The Great Deal Maker Strikes Out

[flockofseagulls104]

Pres. Obama didn't lie about what was written in the ACA, as many opponents did.

He made predictions about the benefits that Obamacare would bring; many of them came true, but some were unreasonably optimistic. I don't think he was intentionally deceiving the public.

Apply that scenario to President Trump. How do you think the media would present it differently?

Trump had lied over 500 times since he took office.

Of course he has, now run along....

[Bob78164]

That's funny considering that you've admitted that private insurance does not add any value to the system and that Medicare-for-all would be both cheaper and more cost-efficient. --Bob

Bob, I've said nothing of the sort. Play your games somewhere else.

I am not going to give you an answer to your question until YOU respond, without evasion, to mine.

and none of ths 'Most experts say....' crap. For every one of your experts, I can cite others with the exact opposite opinion. Did he lie, (or mislead, if you prefer) in trying to sell this program to the American public?

I've seen you play this game before, flock. You'll never respond to my question because you can't. You'll just change the subject as often as people will let you get away with it. Your silence is an admission that you can't respond and I'll continue to treat it as such. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob, I've said nothing of the sort. Play your games somewhere else.

I am not going to give you an answer to your question until YOU respond, without evasion, to mine.

and none of ths 'Most experts say....' crap. For every one of your experts, I can cite others with the exact opposite opinion. Did he lie, (or mislead, if you prefer) in trying to sell this program to the American public?

I've seen you play this game before, flock. You'll never respond to my question because you can't. You'll just change the subject as often as people will let you get away with it. Your silence is an admission that you can't respond and I'll continue to treat it as such. --Bob

Another evasion from you. I am not playing your game. I have an answer to your question. But I will not post it until you stop playing your games and answer my question directly and with no evasion. Did Obama mislead the American people when he was selling this program? Did everyone get to keep the plan they had (Period)? Did everyone get to keep their doctor if they liked him/her (Period)? Has it reduced our country's debt? Have premiums come down? Did it cut the average family's health insurance premium $2500 a year? Have deductibles come down?

C'mon, you can do it.

[Bob78164]

I am not playing your game. I have an answer to your question. But I will not post it . . . .

I don't believe you. You've never had one before. I think your "answer" to my question is every bit as well thought out as Donny's "wonderful" health care plan that will give everyone better coverage for less money. Every bit as credible as Donny's secret plan to defeat ISIS. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I am not playing your game. I have an answer to your question. But I will not post it . . . .

I don't believe you. You've never had one before. I think your "answer" to my question is every bit as well thought out as Donny's "wonderful" health care plan that will give everyone better coverage for less money. Every bit as credible as Donny's secret plan to defeat ISIS. --Bob

3 evasions, you're out. You know he 'misled' us. Why were you not calling him 'Barry' when he lied to us? Why did you not pledge to do everything you could to stop him and marginalize him when you knew he lied to us? Could it be you wanted it to fail, so Hillary could institute a single payer system?

[flockofseagulls104]

Looks like President Trump and Paul Ryan are going to pull their Obamacare repeal bill from the table, despite his repeated claims that he would hold a vote for it.

Not that anyone who actually reads the news instead of merely listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity wasn't well aware that Trump's vaunted business acumen and deal making ability was, like most of the rest of the myth surrounding him, just that... a myth. And if the great deal maker can't persuade the members of his own party to vote for a bill that repeals something that the Republicans have been campaigning against for seven years, then one wonders just what kind of great deals he's going to strike when he goes up against England and Germany and the rest of the big boys. Although, in the case of those two countries, I guess I should say big girls, which puts Trump at even more of a disadvantage since he can't handle powerful women, as he demonstrated last week with Angela Merkel.

Thanks for your robo-response. For someone who has a fixation on Limbaugh and Hannity et al, your posts are always lock-step with the narrative of the left. Do some introspection, please.

I am thankful this bill did not go through. Just more government meddling in an area it has no business being in. We need a market-based healthcare system, not a government system. Unlike the media and the political establishment, I don't care what's good or not good for Trump or the repubs or the dems. I care what's good for the country and the American people. Neither this bill, nor the bill that it attempted to replace, was good for this country or its citizens.

Now the talk is about letting Obamacare implode. It seems that everyone agrees it WILL implode. Shame on the dems for giving us Obamacare, which they knew would implode, and shame on the repubs for giving us the opportunity to experience the implosion.

You're wrong, flock. Not even close to everyone agrees that the exchanges will implode. And since the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future, it's Donny's job to help them not implode. Instead, it's his official policy to push them toward implosion. His voters will pay most of the price.

Please explain to me how private health insurance adds value to the system. As is demonstrated here with Medicare, and in many European countries, there's lots of evidence that government-controlled single payer is more efficient. Why is that evidence wrong? --Bob

Here's my answer to you, Evasive-Bob. It is even more true now than it was back then. If you believe that Europe has the answer, why don't you move there?

"It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. [SAME WITH OBAMACARE, BUT IT WAS PUSHED THROUGH BY THE DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS, WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE]

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. [OBAMA TRIED TO SELL HIS BILL WITH LIES] This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. [THIS WAS THE IDEA THAT THERE WERE X MILLION PEOPLE WITHOUT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE] Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.

Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that." [AIN'T THAT THE REAL TRUTH]

Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance." And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. [OBAMA IS ON RECORD ULTIMATELY WANTING SINGLE PAYER, IE SOCILAIZED MEDICINE, AND SO ARE YOU, BOB]

Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency [EVERYTHING IS A CRISIS] that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?” [NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN 50 YEARS. IF YOU OPPOSE THEIR POLICIES THEY ACCUSE YOU OF WANTING PEOPLE TO DIE]

That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine. [OH, BUT WE CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT OBAMACARE, CAN WE?]

James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working. [SEE BOB'S COMMENTS ABOUT MEDICARE]

Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries. [AND IT'S GOING BROKE DUE TO GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT]

Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities."

Ronald Reagan, 1961

[silverscreenselect]

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. [OBAMA TRIED TO SELL HIS BILL WITH LIES] This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. [THIS WAS THE IDEA THAT THERE WERE X MILLION PEOPLE WITHOUT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE] Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.

Ronald Reagan, 1961

And yet, five years later, we adopted Medicare, which has proved to be such a horrible failure that every conservative in the country is lined up today to abolish it if they just get half a chance.

Like that other horrible failure from a couple of decades earlier, social security.

[Estonut]

That's why the Affordable Care Act now enjoys majority support among the American population.

Wow, that sounds much more impressive than citing the actual number of 52 or 53 percent. Keep in mind this is the same American population in which 1 in 3 do not know that the ACA and Obamacare are one and the same.

[silverscreenselect]

That's why the Affordable Care Act now enjoys majority support among the American population.

Wow, that sounds much more impressive than citing the actual number of 52 or 53 percent. Keep in mind this is the same American population in which 1 in 3 do not know that the ACA and Obamacare are one and the same.

And it's a lot more than Donald Trump's present approval rating of 36%.

[Estonut]

That's why the Affordable Care Act now enjoys majority support among the American population.

Wow, that sounds much more impressive than citing the actual number of 52 or 53 percent. Keep in mind this is the same American population in which 1 in 3 do not know that the ACA and Obamacare are one and the same.

And it's a lot more than Donald Trump's present approval rating of 36%.

That's way better than yours...

[silverscreenselect]

Wow, that sounds much more impressive than citing the actual number of 52 or 53 percent. Keep in mind this is the same American population in which 1 in 3 do not know that the ACA and Obamacare are one and the same.

And it's a lot more than Donald Trump's present approval rating of 36%.

That's way better than yours...

I'm surprised they could find a sufficient sample of people who actually know me.

[flockofseagulls104]

That's why the Affordable Care Act now enjoys majority support among the American population.

Wow, that sounds much more impressive than citing the actual number of 52 or 53 percent. Keep in mind this is the same American population in which 1 in 3 do not know that the ACA and Obamacare are one and the same.

And it's a lot more than Donald Trump's present approval rating of 36%.

From the same pollsters who told us there was no way on earth he would win the election.

[Bob78164]

Some long Reagan quote from 1961.

My question was how private insurance adds value to the system. This long quote doesn't address that question at all. Because you can't. Because it doesn't. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Some long Reagan quote from 1961.

My question was how private insurance adds value to the system. This long quote doesn't address that question at all. Because you can't. Because it doesn't. --Bob

Here are YOUR quotes, Bob:

That's funny considering that you've admitted that private insurance does not add any value to the system and that Medicare-for-all would be both cheaper and more cost-efficient.

As is demonstrated here with Medicare, and in many European countries, there's lots of evidence that government-controlled single payer is more efficient.

My answer answers the question of where you obviously want to go. And what Obamacare was the first step toward, (Just as Reagan pointed out in his day).

And don't lecture me about not answering your question. I asked you an easy one. And you continue to evade answering it.

[silverscreenselect]

(Just as Reagan pointed out in his day).

And how many of Reagan's dire predictions came to pass?

[flockofseagulls104]

(Just as Reagan pointed out in his day).

And how many of Reagan's dire predictions came to pass?

Did we go to single payer last night without me knowing it? Did Trump do another executive order?

[earendel]

I've been following this discussion and I'm not clear as to what the issue is. If I read flock correctly, he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Period. Not "repeal and replace", just repeal. Bob##### favors the ACA, but I'm unclear as to whether he believes changes should be made to it.

If I'm correct, then let me ask both of them a question:
1. Flock, if your goal is to get government out of the health care business, what is to be done about those who can't afford health care, either because their employer doesn't provide it, or they have a pre-existing condition (coverage being currently a requirement of the ACA), or for some other reason? I understand that the answer may be "nothing - let the free market deal with it".

2. Bob, the ACA is floundering in some states, and may get worse (Humana is going to stop providing policies under the ACA in Tennessee, leaving some areas without any insurer). What can be done to improve the ACA? I understand that the answer may be "a single-payer system".

[Bob78164]

I've been following this discussion and I'm not clear as to what the issue is. If I read flock correctly, he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Period. Not "repeal and replace", just repeal. Bob##### favors the ACA, but I'm unclear as to whether he believes changes should be made to it.

If I'm correct, then let me ask both of them a question:
1. Flock, if your goal is to get government out of the health care business, what is to be done about those who can't afford health care, either because their employer doesn't provide it, or they have a pre-existing condition (coverage being currently a requirement of the ACA), or for some other reason? I understand that the answer may be "nothing - let the free market deal with it".

2. Bob, the ACA is floundering in some states, and may get worse (Humana is going to stop providing policies under the ACA in Tennessee, leaving some areas without any insurer). What can be done to improve the ACA? I understand that the answer may be "a single-payer system".

I do believe changes are advisable. I think pretty much everyone sane agrees to that.

Single-payer would work, particularly if allowed to join the exchanges in competition with other carriers, or at least made available in markets where no carriers want to join the exchanges. Boosting the subsidies as explained by Paul Krugman also would help affordably (it will cost much less than the tax cuts that will be next on the legislative agenda) by encouraging carriers to provide policies with lower deductibles. If memory serves, the Affordable Care Act already puts a cap on permitted deductibles. It may be necessary to lower that cap in conjunction with increased subsidies. Krugman also recommends increasing re-insurance so as to protect carriers from unexpectedly bad risk pools.

Is Tennessee one of the states that rejected Medicaid expansion? I'm not sure whether there's a causal link between rejection of Medicaid expansion and market difficulties (perhaps by worsening the risk pools or increasing uninsured expenses that must be borne by insured patients), but if there is, I'd be fine with requiring states who want further assistance to accept Medicaid expansion. As passed, the Affordable Care Act required all states to accept expansion if they wanted to stay in Medicaid at all. Chief Justice Roberts somehow reached the conclusion that Congress was no longer allowed to determine the terms and conditions of a federal program so I wouldn't mind exploring the boundaries of that new judicial doctrine. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

I've been following this discussion and I'm not clear as to what the issue is. If I read flock correctly, he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Period. Not "repeal and replace", just repeal. Bob##### favors the ACA, but I'm unclear as to whether he believes changes should be made to it.

If I'm correct, then let me ask both of them a question:
1. Flock, if your goal is to get government out of the health care business, what is to be done about those who can't afford health care, either because their employer doesn't provide it, or they have a pre-existing condition (coverage being currently a requirement of the ACA), or for some other reason? I understand that the answer may be "nothing - let the free market deal with it".

2. Bob, the ACA is floundering in some states, and may get worse (Humana is going to stop providing policies under the ACA in Tennessee, leaving some areas without any insurer). What can be done to improve the ACA? I understand that the answer may be "a single-payer system".

Humana is exiting the ACA Exchange, the subsidized health insurance; they are still providing insurance to residents of Tennessee.

[flockofseagulls104]

I've been following this discussion and I'm not clear as to what the issue is. If I read flock correctly, he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Period. Not "repeal and replace", just repeal. Bob##### favors the ACA, but I'm unclear as to whether he believes changes should be made to it.

If I'm correct, then let me ask both of them a question:
1. Flock, if your goal is to get government out of the health care business, what is to be done about those who can't afford health care, either because their employer doesn't provide it, or they have a pre-existing condition (coverage being currently a requirement of the ACA), or for some other reason? I understand that the answer may be "nothing - let the free market deal with it".

2. Bob, the ACA is floundering in some states, and may get worse (Humana is going to stop providing policies under the ACA in Tennessee, leaving some areas without any insurer). What can be done to improve the ACA? I understand that the answer may be "a single-payer system".

I am not an economist, but, as you probably can understand, I am completely against the federal government having any hand in the healthcare industry. There are many ways to make it more market driven. Insurance competition across state lines. A High Risk Pool for under-insured people. Individual responsibility. Health Care Savings Accounts. Less redundant and unneeded regulation. Modernizing systems to do away with wasteful paperwork. I agree that Pre-existing conditions now have to be covered. That Pandora's box has been opened. That will necessarily make insurance coverage more expensive for everyone. But we've got to find a fair way of making sure that the unscrupulous among us don't use that as a way to avoid getting insurance until they get sick. I don't know what that is.

[Estonut]

2. Bob, the ACA is floundering in some states, ...

I believe you mean "foundering."

[silverscreenselect]

Insurance competition across state lines.

You do understand that we already have insurance competition across state lines. All the major health insurance companies do business in many states. The difference is that now, they would be allowed to evade the requirements that various states put into law to protect their residents. You're a big states rights man Flock. I'm surprised you're not all up in arms about this.

[Estonut]

And it's a lot more than Donald Trump's present approval rating of 36%.

That's way better than yours...

I'm surprised they could find a sufficient sample of people who actually know me.

An actual count of a low number is always going to be more accurate than a sampling of a larger number.

[flockofseagulls104]

Insurance competition across state lines.

You do understand that we already have insurance competition across state lines. All the major health insurance companies do business in many states. The difference is that now, they would be allowed to evade the requirements that various states put into law to protect their residents. You're a big states rights man Flock. I'm surprised you're not all up in arms about this.

Your answer to everything is to have the federal government run it. You will not take any other answer to any issue. The federal government is full of corruption. They run things terribly, wastefully and never give back any power they accumulate. When their big plans don't work, the answer is always MORE of it. (See Obamacare and Trumpcare). Why would anyone want the federal government to run anything as important as health care?

[Bob78164]

Insurance competition across state lines.

You do understand that we already have insurance competition across state lines. All the major health insurance companies do business in many states. The difference is that now, they would be allowed to evade the requirements that various states put into law to protect their residents. You're a big states rights man Flock. I'm surprised you're not all up in arms about this.

Your answer to everything is to have the federal government run it. You will not take any other answer to any issue. The federal government is full of corruption. They run things terribly, wastefully and never give back any power they accumulate. When their big plans don't work, the answer is always MORE of it. (See Obamacare and Trumpcare). Why would anyone want the federal government to run anything as important as health care?

Because Medicare works. It works wonderfully. Most importantly, it demonstrably works better and more efficiently than private insurance.

And we're not talking about the federal government running health care, as it does for the VA. Doctors will not be federal employees. We're talking about the federal government running health insurance. And distributing money is something the federal government does very, very well. Much better than do private industries that have every incentive to keep as much of the money for themselves as possible. --Bob