House passes "repeal and replace"

you point would have more weight before something like ACA was passed. then you could say the possible harm to some individuals does not outweigh other points. however ACA did pass and is currently the law of the land; so now you and others are advocating change that would actually harm people.
it’s all in the timing.
if you feel that govt should not be in the health insurance biz, then you have to also address what should be done to ameliorate the harm that will be done by getting out. just hand waving and saying it should never have passed is no longer an option.

mc

Procrustus:

Hopefully, genuine UHC. I wouldn’t expect a Republican administration and Congress to do that, but maybe this is one of those “only Nixon could go to China” situations.

Politifact

In what way does this bill even do that, though? Sounds like the government is just as much involved as before, but doing a worse job of it.

It’s as if you’re saying “the government shouldn’t be involved in building roads and bridges” but then supporting a bill that ensures the government will only build dangerous, half-assed, shitty roads and bridges. It doesn’t follow logically from your stated position.

So this is a one-way rachet, in your view? The plan has passed, and now cannot be undone, because we know people that will be harmed?

Horsepuckey, as Colonel Potter famously said. Decisions from the government harm people all the time. I know people that were harmed by the loss of their small business when minimum wages were raised. Did their cries stop the legislation?

Public policy decisions cannot be paralyzed by the spectre of Uncle Billy’s harm. They involve the aggregate.

You mean back when I was living on the streets after getting so sick at work because I couldn’t afford basic care? Back when I fought my way back up the ladder, in debt to emergency rooms for many years after, going to work sick or not(and probably infecting others in the process? Those good old days? Those Obamacare rules on preexisting conditions are what allows My Beloved and I to afford her meds and necessary therapy, and the care I need for my own existing problems.

No, the government is less involved in this version.

Do you really need examples?

You don’t have to pay the government a penalty any more if you’re not buying insurance.

States may opt out of the “essential health benefits,” bar, which include contraception, also absurd – people certainly have a right to use contraception, but not a right to have it provided for them.

There. Two off the top of my head.

The difference between the 1950s and now.

Except for the people who didn’t. You know the ones that died, suffered and went bankrupt? I think I know what you’re getting at, but this is a very poor argument for it.

Why is the rest of the country required to pay for you and your beloved?

Bricker, do you have a horse in this race? If Obamacare is repealed, do you stand to lose anything in the way of necessary healthcare?

With unnecessary pain and death during all those years with the less fortunate.

I will go here for the low estimates:

Of course we chug along, they were for many of the Republican leadership expendable.

“I’m sorry for your suffering, but it’s not my problem.” - conservatives

Simple to say for the average citizen, but the politician, even the hardcore right wingers, at the least have a slightly more complicated calculus.

your the one spewing horsehockey. i never advocated paralysis. but you, and those against ACA, are even acknowledging the harm. if you genuinely believe that the harm uncle billy and others will face is a fair trade off for changing the policy, have at it. you will find loud disagreement, not only here, but in the real world too. my point - again - is that that horse has left the barn, its no longer feasible to just go back to the way it was without acknowledging the real effect that it will cause. just beacase the Repubs have won the last few elections based on promises to replace ACA, doesnt negate the fact that the previous few administrations already did do something about it, and that is just as valid as the new push for something else!

mc

Paying less and altering regulations does not mean the government isn’t involved. Any more than changing the rules of the road to allow drivers to turn right on a red light means that the government has “gotten out of the traffic business”. The government is just as much involved as it was before, you just like these particular rules better.

No, it’s a fundamental argument about what government’s role is. The idea seems to be that we inch along, with every generation accepting the idea that government must provide more stuff for them, plus all the entitlements of a previous generation.

I don’t revel in people getting sick or declaring bankruptcy. But I don’t agree that the right role of government is to say to the other folks, the ones that are not sick or destitute, “Hey, we’re all a family here; chip in and cover Uncle Billy.”

I actually believe that harm is part of the prize.

To quote one of my “christian” coworkers, “We need to make people more uncomfortable in their poverty.”

Not looking for a free ride. Just looking to spread the load around so that nobody gets hit so hard it puts them down permanently.

that must be how they’re gonna make america great again!

mc

Because that’s how a society works. Especially one that claims to be based on Christian principles.

I don’t remember Christ saying “I got mine, fuck you!”