Author Topic: Obamacare is so unpopular that Senate Republicans are already planning to....  (Read 4147 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
...reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down

------

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-mirror-house-gop-shift-on-obamacare.php

Senate Republicans Signal Big Shift On ‘Obamacare’

Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOP’s shift in favor of some of the more popular “Obamacare” provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.

With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down — guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parent’s insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”

Whether coverage of pre-existing conditions is economically viable for insurers without an individual mandate is a dubious proposition, but practical realities are taking a back seat to election year imperatives. It’s not a hard sell to voters: you can have all the popular provisions of health care reform without the unpopular ones.

Despite the blowback from conservatives, who want nothing less than to wipe out the law in its entirety, top Senate Republicans are signaling that they’re behind the strategy of resurrecting some aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, offered a ringing defense of the “Obamacare” under-26 provision, and said he wouldn’t oppose ideas he previously supported simply because President Obama adopted them.

“I believe that’s one of the things that the Congress would surely reinstate,” Blunt told the St. Louis radio station KTRS in an interview last Thursday, pointing out that he has offered similar legislation in the past. “It’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost. … It’s one of the things I think should continue.”

“I’ve been in a couple meetings lately and there’s some general understanding that that’s one of the things … and there are other things like that as well,” the senator added.

A GOP health aide explained the strategy on the shift: “Come up with a plan and come up with a plan quick to deal with popular … provisions. An interesting twist will be money spent and continued implementation. There could be a deal struck on those two issues as well.” The aide said Democrats would have a hard time turning down a Republican proposal to reinstate some of the law’s most popular pieces.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN), asked by TPM if he believes his party should back the pre-existing conditions and under-26 laws, didn’t endorse specifics but affirmed that his party ought to have a plan ready. “Well, I think we need to be prepared,” he said. “And we will be prepared.”

The shift is notable because Republicans have spent more than two years pledging nothing less than total repeal of the law. That has conscripted them into disavowing all of its elements, implicitly or explicitly, even though core pillars of the law had significant support within the GOP before Obama embraced them.

Now, however, the party would be caught in an election-year predicament if the Supreme Court grants them their wish and overturns the law. Warming to these provisions is an important signal that Republicans believe the extent of their anti-“Obamacare” stance over the last few years is politically unsustainable. That’s not sitting well with conservative advocates.

The deeper problem with the GOP’s fall-back plan is that guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions is economically infeasible without a requirement, like the “Obamacare” individual mandate, to bring young and healthy people into the insurance system. It addresses the need to spread risk and prevent costs from spiraling upward.


On KTRS, Blunt floated the idea of high-risk pools to cover pre-existing conditions — an idea that presents its own adverse-selection quandary — and discussed the broader systemic problem in remarkably similar terms as Obama and his allies have done in their defense of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

“You know, you do run a risk when you decide you’re not going to have insurance,” Blunt said. “And a lot of those — that odd, that occasional young person who believes they’re not going to need health care, doesn’t get it, and then they have a terrible accident or they have a unique illness that most young people don’t have. These high risk pools give them somewhere to go that is somewhere close to normal insurance.”

Some Democrats think the Republican shift is merely a bluff.

“They’re joking, right? This is serious?” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told TPM. “The Republicans — the tea party has never been for consumer laws, never been for protecting families, never been for making Medicare work better. So it’s a continued sham.”


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship. 

Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship.  

Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.



I don't watch your clips any more

I've told you this many many times

This is your own fault

there is no point in watching clips you post

If you read the article I posted you'd understand that although Repubs are in favor of keeping the requirement of insurers including people with pre-existing conditions that would be financially impossible without a mandate

If you recall, the mandate, which was a Republican idea and even championed by the  Heritage Foundation as a call to personal responsibility is a fundamental requirement in order for this type of health care to work.   That is why Romney's plan inclucdd a mandate.

I've honestly never understood why Repubs were truly against the mandate.   It's there own idea and they understand the math and they know that without it,  in the long run  they themselves will be paying more for uninsured people

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I don't watch your clips any more

I've told you this many many times

This is your own fault

there is no point in watching clips you post

If you read the article I posted you'd understand that although Repubs are in favor of keeping the requirement of insurers including people with pre-existing conditions that would be financially impossible without a mandate

If you recall, the mandate, which was a Republican idea and even championed by the  Heritage Foundation as a call to personal responsibility is a fundamental requirement in order for this type of health care to work.   That is why Romney's plan inclucdd a mandate.

I've honestly never understood why Repubs were truly against the mandate.   It's there own idea and they understand the math and they know that without it,  in the long run  they themselves will be paying more for uninsured people


The Heritage Foundation floated this idea when HillaryCare was under discussion.  It was never a party platform and it was far more limited. 

If the mandate were solely for catastrophic care for the ER or something funded by some type of tax, I could be open to it.   But the obama mandate is open ended and forces people to buy all sorts of shit they will NEVER use. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana

The Heritage Foundation floated this idea when HillaryCare was under discussion.  It was never a party platform and it was far more limited. 

If the mandate were solely for catastrophic care for the ER or something funded by some type of tax, I could be open to it.   But the obama mandate is open ended and forces people to buy all sorts of shit they will NEVER use. 

there never was ANY party platform from Repubs in regards to healthcare

it's a non-issue to them

that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a republican creation and many repubs at the time were all for it

it also doesn't change the fact that it's the only way to make a large insurance system like this workable

Honestly, I would be in favor of a one time opt in or opt out

Let's call it a national intelligence test

Most people would be smart enough to do the math and opt in

If you opt out then you're still free to purchase private insurance or be part of an employers group plan but if you choose not to have insurance then you are agreeing that you can never claim access to the government sponsored plans and you are agreeing to pay out of pocket for all health care services and this means you will get the full bill for all emergency room service as well.    I would be totally fine with that.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
I have no problem as long as there is no individual mandate. I do NOT like the idea that the government can tell me I have to purchase health insurance from a private company.
Something very basically wrong with that.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
I have no problem as long as there is no individual mandate. I do NOT like the idea that the government can tell me I have to purchase health insurance from a private company.
Something very basically wrong with that.

and I'm fine with allowing you a one time opt out with no chance of getting back in

that's the only way the system could work

If you think about it, even people are opposed to a mandate should be smart enough to realize that if they choose not to pay for insurance when they are healtly that paying a penalty is like paying a very small insurance premium to ensure access to the system at a later date when they will inevitably need healthcare that they cannot personally afford

Since most low income people would be exempt from the penalty it would really only hit people who can afford insurance but choose not to pay it.   These are people who can afford to pay their own way but would prefer to pay nothing now and then use emergency services as a substitute which in essence means we all (you and me and everyone else) have to pay for their care

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
and I'm fine with allowing you a one time opt out with no chance of getting back in

that's the only way the system could work

If you think about it, even people are opposed to a mandate should be smart enough to realize that if they choose not to pay for insurance when they are healtly that paying a penalty is like paying a very small insurance premium to ensure access to the system at a later date when they will inevitably need healthcare that they cannot personally afford

Since most low income people would be exempt from the penalty it would really only hit people who can afford insurance but choose not to pay it.   These are people who can afford to pay their own way but would prefer to pay nothing now and then use emergency services as a substitute which in essence means we all (you and me and everyone else) have to pay for their care

The issue is cost. 

Why should a broke 22 y/o or tjheir employer pay ridiculous premiums to subsidize a wealthier sicker older person?  Its absurd beyond belief. 

We need isurance across state lines , tort reform, means testing of medicare, medicade reform, allowance of catastrophic and hospitalization insurance, etc.

Obamacare is the exact opposite of what is needed. 

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Getbig!
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship. 

Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.



Is this part of the "The election is over!" line that Obama used in McCain?

There was NO COMPROMISE with the Dems, when they ran the whole show. Now, that they don't have the House, they're blubbering about compromise.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Is this part of the "The election is over!" line that Obama used in McCain?

There was NO COMPROMISE with the Dems, when they ran the whole show. Now, that they don't have the House, they're blubbering about compromise.

Yup 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
The issue is cost. 

Why should a broke 22 y/o or tjheir employer pay ridiculous premiums to subsidize a wealthier sicker older person?  Its absurd beyond belief. 

We need isurance across state lines , tort reform, means testing of medicare, medicade reform, allowance of catastrophic and hospitalization insurance, etc.

Obamacare is the exact opposite of what is needed. 

A broke 22 year old would most likely be exempt from the mandate and penalty

A 22 year old who has just graduated from college and has a job would most likely be part of an employers group plan

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
A broke 22 year old would most likely be exempt from the mandate and penalty

A 22 year old who has just graduated from college and has a job would most likely be part of an employers group plan
I dont think he would be exempt from the mandate, if anything he would be given a tax credit to buy insurance.
The individual mandate is the most unpopular part of this both with politicians and civilians alike.

If you feel that it is needed for the bill to work, well then the bill just simply doesnt work...

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
I dont think he would be exempt from the mandate, if anything he would be given a tax credit to buy insurance.
The individual mandate is the most unpopular part of this both with politicians and civilians alike.

If you feel that it is needed for the bill to work, well then the bill just simply doesnt work...


I think you are correct

I should have typed exempt from the penalty for not purchasing insurance (which is the "teeth" in the mandate)

the concept works just fine in Mitt Romney's home state

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
I think you are correct

I should have typed exempt from the penalty for not purchasing insurance (which is the "teeth" in the mandate)

the concept works just fine in Mitt Romney's home state
Not that is matters at all since the basis for the argument against obamacares mandate has no relation to romneycare.

BUT actually it didnt, if you look at the research at least from the speech I attended on it a year ago.

Romney care had a negative effect and I believe less ppl were insured than before.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Not that is matters at all since the basis for the argument against obamacares mandate has no relation to romneycare.

are you making an advance prediction of the SC decision here or are you referring to something else

BUT actually it didnt, if you look at the research at least from the speech I attended on it a year ago.
Romney care had a negative effect and I believe less ppl were insured than before.

who was giving the speech and what research were they citing

everything I've read says 98% of people in MASS have health insurance so if it's down I  guess that's down from 99% or 100%


tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520

are you making an advance prediction of the SC decision here or are you referring to something else

who was giving the speech and what research were they citing

everything I've read says 98% of people in MASS have health insurance so if it's down I  guess that's down from 99% or 100%
just stating facts, a federal mandate is not the same as a state mandate.

What research were they citing?

If I am going to produce my resources, you should as well...

It was a speech given from some insurance company if I am not mistaken at a meeting for a finance organization I was a part of through my work.

I still have the handouts they gave and can scan them and send them to you if youd like. I believe it has their names and contact info on there if you would like to speak with them.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
just stating facts, a federal mandate is not the same as a state mandate.

What research were they citing?

If I am going to produce my resources, you should as well...

It was a speech given from some insurance company if I am not mistaken at a meeting for a finance organization I was a part of through my work.

I still have the handouts they gave and can scan them and send them to you if youd like. I believe it has their names and contact info on there if you would like to speak with them.

what the difference btw the mandates other than one is imposed by a state and the other by the federal government?

regarding the 98% coverage I've seen it cited many times

here is one example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law.html

Quote
About 98 percent of state residents are insured under the legislation Romney signed in 2006, a 10 percent rise from the previous three-year average. Government costs haven’t ballooned, officials say, and 63 percent of residents support the law. Yet Romney is promising to repeal the 2010 U.S. law Obama and his fellow Democrats fashioned on the Massachusetts program.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
what the difference btw the mandates other than one is imposed by a state and the other by the federal government?

regarding the 98% coverage I've seen it cited many times

here is one example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law.html
 


10th amendment anyone? 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana

10th amendment anyone? 

the federal government forces you to buy into social security

what's the difference?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship. 

Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.



Great clip.  Ryan was right.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
the federal government forces you to buy into social security

what's the difference?

Ss is a tax.    Obama mandate forces commerce w a private Corp      Big difference.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Great clip.  Ryan was right.

Now you know why straw won't watch it.

BTW - Ryan was dead right about the class act and the demos were forced to abandon it because it was a ponzi scheme.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Ss is a tax.    Obama mandate forces commerce w a private Corp      Big difference.

I've read a few articles the delineate the equivalency of being forced by the governement to pay for something and receiving something in return and being taxed by the government and receiving something in return

I think that will obviously be one of the arguments being looked at in this case

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40118
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I've read a few articles the delineate the equivalency of being forced by the governement to pay for something and receiving something in return and being taxed by the government and receiving something in return

I think that will obviously be one of the arguments being looked at in this case

Had Obama instituted a tax vs a mandate, it would have been legit, but the tax would have had to fund a public option ofsome type.   


The easiest thing he could have done is create a national catastrophic care program that dealt w ER issue and paid for it by a tax of some type.   Would have been totally legal.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Now you know why straw won't watch it.

BTW - Ryan was dead right about the class act and the demos were forced to abandon it because it was a ponzi scheme.

I won't watch it for no other reason that you posted it

I've watched more than enough videos you've posted where you think something is said that was NEVER said

I don't know if it's true in this case or not but your credibility is shot

your fault not mine