Cassidy-Graham, Obamacare Repeal

[August1991]

This one may work. Why?

Because it makes US healthcare like Canada's healthcare - a local issue.

=======

In Canada, each province decides how the health care system operates.

Under Cassidy-Graham, each State decides how to finance health care. RomneyCare or whatever....

As a Canadian, I reckon that ObamaCare is the federal government imposing a one-size, fits-all on everyone, everywhere, always, whatever you are. Like federal Civil Rights legislation.

  

 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, August1991 said:

As a Canadian, I reckon that ObamaCare is the federal government imposing a one-size, fits-all on everyone, everywhere, always, whatever you are. Like federal Civil Rights legislation.

Its just universality. Collectivism...socialism...a communist tyranny....

If it flies at all it'll be with all the grace of a pig thrown from a trebuchet. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by eyeball

[August1991]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:03 PM, eyeball said:

Its just universality. Collectivism...socialism...a communist tyranny....

If it flies at all it'll be with all the grace of a pig thrown from a trebuchet. 

Pig? trebuchet?

Uh.. Ginette Reno?  Youtube

"Et que tu peux trébucher, que tu peux même tomber... "

====

IMHO, Canada works best when it is a truly federal State. 

I reckon, the US too. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by August1991

[eyeball]

They'd probably both work just fine if they simply applied the started principles they claim to be founded on honestly and forthrightly. But then, so would virtually any country. 

They all seem more misbegotten and increasingly pointless in the face of the global economy. I think they really just exist more for the benefit of the governments that run them and the corporations they serve.

You really don't know what a trebuchet is or what it could make a pig do? 

[August1991]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

You really don't know what a trebuchet is or what it could make a pig do? 

Born in Canada. Pigs, I know. (Cows, better.) No idea what a "trebuchet" is.

But I try to avoid "tripping" in the metro.

[DogOnPorch]

59 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Born in Canada. Pigs, I know. (Cows, better.) No idea what a "trebuchet" is.

But I try to avoid "tripping" in the metro.

 

Large gravity powered catapult.

[August1991]

On 9/23/2017 at 3:49 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Large gravity powered catapult.

Sorry, DogOnPorch, you confused me.

I realise now that a "trebuchet", in English, is a mechanism to allow pigs/cow into an auction.

=====

Getting back to the OP, it appears that McCain "tripped" and he has put himself -as well as America- into an auction.

Even France, Germany & Canada do not have a centralised, single-payer health system. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by August1991

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

 

Even France, Germany & Canada do not have a centralised, single-payer health system. 

What they do have however is universality. Everyone has the right to a health care system and every province has an obligation to provide one.

This is what Americans can't get their stupid heads around. For some bizarre reason they think it constitutes communism...some sort of nefarious deep state.

Edited September 25, 2017 by eyeball

[Boges]

Difference is that the block grants are to go to Health Insurance companies to deliver the healthcare. AND the block grants are woefully inadequate. AND they punish states that took ACA money back when the program began. 

No way it passes. 

[Bonam]

On 9/25/2017 at 7:43 AM, eyeball said:

This is what Americans can't get their stupid heads around. For some bizarre reason they think it constitutes communism...some sort of nefarious deep state.

If you had a government as horribly run as America, you would want it to stay as far out of healthcare as possible, too. 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Bonam said:

If you had a government as horribly run as America, you would want it to stay as far out of healthcare as possible, too. 

And yet studies have shown that the administration costs of medicair are lower than that of the private health insurance industry. 

[August1991]

On 9/25/2017 at 10:43 AM, eyeball said:

What they do have however is universality. Everyone has the right to a health care system and every province has an obligation to provide one.

This is what Americans can't get their stupid heads around. For some bizarre reason they think it constitutes communism...some sort of nefarious deep state.

Eyeball,

Universality? Canada's healthcare insurance is not transferable between provinces, or abroad.

====

Civilised Germany has a two tier system, without waiting lists. 

France also has a private/public system with lower overall costs.

Heck, in America, there is Medicare and Medicaid.

=====

Canada's health system is unsustainable. The only reason that it still exists, some 70 years later, is because provinces manage the system. If it were a federal, single-payer system, it would have collapsed like the Soviet Union or Mao's China. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Graham-Cassidy died and the president seems to think that signing an executive order allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines will help lower costs.  Others have said that it will cause healthy people to select bare-bones packages that will drain money from the system overall.  I guess we'll see.

It's interesting to me that the Republicans are now using a similar model to populism that the Democrats used in the mid-20th century.  But the people now have a taste for 'free' government services, making it difficult for the Republicans to close the loop.  They believed Trump's promise of more services for less money.  No one knew healthcare would be so complicated, he says.

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, August1991 said:

Eyeball,

Universality? Canada's healthcare insurance is not transferable between provinces, or abroad.

Provincial healthcare insurance is certainly transferable between provinces.  And universality guarantees any Canadian can move anywhere in Canada and expect healthcare insurance will be available and that healthcare will be provided for.

Quote

Canada's health system is unsustainable. The only reason that it still exists, some 70 years later, is because provinces manage the system. If it were a federal, single-payer system, it would have collapsed like the Soviet Union or Mao's China.

This doesn't make sense, you're mixing up or confusing two things or something. Either there is or isn't a Canadian health care system (there isn't).  To add further to the confusion, if health care isn't delivered by a federal agency as you state then whatever you think is unsustainable must be due to something the provinces are or aren't doing. Despite this you still acknowledge that the provinces are all that are responsible for having managed universal healthcare's existence for some 70 years now.  Its difficult to tell what exactly if anything you're complaining about.  

In any case what still stands out is that universal health-care keeps poking along in Canada and most Canadians are pretty content with them once they've gone through them. 

[August1991]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:07 PM, eyeball said:

Provincial healthcare insurance is certainly transferable between provinces....

As someone from Quebec, try submitting a claim in Alberta. The Albertan hospital/doctor will treat you - the same way that they treated someone in 1950. 

[August1991]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:07 PM, eyeball said:

In any case what still stands out is that universal health-care keeps poking along in Canada and most Canadians are pretty content with them once they've gone through them. 

Universal health-care in Canada dates from the 1960s. Like the Soviet Union, I reckon such "systems" can live for 70 years at most. Maybe 100 years.

Make no mistake, even without immigration, our Canadian health system is unsustainable.

And it only works now because provinces administer, not RomneyCare, but single-payer "state" provincial systems. 

=====

Soviet Union? Medicaid? Medicare? Social security? State pensions - Bismarck?

I give such schemes 70 years - at most, 100 years. 

[August1991]

But Canada, like America, may last longer.

  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

On 9/28/2017 at 11:07 PM, eyeball said:

 

Universal health-care in Canada dates from the 1960s. Like the Soviet Union, I reckon such "systems" can live for 70 years at most. Maybe 100 years.

Provide some reasons for your assertion other than these systems are 'old'.  Those pushing for proportional representation make the assertion that our system of democracy is old, but I would say that's a strength rather than a weakness.  

 

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

Make no mistake, even without immigration, our Canadian health system is unsustainable.

 

People have to pay for healthcare somehow.  Explain how private systems will approve on the public one.

Also, 'without immigration' really means 'without growth'.  And without growth, our whole system doesn't work.

[Bonam]

I think it's hilarious that after chanting their repeal Obamacare mantra for 7 years as almost their one singular point of policy, Republicans have spectacularly and repeatedly failed to do so even though they control all branches of the federal government and the majority of governorships and state legislators too. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

I think it's hilarious that after chanting their repeal Obamacare mantra for 7 years as almost their one singular point of policy, Republicans have spectacularly and repeatedly failed to do so even though they control all branches of the federal government and the majority of governorships and state legislators too. 

 

True, but the ACA (Obamacare) was not passed until March 2010 and not fully implemented until 2014.   President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 with control of Congress.

[Bonam]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True, but the ACA (Obamacare) was not passed until March 2010 and not fully implemented until 2014.   President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 with control of Congress.

True, they certainly could still repeal it, but their chance for doing so in the present year has passed now that we're past the budget reconciliation deadline. From here on out, if they want to do a repeal, it'll need Democrat support, which seems unlikely. They could try again to get it through by reconciliation next year but if they failed now with the relative urgency and imperative of a new president pushing to get it done, it seems less likely to go through then, and it's quite possible they'll lose their senate majority after that in the 2018 elections. If that happens, Obamacare is likely to stick around for a long time, would be my guess. 

Not having repealed Obamacare also likely means that Trump's tax agenda doesn't stand a chance since there are enough Republicans who would oppose going further into deficit and the way to fund the tax cuts would have been from the savings of defunding Obamacare. 

[OftenWrong]

45 minutes ago, Bonam said:

but if they failed now with the relative urgency and imperative of a new president pushing to get it done, it seems less likely to go through

Well not that I care but I thought this repeal initiative comes from the Republican party, and has been on their to-do list since before Donald Trump. That they cannot come to agreement on what their health care model looks like is not something that can be fairly blamed on Trump. In some ways, Republicans are just as much part of his problem as Democrats.

Edited September 30, 2017 by OftenWrong
sp

[bush_cheney2004]

49 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Well not that I care but I thought this repeal initiative comes from the Republican party, and has been on their to-do list since before Donald Trump. That they cannot come to agreement on what their health care model looks like is not something that can be fairly blamed on Trump. In some ways, Republicans are just as much part of his problem as Democrats.

 

Agreed....it is the GOP which spent years opposing Obamacare that failed, far more than Trump.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

... If that happens, Obamacare is likely to stick around for a long time, would be my guess.

 

I don't think Obamacare will ever be repealed per Trump's wishes, but it will have to be modified because it is untenable going forward as presently designed.    Insurance premiums are rising at alarming rates for some products, and many states are losing offerings at any price.   There will be bi-partisan support to fix this.

 

Quote

Not having repealed Obamacare also likely means that Trump's tax agenda doesn't stand a chance since there are enough Republicans who would oppose going further into deficit and the way to fund the tax cuts would have been from the savings of defunding Obamacare. 

 

Trump is not a deficit hawk, and this the main reason why I did not vote for him.   But he will get some support from Democrats depending on how the tax cuts break for deductions and simplified tax brackets.   Reagan did the same thing back in the 80's with Democrats in a majority.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trump is not a deficit hawk, and this the main reason why I did not vote for him.

I suspect you were quite the deficit dove yourself when it came to funding the nuclear armed submarines you drove around in.