[Winstonm]

From Vox:

Quote

Beyond its eye-popping findings on higher premiums and large-scale coverage loss, the Congressional Budget Office’s official score of the American Health Care Act also quietly demolishes the central publicly stated rationale for repealing the Affordable Care Act. The key passage is a somewhat jargon-full sentence on the second page of the report that says, “In CBO and JCT’s assessment, however, the nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation.”

Stable in most areas is hardly an "implosion". In fact, it sounds like an argument that current law is repairable.

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-14, 10:01, said:

I am opposing nothing. As a non-American it has zero effect on me if the government over there thinks that killing off its poorer citizens is a good idea. On the other hand, I feel a certain sadness that such a rich country chooses to act that way. I have already mentioned several possible models that might be of interest. A single-payer model like the UK's NHS; a universal multi-payer system such as in Germany; or a government-funded universal Medicare system such as in Australia. The problem is not coming up with a universal healthcare system that works better than any currently on the table, the difficulty is in getting it past the healthcare lobby when they are willing to pay billions of dollars to avoid the USA moving over to a system that would curtail their profits.

As far as the ACA goes, I have seen no evidence outside of your posts that it is deteriorating in the way you suggest. All of the audits of it have reported that it is stable despite the attempts of Republicans to undermine it. Indeed, the last report seems to suggest that deductibles under the Republican proposal will be considerably higher than under the ACA. Would you not consider implementing a scheme that is more expensive, less effective and had lower coverage to be just as irresponsible and potentially damaging as electing Trump was?

Here is another viewpoint : http://isreview.org/...rdable-care-act

Quote

The Affordable Care Act hasn’t ended the crisis in the American health care system. All the hoopla and happy talk about the benefits of Obamacare can’t change the fact that what millions of people are now coerced into buying is unaffordable underinsurance. Having insurance doesn’t guarantee access to health care services, as anyone who has fought on the phone for hours with an insurance company knows well. The fighting with insurance companies will not end. Nor will medical bankruptcy.

To be sure, under Obamacare more Americans will have health insurance, but they’ll pay more money for it and receive fewer health care services. And that is exactly the way the health insurance corporations like it.

The ACA is a massive swindle that mostly benefits the insurers who are set to receive about $1 trillion in subsidy money from the American taxpayer. This massive transfer of money entrenches and enriches the insurance corporations. It is a sick example of how crony capitalism rewards the corporations that are the cause of the health care crisis. And how can a major, “historic” reform to the health care system that still leaves thirty million uninsured even be called a “major” reform? As if it weren’t possible to cover everyone!

[ldrews]

This is one of the reasons I continue to support Trump: https://www.whitehou...izing-executive

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-14, 18:31, said:

Here is another viewpoint : http://isreview.org/...rdable-care-act

The article says what was already known, that a single payer system would be better (based on the values of "International Socialists") and that conservatives continue to find ways of trying to undermine the ACA. Does your providing this link mean that you are also calling for a single-payer system?

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-14, 20:38, said:

This is one of the reasons I continue to support Trump: https://www.whitehou...izing-executive

This sounds like the corporate equivalent of closing down the police force. Perhaps you would like to see an executive order for this too "to improve the efficiency of Americans going about their daily business". After all, we only really need police to arrest the "browns" so they can be re-assigned to the border patrol.

[kenberg]

Health Care. It's complex. Our president recently came to this conclusion.

Trump does not have a plan. He does not have a concept, except that it will be terrific, cover everyone, and cost less. Technocrats can develop a plan from a workable concept. "Terrific" is not a concept.

Ryan has a concept and a plan. CBO says it will cover dramatically fewer people and it will reduce the deficit. . This at least allows for reasonable discussion. It acknowledges hard choices. Some people are in serious need of assistance, who will provide it? Or will we just say no? Let them, in Scrooge's words (approximate, I didn't look it up) die and decrease the surplus population. Harsh, but realism dictates limits on what we can do for others.

Where is Trump in all of this? He wants everyone covered. Where is the plan? There is no plan. There won't be any plan.

As I write this, The Music Man comes to mind. For those too young to have seen it, Professor Harold Hill is going to solve Rover City's problems by organizing and leading a boy's band. It will be terrific. The problem being that he can't read a note of music. Of course Miriam the librarian rescues him the city and everyone. It's a play. But not here, I think.

Nobody except Trump cares how many people were at his inauguration. But health care is important. He has no plan. And no concept. Once that is seen, the muddle is a natural consequence.

"Boys, to play the Minuet in G you must think the Minuet in G". Maybe, but it's not enough.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2017-March-15, 06:07, said:

As I write this, The Music Man comes to mind.

Kushner is selling 76 trombones to China.

Rik

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-15, 06:00, said:

This sounds like the corporate equivalent of closing down the police force. Perhaps you would like to see an executive order for this too "to improve the efficiency of Americans going about their daily business". After all, we only really need police to arrest the "browns" so they can be re-assigned to the border patrol.

I am in the camp that less government is better. More efficient government is better. I want the individual citizen to more free, not less. You seem to advocate the opposite.

[kenberg]

Having my morning coffee, I read an op-ed by Alice Rivlin . A name I hadn't heard for a while. I see, that she is 86 so she has a history. One thing form the Wikipedia article
"Originally, Rivlin wanted to attend graduate school in public administration but was rejected on the grounds that she was a woman of marriageable age. Rivlin went on to earn a Ph.D. in economics from Radcliffe College of Harvard University in 1958."

I was a young adult in 1958 so I lived through that time, but it still is stunning to see this in print.

Living in the D.C. area, my first thought when I saw her name was of the role she played in rescuing the District from its financial collapse. See this Her appointment was more than a little bit controversial. Partly this was because she was an outsider brought in by Congress, partly that she was given very substantial powers, partly because she was white and D.C. proudly declared itself to be Chocolate City. Never mind, she succeeded. Very much so, as I recall.

I am no expert on budgets, not even our own. But her history of success surely makes what she has to say worth reading, so I thought I would put this up.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-15, 07:02, said:

I am in the camp that less government is better. More efficient government is better. I want the individual citizen to more free, not less. You seem to advocate the opposite.

Does smaller government include a smaller standing army and less defense spending? If you want more freedom, do you support making it easier rather than more difficult to allow people to vote?

[barmar]

Quote

To be sure, under Obamacare more Americans will have health insurance, but they’ll pay more money for it and receive fewer health care services.

Yes, they'll pay more money, because before Obamacare they were paying nothing, since they couldn't afford insurance at all.

But receive fewer health care services? The uninsured weren't getting any health care at all, except by going to the emergency room.

[jogs]

 kenberg, on 2017-March-15, 06:07, said:

Health Care. It's complex. Our president recently came to this conclusion.

Trump does not have a plan. He does not have a concept, except that it will be terrific, cover everyone, and cost less. Technocrats can develop a plan from a workable concept. "Terrific" is not a concept.

There is no plan from Trump or any of the 535 members of congress. The sickly poor have no money for health insurance or healthcare.
About 75% of Americans have insurance from their employer or are on medicare. Leave those people alone. They are mostly pleased with their health plans.
That leaves 25% of Americans uncovered. Find a non-insurance based model. The insurance companies are parasites raising the cost of healthcare. Why isn't this obvious? Create a healthcare model for people with no money. Don't think anyone will solve this anytime soon.

[awm]

Reducing government waste and more "freedom" are certainly good things. But every president has tried to do this -- Al Gore as VP eliminated lots of programs during the Clinton presidency if I recall.

However, I think Trump defines both "waste" and "freedom" differently than I would. For example, I don't see my freedom being infringed by the fact that my drinking water is not flammable, or that we give poor children healthy food in school instead of junk food, or that the manager of my 401k fund has to invest my money to my benefit instead of his. I don't see the government programs which maintain these standards as "waste" whereas Trump apparently does.

Yes I suppose that my "freedom" to poison your water, feed your children garbage, and steal your money has been "taken away" -- but I don't think of these things as "freedom" in much the same way that I don't think of the laws preventing me from shooting other people as a restriction. Basically, my "freedom" stops where it begins to infringe on other people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

[jogs]

Flint, Mich. water crisis can be blamed on Obama's EPA.

Also a toxic spill in Colorado.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-15, 08:21, said:

Does smaller government include a smaller standing army and less defense spending? If you want more freedom, do you support making it easier rather than more difficult to allow people to vote?

Absolutely a smaller standing army and less defense spending! Particularly spending for overseas bases and troops.

What has voting got to do with freedom? I believe in North Korea, for example, that voting participation is close to 100%.

[ldrews]

 awm, on 2017-March-15, 09:11, said:

Reducing government waste and more "freedom" are certainly good things. But every president has tried to do this -- Al Gore as VP eliminated lots of programs during the Clinton presidency if I recall.

However, I think Trump defines both "waste" and "freedom" differently than I would. For example, I don't see my freedom being infringed by the fact that my drinking water is not flammable, or that we give poor children healthy food in school instead of junk food, or that the manager of my 401k fund has to invest my money to my benefit instead of his. I don't see the government programs which maintain these standards as "waste" whereas Trump apparently does.

Yes I suppose that my "freedom" to poison your water, feed your children garbage, and steal your money has been "taken away" -- but I don't think of these things as "freedom" in much the same way that I don't think of the laws preventing me from shooting other people as a restriction. Basically, my "freedom" stops where it begins to infringe on other people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

First of all, it not your drinking water, it is the public's drinking water. Which to me is part of the problem. If it were indeed your drinking water you could sue the hell out of whoever is polluting it. Each person suffering damage to their drinking water could do the same. The entity polluting the drinking water would soon be out of business.

Second, why is the school providing your children's food? Isn't that your responsibility as a parent? Aren't you responsible for monitoring your child's environment for dangers? Have you totally abdicated your responsibilities?

Third, any time you give your money to someone else to manage you have the responsibility to monitor their performance. It is your money. Have you also abdicated your responsibilities in this area?

Anytime we pass a law or regulation limiting public behavior we lessen our freedom. Some of it is required in order to live together peacefully, but, in my opinion, we have taken it much too far to point of creating a "nanny" state.

And I agree that my freedom stops where it begins to infringe on your right to life, liberty, and property. We just have a disagreement on what is included in those categories.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-15, 10:27, said:

Absolutely a smaller standing army and less defense spending! Particularly spending for overseas bases and troops.

What has voting got to do with freedom? I believe in North Korea, for example, that voting participation is close to 100%.

If minorities and lower incomes cannot participate, that makes us more free?

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-15, 11:56, said:

If minorities and lower incomes cannot participate, that makes us more free?

Freedom is usually political freedom, freedom from interference by government. Or socially, freedom from hunger, threat, etc.

You are talking about enfranchisement, a totally different subject. In any case, minorities and lower incomes can always participate, but perhaps not as easily or on the same level as others. But then some people run faster than others, are more intelligent than others, or better looking than others. Should we be trying equalize all outcomes?

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-15, 12:01, said:

Freedom is usually political freedom, freedom from interference by government. Or socially, freedom from hunger, threat, etc.

You are talking about enfranchisement, a totally different subject. In any case, minorities and lower incomes can always participate, but perhaps not as easily or on the same level as others. But then some people run faster than others, are more intelligent than others, or better looking than others. Should we be trying equalize all outcomes?

The law of the jungle is fine if you want to live like an animal. If not...

I find the libertarian viewpoint closely aligned to other magical thinking beliefs - to me it smacks of a romanticism with wild west movies and Ayn Rand novels, exciting when 15 but ridiculous and unrealistic at 45.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” James Madison Federalist No. 51.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-15, 12:01, said:

Freedom is usually political freedom, freedom from interference by government. Or socially, freedom from hunger, threat, etc.

You are talking about enfranchisement, a totally different subject. In any case, minorities and lower incomes can always participate, but perhaps not as easily or on the same level as others. But then some people run faster than others, are more intelligent than others, or better looking than others. Should we be trying equalize all outcomes?

Hahahaha. ldrews just came out in favour of making it harder for minorities to vote.

Why are all Trump supporters in this forum so eager to reveal their deplorable side? Onex would think they don't enjoy proving Hillary right.