So the other day the following conversation happened surrounding this article. For the sake of brevity I am going to edit out other responses but my own; hopefully highlighting the "cluelessness" of the adversary and how one sticks to uniformed talking points despite contrary information.
You will notice, not once did my adversary ask for citation. And while she did state she felt health insurance should be for all, she concentrated on herself ignoring the main focus of the article: to get her way, fuck the children. So in essence, she is not for insurance for all - only if it benefits herself would she even consider it.
Still developing, will update ASAP!)
The main thrust of my argument is that there was public discussion concerning the ACA with republican input unlike the current situation of 13 men "in secret".[I am just beginning to read and digest the actual legislation. HuffPo has provided this A Simple Guide To The GOP Health Care Bills for starters. Can't vouch for accuracy or bias, although HP does lean left.]
The legislation is being written by 13 Republican senators — all of them men — in secret. No one has seen a draft of it. No public hearings have happened, and none are scheduled. Republicans briefly considered banning cameras from the halls of the Senate so they couldn’t be asked about the bill on television. Various Senate Republicans have condemned the process.
Senate Republicans can't answer simple and critical questions about the health care bill they're crafting in secret.
One caveat I will add, as this information is new to me, there was some secrecy or perceived secrecy to the ACA, but,,,Some still can't say what it's trying to do — other than garner enough votes to pass the Senate — or how they believe it will improve the American health care system.With the bill’s text still not released for public view, Vox asked GOP senators to explain their hopes for it. Who will benefit from the legislation? What problems is this bill trying to solve?,,,Over the course of the past week, Vox asked eight Republican senators to explain the affirmative case for the bill. They rarely answered directly, at least not on the bill’s policy merits.Sometimes a senator could identify a desired outcome, like “lowering premiums” or “stabilizing marketplaces.” But they rarely could explain the mechanism through which they planned on achieving that outcome.
As we noted, Republicans have skipped the lengthy, open process of hearings and markups of legislation that characterized the Democrats’ march to passage of the ACA. Instead, they moved directly to floor votes. Moreover, Democrats at first tried to enlist some Republican support, while Republicans have not reached out to Democrats.For the most part, my position still stands.
But recalling the second-longest Senate session obscures the fact that the floor debate was mostly for show, an exercise designed to allow the closed-door negotiations that shaped the final bill to take place. Once the deal was struck, Reid pushed the final draft forward with as much speed as possible. That’s what McConnell is doing now, having skipped the preliminaries.
2] The ACA is failing - is a subjective statement at best with many complexities not even considered. Simply put, it boils down to this.
In other words profit. Sick people are buying plans because they can now afford them and get the care they so desperately need. People like me, the underemployed (in my case compounded by health issues but not eligible for SSDI), now qualify for Medicaid via the expansion through the ACA.
TheseInsurance companies argue they need to scale back because insuring the people who are selecting Obamacare plans is more costly than they expected. Too many sick people are buying plans, and not enough healthy people are making up the difference, according to the insurers.
Overall - the issues surrounding the ACA, repeal and replace, is it failing, and other minutiae - it is not that simple. Yes, some "large insurance companies have been losing money on the marketplaces (and raising premium rates for their plans in order to compensate). And there’s broad agreement across health policy experts that there’s more work left to do to strengthen Obamacare’s marketplaces and continue attracting healthy consumers."For shits and giggles:: maybe the money spent ($2 million +) would be better invested in actually taking care of people. As CommonDreams highlights,
"The lack of transparency and public information about the bill makes it impossible to analyze the impact on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, but indications from stock prices earlier this year showed investors were betting GOP legislation would be a boon for pharmaceutical companies and health insurers."Gee I wonder why that is?
And that is my point. We know the ACA needs some work as I stated later in the conversation. It is a foundational piece that needs tweaked not destroyed; which is exactly what the GOTP intend to do. (Seriously folks, take a look at what they are offering. The latest incantation is one big ole fat tax cut for the rich.) What it does not need is some jack-ass companies threatening to de-stabilize the market-place to get their own way, as Culp-Ressler highlights.
Two issues that need strengthening, for example.
- Many under age 35 are opting out of buying insurance altogether, choosing to pay the penalty instead. Encouraged to do so by adversaries of the ACA
- Gaming the system, waiting until they got sick to buy insurance, then canceling it once the bills were paid, because of the law's "guaranteed issue" mandate.
- NFIB v. Sebelius (the 2012 Supreme Court challenge that went after after Obamacare’s individual mandate)
- Beginning in 2014, House Republicans began challenging the way Treasury Department pays out cost-sharing subsidies to insurers so they can keep out-of-pocket costs down for low-income consumers. They say the payments are being made illegally because Congress never specifically appropriated them in the Obamacare law.
- 2015’s King v. Burwell (which targeted the subsidies many Americans receive when buying insurance on some ACA exchanges).
This is why we need a socialized program similiar to what other nations have. Everyone pays in, everyone gets the preventative and maintenance care needed. (I know it's not that simple.) As we have many examples to choose from, determining what works and what doesn't should be doable. "Cadillac plans" can still be made available through private market if so desired, but I can guarantee, Joe Blow down the street ain't gonna be able to afford the "Cadillac plans" and neither will you.