused by concessions that the GOP demanded in order to get the thing to pass. And now the GOP is upset about it, even though the worst of it is their fault. They're also complaining that there is no bipartisan discussion on whatever the GOP is trying to do now - the Dem's have been shut out of the discussion.

Now - it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Dem's are shut out. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone invited them, and they said "screw you - do it yourself". Of course - I'm not saying that as an indictment of the Dem's, that's what the GOP says to them, so it would just be SOP for either side to do that (unfortunately).

But from what I remember at the time, there wasn't all that much across the aisle input with the ACA either. All I remember is what's-her-name from California saying that they needed to pass it to see what's in it. Was there really a lot of input from GOP members when the ACA was being created? Am I remembering it wrong?

[myboynoah]

So - I'm starting to hear from my more liberal leaning friends on Facebook that the problems with the ACA were all caused by concessions that the GOP demanded in order to get the thing to pass. And now the GOP is upset about it, even though the worst of it is their fault. They're also complaining that there is no bipartisan discussion on whatever the GOP is trying to do now - the Dem's have been shut out of the discussion.

Now - it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Dem's are shut out. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone invited them, and they said "screw you - do it yourself". Of course - I'm not saying that as an indictment of the Dem's, that's what the GOP says to them, so it would just be SOP for either side to do that (unfortunately).

But from what I remember at the time, there wasn't all that much across the aisle input with the ACA either. All I remember is what's-her-name from California saying that they needed to pass it to see what's in it. Was there really a lot of input from GOP members when the ACA was being created? Am I remembering it wrong?

No you are not. It was passed with no repub votes. No need for concessions.

[Maximus]

So - I'm starting to hear from my more liberal leaning friends on Facebook that the problems with the ACA were all caused by concessions that the GOP demanded in order to get the thing to pass. And now the GOP is upset about it, even though the worst of it is their fault. They're also complaining that there is no bipartisan discussion on whatever the GOP is trying to do now - the Dem's have been shut out of the discussion.

Now - it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Dem's are shut out. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone invited them, and they said "screw you - do it yourself". Of course - I'm not saying that as an indictment of the Dem's, that's what the GOP says to them, so it would just be SOP for either side to do that (unfortunately).

But from what I remember at the time, there wasn't all that much across the aisle input with the ACA either. All I remember is what's-her-name from California saying that they needed to pass it to see what's in it. Was there really a lot of input from GOP members when the ACA was being created? Am I remembering it wrong?

I wish the dems kept the public option in there. really would like to see how that wouldve affected things

[Uncle Ted]

I wish the dems kept the public option in there. really would like to see how that wouldve affected things

Yeah, I am kind of hoping the dems get their way and get single payer installed so I can retire earlier. It would be great to have something to bridge the gap until Medicare kicks in that all those millennials will get to pay for. The damn GOP bill would screw the older people!...

Under the Senate bill, older Americans will pay more for less health insurance

We need to make those young b*turds pay!

[Moliere]

So - I'm starting to hear from my more liberal leaning friends on Facebook that the problems with the ACA were all caused by concessions that the GOP demanded in order to get the thing to pass. And now the GOP is upset about it, even though the worst of it is their fault. They're also complaining that there is no bipartisan discussion on whatever the GOP is trying to do now - the Dem's have been shut out of the discussion.

Now - it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Dem's are shut out. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone invited them, and they said "screw you - do it yourself". Of course - I'm not saying that as an indictment of the Dem's, that's what the GOP says to them, so it would just be SOP for either side to do that (unfortunately).

But from what I remember at the time, there wasn't all that much across the aisle input with the ACA either. All I remember is what's-her-name from California saying that they needed to pass it to see what's in it. Was there really a lot of input from GOP members when the ACA was being created? Am I remembering it wrong?

You need smarter liberal FB friends. SJBH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

So - I'm starting to hear from my more liberal leaning friends on Facebook that the problems with the ACA were all caused by concessions that the GOP demanded in order to get the thing to pass. And now the GOP is upset about it, even though the worst of it is their fault. They're also complaining that there is no bipartisan discussion on whatever the GOP is trying to do now - the Dem's have been shut out of the discussion.

Now - it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Dem's are shut out. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone invited them, and they said "screw you - do it yourself". Of course - I'm not saying that as an indictment of the Dem's, that's what the GOP says to them, so it would just be SOP for either side to do that (unfortunately).

But from what I remember at the time, there wasn't all that much across the aisle input with the ACA either. All I remember is what's-her-name from California saying that they needed to pass it to see what's in it. Was there really a lot of input from GOP members when the ACA was being created? Am I remembering it wrong?

The Senate version was secretly put together without any input from most senate Republicans either. Not exactly McConnell's best work.

[BlueK]

You need smarter liberal FB friends. SJBH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Smart" and Facebook don't go together.

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shaka]

That's what I was doing as well.

[All-American]

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best reaction:


Unless he was using two dead hookers as skis, there really isn't a story here.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Best reaction:


Unless he was using two dead hookers as skis, there really isn't a story here.

That's a thinly veiled jab at Craig James and his days at SMU.

[myboynoah]

Mitt doesn't need skis.

[swampfrog]

Mitt doesn't need skis.

Then what *does* he do with the dead hookers?

[frank ryan]

Welp, back to the drawing board. McCain proves to be the difference in stopping the ACA repeal:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can...e=news_central

[Walter Sobchak]

Single payer is inevitable.

Single payer US style will be a shit storm like one you have never seen before.

We currently spend by government expenditures 1.1 T per year through Medicare and Medicaid. All other healthcare expenditures are 2.2 T through private sources. Transferring that to government will mean we will have more delays and greater costs, so the single payer system will cost us approximately 4 T PER YEAR, or about 800 B more than the total US budget. Good luck with that dude. I can hardly wait. You complain about 5T spent on wars since 2001 but wouldn't complain about 5T being spent each year on government managed healthcare? Are you smoking some strong weed?

A single payer system will be implemented with the efficiency of Obamacare website.

You're right. Single payer is unrealistic. There’s no way we can survive without health insurance companies.

I think you are way low on your estimate. We are not talking about sh*tty Canadian-like single payer crap that hands out aspirins that cost about a 3rd of what we Americans pay for them. We are talking about American-sized single payer that hands out free birth control for all the Sandra Flukes out there. Of course, the Big Pharma companies, healthcare providers, etc. and their lobbyists will write up the single payer bill so they will make sure profit big time on the people's tab. (Hint: Buy their stocks when this bill passes.) California Senate Bill 562 should give you an idea of what I am talking about. You need to think bigger, Top.

The Conservative Case for Universal Health Care

Don’t tell anyone, but American conservatives will soon be embracing single-payer healthcare, or some other form of socialized healthcare.

Yes, that’s a bold claim given that a GOP-controlled Congress and President are poised to un-socialize a great deal of healthcare, and may even pull it off. But within five years, plenty of Republicans will be loudly supporting or quietly assenting to universal Medicare.

And that’s a good thing, because socializing healthcare is the only demonstrably effective way to control costs and cover everyone. It results in a healthier country and it saves a ton of money.

That may seem offensively counterintuitive. It’s generally assumed that universal healthcare will by definition cost more.

In fact, in every first-world nation that has socialized medicine–whether it be a heavily regulated multi-insurer system like Germany, single-payer like Canada, or a purely socialized system like the United Kingdom–-it costs less. A lot, lot less, in fact: While healthcare eats up nearly 18 percent of U.S. GDP, for other nations, from Australia and Canada to Germany and Japan, the figure hovers around 11 percent. (It’s no wonder that smarter capitalists like Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway are bemoaning the drag on U.S. firm competitiveness from high healthcare costs.) Nor are healthcare results in America anything to brag about: lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and poor scores on a wide range of important public health indicators.

Why does socialized healthcare cost less? Getting rid of private insurers, which suck up a lot money without adding any value, would result in a huge savings, as much as 15 percent by one academic estimate published in the American Journal of Public Health. When the government flexing its monopsony muscle as the overwhelmingly largest buyer of medical services, drugs and technology, it would also lower prices-–that’s what happens in nearly every other country.

We spend more (percent of GDP) and get less (lower life expectancy, etc). As noted:

No one looks at our expensive American mess as a model.

Looks like the author gives our very own Topper and Uncle Ted a shout out:

I don’t want to oversell the friction-free smoothness of the GOP’s conversion to socialized healthcare. Our funny country will always have a cohort of InfoWars ooga-boogas, embittered anesthesiologists and Hayekian fundies for whom universal healthcare is a totalitarian jackboot. (But, and not to be a jerk, it’s worth remembering that Hayek himself supported the socialized healthcare of Western Europe in one of his most reasonable passages from the Road to Serfdom.)

So even if there is some banshee GOP resistance at first, universal Medicare will swiftly become about as controversial as our government-run fire departments. Such, after all, was the trajectory of Medicare half a century ago. You read it here first, people: Within five years, the American Right will happily embrace socialized medicine.