House passes "repeal and replace"

[DSYoungEsq]

Let me ask two questions, Bricker:

1: Is your objection to what the ACA did based upon the role of the federal government only? That is, would you still object if the State of Virginia did the same thing, with there being no federal ACA?

2: At what point in your mind should government get involved in ensuring that all the people have some form of health care?

Follow-up: Do you believe that those who are too poor to pay for it should be receiving emergent care as a right? And if so, who should suffer the cost of the inability to pay for it, the people via some overt governmental administration, or the people via the increased fees the hospital has to charge as a result of the unfunded government mandate?

[QuickSilver]

@Bricker

If the original bill was so good and right, why did Obama have to lie about it, telling people if they liked their existing care they could keep it?

I agree. It was wrong of him to make a promise he could not keep.

But on the scale of things right and wrong, it was nowhere near a wrong as this:

@Bricker

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.

As for this:

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not directly, because I have employer-provided MEC . . . although I do have a pre-existing medical condition that might cause issues if I lose coverage and have to regain it without the Obamacare guarantee. So my desired outcome here may well make my own situation untenable one day.

So what?
[/quote]

I’m not Christian. Don’t even believe in god. But I do believe in a more just society. So I would gladly see my taxes go towards making sure your healthcare, and that of your loved ones would remain protected from people like you.

[Bricker]

@Ann_Hedonia

But the way this legislation passed was just dishonest.

It certainly was.

But then again the way the original Obamacare was passed was also dishonest, although if I had to purely subjectively rank the relative dishonesty I’d say 3 out of 10 for the original and 7 out of ten for the current effort.

If you think your constituents want repeal only, just repeal it. But don’t say “repeal and replace” unless you really mean it.

Why would that kind of honesty be a rule?

[Tee]

@Bricker

Not directly, because I have employer-provided MEC . . . although I do have a pre-existing medical condition that might cause issues if I lose coverage and have to regain it without the Obamacare guarantee. So my desired outcome here may well make my own situation untenable one day.

So what?

I agree with you in re: Christian principles, but in this case what has been gained at your expense. Money? Freedom?

[Bricker]

@QuickSilver

I’m not Christian. Don’t even believe in god. But I do believe in a more just society. So I would gladly see my taxes go towards making sure your healthcare, and that of your loved ones would remain protected from people like you.

Thanks for sharing.

I don’t reciprocate. I think that I should pay to keep my family in good shape, and you cover yours. Just like you pay for your clothes and your kid’s Xbox and I pay for my clothes and my kid’s Xbox.

[Bricker]

@Tee

I agree with you in re: Christian principles, but in this case what has been gained at your expense. Money? Freedom?

The proper role of government has been . . .not gained, but nudged closer.

[Leaper]

@Bricker

So what? Why should religious principles from a book based on the imaginary tales from a nomadic group of wanderers be remotely relevant in forming policy? (This is the view of the Bible that government should adopt, under current caselaw).

Tell that to the House leadership that passed this bill, and the people who funded them, like the Mercers. They are abundantly clear about their goals to pass laws that emphasize Christian values, and no other. Hell, the Vice President has not been shy about making his beliefs the basis for law.

@DSYoungEsq

Follow-up: Do you believe that those who are too poor to pay for it should be receiving emergent care as a right? And if so, who should suffer the cost of the inability to pay for it, the people via some overt governmental administration, or the people via the increased fees the hospital has to charge as a result of the unfunded government mandate?

Yeah, I asked him about his opinion of the EMTLA earlier, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t see it, given how fast this thread is moving so far.

[Bricker]

@Leaper

Just to ask, Bricker, what do you think of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act?

Not in favor. “We’re not going to pay you extra, but if you want our money, do this.”

Also, do you expect any change to death rates and bankruptcy rates if this bill becomes the law of the land? If so, what changes do you expect, and to what extent?

I decline to offer a prediction.

[Bullitt]

I’m with Bricker.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bricker

Thanks for sharing.

I don’t reciprocate. I think that I should pay to keep my family in good shape, and you cover yours. Just like you pay for your clothes and your kid’s Xbox and I pay for my clothes and my kid’s Xbox.

I will point out that this is a false analogy. Hint: Health is not an Xbox, or even clothes.

[Bricker]

@DSYoungEsq

Let me ask two questions, Bricker:

1: Is your objection to what the ACA did based upon the role of the federal government only? That is, would you still object if the State of Virginia did the same thing, with there being no federal ACA?

I would not object in the slightest if Virginia did this. It’s the kind of decision that IS the proper role of a government with plenary legislative power.

2: At what point in your mind should government get involved in ensuring that all the people have some form of health care?

Follow-up: Do you believe that those who are too poor to pay for it should be receiving emergent care as a right? And if so, who should suffer the cost of the inability to pay for it, the people via some overt governmental administration, or the people via the increased fees the hospital has to charge as a result of the unfunded government mandate?

Not a fan of the unfunded mandate, to be sure. But since the federal government does (or should) lack the power to act in this arena, I remain steadfast that they should never get involved in that mission, except perhaps by educational efforts to teach the value of health coverage.

[up_the_junction]

@Bricker

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.

White.
Middle class.
Entitlement.

[John_Mace]

@aldiboronti

Many thought it was a non-starter in the House too yet it squeaked through. It may do precisely the same in the Senate once the wheeling and dealing is over. Trump and the Republicans need this to pass, look for a lot of arm-twisting ahead.

No Democrat is going to vote for cloture on this, so it fails the 60 vote Senate test.

[Leaper]

I doubt the problem for most, or even half, of the population is that they don’t know the value of health insurance.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

I would not object in the slightest if Virginia did this. It’s the kind of decision that IS the proper role of a government with plenary legislative power.

Would you approve of it as good public policy?

[Okrahoma]

@John_Mace

No Democrat is going to vote for cloture on this, so it fails the 60 vote Senate test.

Republicans are assuming they will be passing it (or failing to pass it) under reconciliation rules, thus 50+Pence.

[Bricker]

@DSYoungEsq

I will point out that this is a false analogy. Hint: Health is not an Xbox, or even clothes.

“Health” is not contraception coverage either.

[Grim_Render]

Well, I feel sorry for the people who are going to lose their healthcare and didn’t vote for Trump. The lot who did, and are now losing their coverage, I find it a lot harder to work up any empathy for.

@Bricker

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

The aggregate here is a lot of additional harm and suffering, at a greater cost.

Bricker, in effect you are currently paying a big premium to keep people from healthcare. Do you feel this is money well spent?

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

Would you approve of it as good public policy?

Yes. Maybe some tweaks here and there, but yes.

[Bricker]

@Grim_Render

Bricker, in effect you are currently paying a big premium to keep people from healthcare. Do you feel this is money well spent?

Yes, although the reason it’s well spent has nothing to do with healthcare outcomes and everything to do with the proper role of government.