House just passed the “repeal and replace” bill that reverses key portions of Obamacare.
I believe this is a wise policy move.
But my finely trained sense of the SDMB suggests that a few here may disagree.
Go ahead and start the debate. What do you prefer in this policy over ACA?
I believe your finely trained sense is correct. 
As someone who has no dog in this fight, I’m curious: why do you see it as a wise policy move?
So unwise, but we know that the Republican leadership will not let hypocrisy to get on the way of their efforts.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16056/flashback-paul-ryan-2009-says-its-ridiculous-pass-hank-berrien
Sanders: How can you call it ‘reform’ when millions will lose insurance?
Does it matter, if the Senate decides to ignore it completely and start to work on their own version?
I see serious dissonance in left’s opinions of this. On one hand, they do agree that:
- Republicans won the last few election cycles on the “repeal and replace” promise.
and on the other hand they claim that
- A big majority of voters doesn’t want “repeal and replace”.
Unless Obamacare has tremendously improved in the last few years (and the facts point to exactly the opposite - to the point of a lot of counties in the US having no Obamacare providers anymore), the two points directly contradict each other.
That was my thought. It’s a complete non-starter in the Senate, so what difference does it make?
Actually the numbers were that most Americans did want to have a better system or to reform the ACA. After the election it is clear that the ACA was one of those items several Trump voters expected that he would not follow up about because many of them do depend on it.
If they want to replace it with something better, great. There are few on the left who would think that the ACA is the best that we can do. There are many things that could be done that would grant coverage to more people, for less, both in terms of premiums, and in terms of tax dollars to subsidize the system. This is what trump promised, and this is the healthcare that people voted for.
They are not replacing it with something better, they are replacing it with something that will cover fewer people at a higher cost. If you want to make the argument that less coverage and higher cost is what people voted for, go for it.
My objection to Obamacare has always been one of basic philosophy: I don’t agree that providing everyone with health care is a proper role of government.
Therefore, I think that it’s wise when we move away from that model, and unwise when we move towards it.
Please, enlighten us. If enacted as passed by the House, this bill would harm many people I know. Some of them might die. Tell us, what’s the bill doing that makes that ‘wise’?
That only “the worthy” can have health insurance.
About 70% of the American people, the UN, nearly every international organization, and the governments of nearly every every country on Earth disagree with you, though, so that’s hardly a widely held belief. (And frankly, it’s a stupid belief. Why have government at all if it doesn’t provide services to people that are necessary for society to function but can’t be funded individually?)
I am certainly sorry to hear that people you know may be harmed, but it’s not clear to me why that fact should trump (ha!) all others in a discussion of public policy. If we were to debate mandatory seatbelt laws, you could make the same statement – should I then simply retire from the mandatory seatbelt debate, because you invoked the possible deaths of people you know if your preferred policy is not accepted?
If there is little to no help with preexisting conditions, eventually it will free up a lot of space here on the SDMB for new posters.
From elsewhere
It looks like a country without compassion.
No, the actual dissonance was among Trump voters, who cheered for repeal and replace and had no idea that any removal of benefits would actually apply to themselves as well as to all those other people they don’t like.
My first reaction to this is that if a bill shaped like this actually passes and gets signed into law, it will give a huge boost to the Democrats to take over the House in 2018. If that happens, Trump can kiss his job and his (yuuuge) ass good-bye.
Of course, after that, I feel concerned for those people, including some I know personally, who will lose insurance coverage and be only one serious condition away from bankruptcy or death.
As for Bricker, do you feel like outlining how medical care should be handled in the real world without government involvement? More than a sentence or two would be nice, since you think that today’s event is moving in the right direction. What is the end result supposed to look like? If it’s not clear, I am challenging you to put up or shut up about this. There are lots of examples in the real world of single-payer health care systems that work pretty well; I have not yet seen one based solely on private resources that exists, let alone one that works. Please enlighten us poor collectivist savages.
Fifty years ago, the nation managed to navigate itself without adopting the policy that the federal government owed free health care to citizens. Forty years ago, thirty, twenty – still we chugged along.
Obamacare has been the law now for less than eight years.
It’s clear to me that government functioned without it.
In general, I am unpersuaded by the invocation of the U.N., to whom the United States pays roughly $8 billion US every year, far more than other countries. The message from the UN would seem to be along the lines of, “Let us tell you what you’re doing wrong, while you continue to pay us more than all the other ciuntries that are doing it right!”
Do I feel like outlining a comprehensive national approach to health here because you challenged me to “put up or shut up?”
No.
But I’ll do it by reference. Let’s restore the system as it existed in the United States on January 20, 2009. Because I’m not talking about “without government involvement.” I’m talking about “without the obligation to pay for health care for everyone who can’t or won’t/”
Demonstratively unwise as virtually all developed nations that insure all their citizens with government support spent less money than our unsustainable costly irrational system.