[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Not true for ACA... That was similarly railroaded through congress with votes split along party lines. There were some brief periods for comments but Republicans were not involved in writing the bill and of course there was the famous Pelosi quote, "you have to pass the bill to read the bill". As the Dems controlled both houses, it passed. Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of using theses tactics.

That doesn't make the perpetuation implementing of bad laws ok.

There was also a large majority of the nation that expected both sides to work together to fix it.

And there was a large majority in this instance that didnt feel this was best for the 'middle class'. Another fictional selling point.

The ACA was not a single faceted aspect. DRugs costs let alone med costs are not within the .gov control to a large degree.

Not so for tax income and rates. One has been well documented and has an extended history. The other much less so.

Analogies can be beneficial, but nuanced

[kscarrol]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

That doesn't make the perpetuation implementing of bad laws ok.

There was also a large majority of the nation that expected both sides to work together to fix it.

And there was a large majority in this instance that didnt feel this was best for the 'middle class'. Another selling point.

Some would argue that ACA was a bad law...

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

Hence, the 'simplified' sales point of this tax cut was just smoke and mirrors.

Simplification goes away when lobbyist get involved.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Simplification goes away when lobbyist get involved.

Rarely is that not the case when the machine was built on $$
and they feed it $$$$

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Some would argue that ACA was a bad law...

again flawed implementation. But the law has a purpose - the cost increases wont go away, nor will those who cant pay the increased costs.. hence....

And it will still be necessary unless you can change some other aspectS

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Not true for ACA... That was similarly railroaded through congress with votes split along party lines. There were some brief periods for comments but Republicans were not involved in writing the bill and of course there was the famous Pelosi quote, "you have to pass the bill to read the bill". As the Dems controlled both houses, it passed. Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of using theses tactics.

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

ACA was a joint effort? Republicans had ideas they brought to the table that were dismissed when they were told "There are consequences to elections and I won." Sorry, but that is not collaboration. Welcome to the consequences of the precedents set by the last guy.

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

That doesn't make the perpetuation implementing of bad laws ok.

There was also a large majority of the nation that expected both sides to work together to fix it.

And there was a large majority in this instance that didnt feel this was best for the 'middle class'. Another fictional selling point.

The ACA was not a single faceted aspect. DRugs costs let alone med costs are not within the .gov control to a large degree.

Not so for tax income and rates. One has been well documented and has an extended history. The other much less so.

Analogies can be beneficial, but nuanced

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Some would argue that ACA was a bad law...

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Simplification goes away when lobbyist get involved.

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

Rarely is that not the case when the machine was built on $$
and they feed it $$$$

I'm a former lobbyist and was involved with the ACA from the first meetings and knew it was bad law from soup to nuts. But what they don't tell you is that it was designed to be bad law from the beginning to bring on the collapse of the current healthcare system and set the stage for a single payer system. They said as much in a meeting in San Diego in 2009 ad the hew and cry from us, actual professionals in the space, was such that it was never mentioned again.

It is one of the worst failures of leadership on record and a glowing example of why you shouldn't trust any politician.

[kscarrol]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

again flawed implementation. But the law has a purpose - the cost increases wont go away, nor will those who cant pay the increased costs.. hence....

And it will still be necessary unless you can change some other aspectS

I don't have a problem with the ideas behind ACA, but it was very much a bad law not just bad implementation.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

That doesn't make the perpetuation implementing of bad laws ok.

There was also a large majority of the nation that expected both sides to work together to fix it.

And there was a large majority in this instance that didnt feel this was best for the 'middle class'. Another fictional selling point.

The ACA was not a single faceted aspect. DRugs costs let alone med costs are not within the .gov control to a large degree.

Not so for tax income and rates. One has been well documented and has an extended history. The other much less so.

Analogies can be beneficial, but nuanced

Personally, I don't believe 2017 tax reform is a bad law.

If Republicans (with no Democrat support) passed a flat tax with no tax credits, deduction or other loopholes (simpler for everyone), accompanied by spending cuts, and was projected to grow GDP enough to have a positive impact on budget deficits, would that be something you support? I am unclear on whether your disdain is due to lack of compliance to specific campaign criteria or the fact that it was pushed through by one party.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

I'm a former lobbyist and was involved with the ACA from the first meetings and knew it was bad law from soup to nuts. But what they don't tell you is that it was designed to be bad law from the beginning to bring on the collapse of the current healthcare system and set the stage for a single payer system. They said as much in a meeting in San Diego in 2009 ad the hew and cry from us, actual professionals in the space, was such that it was never mentioned again.

It is one of the worst failures of leadership on record and a glowing example of why you shouldn't trust any politician.

I've always believed that. There's a solution to reducing the cost of healthcare. It requires removing subsidies and increasing competition, but the players within the industry abhor competition.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

I don't have a problem with the ideas behind ACA, but it was very much a bad law not just bad implementation.

Alternative solutions considering the problem wont go away?

Originally Posted by MKSixer

It is one of the worst failures of leadership on record and a glowing example of why you shouldn't trust any politician.

Not sure where that leaves us ...


The real issue is compromise is now determined to be unacceptable and in a nation with 330M, governed by 535, influenced by $$$$ , I dont know how those can co-exist.

[kscarrol]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

Alternative solutions considering the problem wont go away?




Not sure where that leaves us ...

Your statement that compromise is now unacceptable implies that is driven by the current administration when in fact that is not true. Pres Obama and the ACA are prime examples of an unwillingness to compromise...


Yes, repeal it and start over.

And I agree with MKSixer, the vast majority of politicians are looking out for themselves, not for us.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Your statement that compromise is now unacceptable implies that is driven by the current administration when in fact that is not true. Pres Obama and the ACA are prime examples of an unwillingness to compromise...


Yes, repeal it and start over.

And I agree with MKSixer, the vast majority of politicians are looking out for themselves, not for us.

I didnt say when it started. Only that it is now ubiquitous.

Actually it started with Talk radio screaming what the 'principals' were to those that didnt have them defined themselves. And now they are still being preached with no grounding in morals.

still not sure where that leaves us.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

I didnt say when it started. Only that it is now ubiquitous.

If you didn't state when it started, you sure implied it pretty strongly:

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

The difference was there had been efforts FROM BOTH SIDES for about all other gov projects in the past. And not just flat fiction, nor was the majority of the time spent deriding the side that you need the solutions from...

Welcome to #45.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

If you didn't state when it started, you sure implied it pretty strongly:

Different context.
#45 holds the record for flat fiction (and Im being kind)


Running total

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ims-tops-1000/

AND deriding BOTH SIDES actually.. But maybe you dont keep up with DT - digg.com/channel/donaldtrump

;-)

[BuiltnBoostedZ]

More tax for the middle class? Solution: Get out of the middle class. Done.

[bimmer456]

The rich are getting a tax hike too. Fewer deductions for all but more take home pay, at least temporarily.

[Taskmaster]

Tax cuts don't pay for themselves
Government is a tool for the people - and effective one
The "free market" doesn't exist
The "market" isn't a rational/organic force
Austerity doesn't work.



^ These are facts. Now that we have established that, let's have a real conversation.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Right, just like ACA, social security and everything else ever done by the government worked out exactly as sold.

"The overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries, except Norway and the Netherlands," according to a recent OECD report, which covers most of the developed world.

The above is from 2012.

I am from Canada. Our system is FAR from perfect. At least it exists. Lower income earners need not fear a simple injury or infection.

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

The last is from 2015.

I will never understand why Americans push back so hard for universal healthcare. It affects so many and EVERYONE eventually will need healthcare.

Strange. So very strange.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

"The overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries, except Norway and the Netherlands," according to a recent OECD report, which covers most of the developed world.

The above is from 2012.

I am from Canada. Our system is FAR from perfect. At least it exists. Lower income earners need not fear a simple injury or infection.

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

The last is from 2015.

I will never understand why Americans push back so hard for universal healthcare. It affects so many and EVERYONE eventually will need healthcare.

Strange. So very strange.

My sister, a practicing specialty physician, board member of national physician and health organizations, and a C-suite hospital administrator for nearly 30 years was asked over the the holiday what the biggest problem for healthcare in the US was and her response was: The continued and increasingly intrusive involvement of the government in healthcare.

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

My sister, a practicing specialty physician, board member of national physician and health organizations, and a C-suite hospital administrator for nearly 30 years was asked over the the holiday what the biggest problem for healthcare in the US was and her response was: The continued and increasingly intrusive involvement of the government in healthcare.

Funny. Coal miners and petroleum drillers say the same thing.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

My sister, a practicing specialty physician, board member of national physician and health organizations, and a C-suite hospital administrator for nearly 30 years was asked over the the holiday what the biggest problem for healthcare in the US was and her response was: The continued and increasingly intrusive involvement of the government in healthcare.

That is her opinion. Tough to expect her to have a different opinion when she is currently paid so well by the current system (assuming average specialist pay rate).

Everyone blames the government for everything. Happens here too. But when left to their devices, corporations can be downright deplorable. Think Enron here.

And her argument would carry more weight if the simple numbers were not so damning:

Health Care Cost Per Person (2015):

1 - Mexico - $1,052
...
18 - Finland - $3,984
...
24 - Canada - $4,608 (man, we can do better - I blame lawyers)
...
35 - USA - $9,451 (yikes - and last on the OECD list)

And another fun stat is the insurance administrative burden of Canadian single payer healthcare vs the US system:

Canada - ~2%
USA - ~12%

This means that 12% of the money spent on healthcare in the USA goes to an insurance companie's bottom line. Sounds like fun...

I personally do not think that healthcare should be a for-profit business. It would be nice to ensure that it is efficient, but I will take universal and inefficient before exclusive and profitable any day.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

I personally do not think that healthcare should be a for-profit business. It would be nice to ensure that it is efficient, but I will take universal and inefficient before exclusive and profitable any day.

In theory this makes sense but the reality is, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE as the motivation to improve equipment and come up with new drugs is motivated by profit. Without the motivation of profit, the desire to improve healthcare would be so slow as to barely make any progress.