Technically yes but you know...

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Yes, that would be a taxcut for the middle class and very welcome by most people.

Its not that it's a tax cut. It's who is getting their taxes cut.

And the tax cut for the rich is only the second half. If taxes for rich were being cut and everyone was keeping their coverage, no one would complain.

Did you even read the CNN article I just posted about the taxes that may be cut? If many of the taxes in the ACA hit the rich would it not stand to reason that repealing them would therefore benefit them? If MY taxes were not raised by the ACA why the hell would MY taxes be cut during its repeal?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

To me it is a tax reversal of a bad bill. Tax was raised for a specific reason and then lowered because that reason went away.

That's what I said though. Concentrate on the losing coverage part. The fact that the rich may see their taxes go back to the standard level before the bill doesn't matter.

This is also the point where I say "How much should the rich(rich being those making $200k individually or $250k as a family) pay in taxes as a total percentage?" and I get non-answers and a mention that a long time ago they paid 90%.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Here is another article I just read from USA Today. It says it ran last week. In it it tries to spell out what happens to you the regular guy with repeal plan as it was then. Nowhere is there a big complaint that somehow the low and middle class loses out due to repealing taxes on the rich and employers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 487904001/

_________________
Elections have consequences.

First of all, No I didnt read your link.

Secondly, you're reacting to something no one said. I didnt say to cut any taxes. Im simply pointing out the part of the argument Rick didnt mention and answering his hypothetical.

I dont think they should repeal without a replacement.

Im not sure what you're even arguing here. I think we may have a misunderstanding of ideas somewhere here.


I think people shouldnt lose coverage. The secondary part is, well it sucks to lose coverage if the only true benefit will be to wealthy people.

It also should be pointed out that many of the people who will lose coverage are choosing to do so. I think it's misguided to not require insurance for everyone but part of it is removing the requirement that everyone buys insurance. A lot of people had problems with the government telling you that you had to have insurance, including a few people on this board, so that is why it is leaving.

I really wish the Republicans would be willing to have a government organization like the Post Office that offered health insurance with no government subsidies. You could even have them take over Medicaid and the VA. The problem is the Democrats are so dead set on eventually getting to single payer that they pretty much can't or the Democrats will find a way to get that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Bryan, you are getting caught up in another poster's wake who cried about tax cuts for the rich after it began being discussed yesterday evening. I think I made my point clear enough that taxes that would be repealed are not just some gift to the rich republicans.

I digress though and say that Rick is correct in if you want to disagree with the current repeal efforts look at coverage not taxes. From that point I made my opinion that you could repeal the ACA (which in my opinion is not working) and start from scratch better.

I got heat for that as I was not able to effectively explain that in my world you could buffer the effect of lost coverage in some manner between the ACA and a new plan. In the usual manner it is expected of me to have all the answers. Well guess what I am not in government and all I have to do is have my opinion. It is the job of the elected officials to implement those opinions or desires of the majority of their constituencies.

Everyone knows I despise the ACA and particularly how it was passed. Of course that makes me a killer of poor people and gift giver to the ultra rich. I will repeat what I said when all of this started years ago. It would have been cheaper, more effective and less cumbersome on the whole if the government simply gave all uncovered people a check for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Now we have a bad benefit we are stuck with that in all likelihood will never be fully repealed nor will it be fully fixed.

In closing my comments on the subject it affects me minimally at best and I think we are fucked in all sorts of directions because the country went down this road as it has done.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

This gets into the larger point and the far more concerning point. Once someone has a "government benefit" it's very hard if not impossible to take it away no matter how poorly the actual system is going. This is why the Democrats are sitting there saying "No changes at all to anything" and putting the Republicans in an unwinnable situation. The next time they are in power they will look to expand it and then the process repeats until every one of us has to rely on the government for our health or literally give up our benefits to pay for it on our own and double pay for health insurance.

I wish the Republican plan were better but I also understand that Obamacare was a trojan horse for single payer healthcare which is something Obama literally said before he became a probable Presidential candidate.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well said. I would also add that the reason this has become such a complicated issue is that mandating insurance coverage -- with no lifetime caps, no limits on pre-existing conditions, free contraception with zero copays, outlawing of basic catastrophic plans, and zero incentives for consumers to even question the prices on treatments and medicines-- has been an enormous windfall for the health care industry. If you look at Lasik, which is not covered by insurance, the prices have come down almost to the point of absurdity (I've seen as low as $250). This is SOLELY because people must elect to pay for it out of their own pocket. If Lasik was covered by Obamacare, there is no doubt the price would have stayed in the thousands of dollars, or even increased.

The dirty little secret is that the biggest losers in an Obamacare repeal would not be poor patients (though obviously they would be affected), but healthcare providers.

_________________

You may have stumbled onto what started all this and why Bernsie says despicable.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

The biggest mistake in our healthcare system (also applies to college tuition) is that you have de-linked the costs of services with the payor. People don't even know or understand what everything costs, and in many cases really don't care. When was the last time you walked into a doctor's office and saw prices posted? Imagine going to Amazon.com, a restaurant, or a grocery store where you need to buy something, and you didn't learn the prices for what you purchase until 30 days later.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Healthcare definitely should be like Amazon or a restaurant.

I have this shooting pain in my chest but no way am I springing 5 grand for a fucking MRI. Gimme that 32 dollar aspirin instead.

_________________

How long would it take you to figure out what the cost of that procedure is from multiple MRI vendors? If you called, the first question they would ask is, "who is your insurer?" Which of course, why does your insurer matter in terms of how much the procedure costs?

The entire problem with the system is that people do not care what things cost, which is why our system costs twice as much as the next closest system on the planet.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

I think people care very very much what things cost, but like you said, wouldn't get a straight answer if they asked up front.

On the other hand, how much time should a sick person reasonably have to spend shopping around between various MRI providers? Shouldn't someone just go get an MRI? It's not like buying a TV.

_________________

Denis is taking it too far. Every person for every medical action should have a copay of something. Set it based on need. That solves the problem without forcing me to clip coupons for medical care.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No it costs twice as much because the industry is built on profit. A drug that cost $4 is dispensed in the hospital at a cost of $100.

_________________

Nurse: Welcome to St. Francis, home of the Original Lasak, how can I help you?
Patient: yea... Let me get a #4 procedure
Nurse: What kind of pain meds?
Patient: Uh... let me get some morphine
Nurse: We have Vicodin, is that ok?
Patient: Ugh...fine
Nurse: Recovery days?
Patient: What?
Nurse: How many recovery days?
Patient: 3
Nurse: They come in 2 and 4 sir
Patient: Fuck...4 I guess
Nurse: Would you like to try our post op check up package, on sale for a limited time?
Patient: No, thats it
Nurse: Is everything correct on the screen?
Patient: No its blank, wait- there it is. Uh yeah. Correct
Nurse: 42 thousand 6 hundred and 72 dollars, please pull around

Then ask yourself why just about every other industry that is built on profit provides goods and services to consumers at a reasonable cost? They compete on quality and price. Where in the healthcare system do you see anyone competing on price?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

You hate anything associated with Obama and Democrats. Fixed it for ya.

We are bombarded with medical advertisements, a new hospital seems to get built every day and most hospital's ad campaigns seem to be built around "if you don't come see us, you're gonna die early".

It's built around this whole premise that we are really in control of our lives. Which is laughably false and causes all kinds of depression and anxiety issues, to begin with.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.

_________________

He is correct.

_________________

Preview of next week's shows. A liberal host with plenty of name calling, and little facts.

And no one will listen to a single minute of the show. Not one minute.

_________________

If you want to blame anyone for sports talk being dominated by this, blame the moron who made the remarks. Every sports station in America will be talking about it.

_________________

This is all about whining because Trump won and people can't get over it and it's the popular thing to do. It has nothing to do with anything else.

No, he's not. "White supremacist" has different meanings. Bernstein is smuggling in one meaning when he really means (and can provide reasonable evidence for) another. He knows better and, more to the point, he calls people out on this rhetorical fudging all the time.

Either way, Trump's a jag.

What are the different meanings of the phrase "white supremacist"? I always take it to mean someone who thinks/says that white people are supreme because of their whiteness, but am unaware of any other. Are white racists, technically, white supremacists?