Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General GOP at war with itself on health care

Always amazes me when people like you believe the Constitution was written only for you.

What if Mr Trump proposes the idea all poor people, unhealthy people, unemployed people, Muslims, and any other folks you don't like are rounded up and deported to the Arctic. Since you don't like the Constitution, would this be an idea you could support????

I think the idea that states should do certain things and the federal government shouldn't is nothing but misdirection. Why should it be the state? Why not the county? Why not the city?

Saying that states should do something is just a way of saying no government should do it. As such I think everybody shouting about States Rights is an ahole who could not debate his way out of a paper bag.

But aside from that detour, some of us Socialists think Government should supply health care for all and collect the taxes to pay for it, but most of us don't. So I was avoiding that particular argument as hopelessly idealistic. The vast majority of the US will not be ready for sensible socialist solutions for many decades.

So ignoring that, we come to the reality on the ground today: The ACA or the AHCA is not at all about the government supplying health care. It already does that in the VA and military on a massive scale and does a great job. It is about laws regulating insurance companies. And the bottom line is Democrats want laws that protect people and Republicans want laws that do not protect them, make them lose coverage, make them sick, and kill them.

What is conveniently ignored by "originalists" and other faux-constitutional argumentists, is that the Constitution created a federal government to address issues that cross State boundaries. (Ironically, Republicans are touting exactly that when arguing to allow insurance companies to sell across State lines.) Americans are mobile, and many issues need to have national/uniform solutions. Health care is one of those issues, directly tied to "the general welfare."

Take, for example, a truck driver. A truck driver, by definition, routinely crosses State lines. Should his health care be determined by his route? Or a vacationer. Should my health choices be limited by my recreational location? Both activities involve "interstate commerce", a subject explicitly given to the national government by the Constitution (for very obvious reasons).

One solution would be for the federal government to simply mandate minimum coverage requirements and let States decide how to provide it. Oh, wait... That's the ACA. I GUESS IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AFTER ALL.

I completely agree the "States rights" argument is bogus and a deliberate distraction. That there is an ideological cabal on the Supreme Court that refuses to adhere to the actual Constitution doesn't make it any less so. Provision of health care to all Americans is a national crisis that is not amenable to State-by-State or market-based solutions, as centuries of history demonstrate. The ACA was never intended to be a final solution, but a start.

By the way, the argument that it will fail on its own is also completely bogus. For nearly a decade Republican ideologues have been trying to kill it, hamstring it, undercut it... And STILL millions of Americans are getting healthcare because of it, and premiums are rising at lower rates within the exchanges, rather than outside of them. The ACA provides more choices than non-ACA markets (contrary to another Republican lie). Were​ it not for ideological interference, millions more Americans would already be covered, premium rises would slow further, and markets would stabilize. That's the facts, Jack.

Right now we have 50 states providing 50 different versions of health insurance, nothing changes, except that my money doesn't have to go to the federal government so they can screw insurance up even more than they have already. I bitched and moaned that Obamacare was a fraud and shell game. You liberal hero's were determined to force it down America's throat. Well, you were successful, you forced it down America's throat, and up America's ass, and you deserve all of the blame that will go along with a very bad piece of legislation. It was more important to you to pass it than it was to make sure it worked. Guess what, it didn't and it can't. What you want is another federal entitlement, that is a very bad idea.

So, I am unapologetic. Obamacare is a disaster and should be allowed to run its course. Not one Republican voted for it and not one Republican should vote to bail it out.

Cool, see there. Obamacare is working just fine. Nothing to do, nothing to see here, move along.

I agree with NW, we do not have to do anything. Obamacare is a splendid piece of legislation.

A few questions for our esteemed Ma_Republican. Since insurance (Health, Auto, Home, etc) is a regulated market in each state how do the Republicans plan to continue to regulate that market if it is permitted to sell across state lines?

Since Ins companies are set up by state, as independent companies. Thus isolating the parent company and its other subsidiaries from losses of any one or more subsidiaries in other states. How do Republicans plan to isolate the health insurance purchasers in other states from rising rates due to losses in another state, if an Ins company is permitted to sell across state lines?

Since Obamacare, AKA Affordable Care Act, at its core is essentially Romneycare, currently operating in Massachusetts. If Obamacare is broken and collapsing what does that say about Romneycare?

RomneyCare was superseded by ACA in Massachusetts.

And "selling across state lines" is complete BS. No insurance company will ever do that, because their premiums are calculated on health care costs in each state. They don't pay out certain amounts, they cover certain procedures. Those covered procedure have different costs for the insurance companies in different states. If a cheap-state company wanted to sell a policy in an expensive-state they would have to charge the rates for the expensive-state. So the whole idea of buying a cheaper policy from some other state just falls apart.

Besides, most insurance companies sell policies that tie you to a specific medical group in their state (or even in their county!). What are you going to do, fly from New York to Kentucky every time you want to see your doctor?

This fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works is just another of many retold endlessly by Republicans, who care more about rhetorical bulletpoints than reality.

Strange how conservatives will spend an inordinate amount of typing tie to say something which could have been said in 3 words.

MA-Republican hates ACA

Now had you offered a supporting factual argument why you have such an intense emotional response to ACA .... well then type on

Shirley - MA-Republican can not offer any arguments for or against any ideas associate with implementation of any health care plan since he ideologically believes they should not exist. So there is no point in asking. It is the standard ultra conservative belief the federal government should be not only legally limited but bounded by original number of federal employees in 1790 ( I am a little hyperbolic). MA-Republican would probably feel a lot better if there were no federal government at all, then he could rail against state government as overreaching and overbearing, and when that is dissolved he would rail against etc etc you get the picture. But let me not speak for MA-Republican after all those are my conclusions based on what he has typed on many previous occasions.

The idea from conservatives of cross border competition boggles my mind. On the one hand they believe in less government and on this hand they believe they should take away control from the states. On a purely Constitutional grounds every state should have standing to reverse this. And this is apparently one of the major planks for lowering prices. It is not a free market of the federal government is manipulating the controls.

I think what Spkr Ryan is proposing as succinctly as I possibly can is a plan in which everyone but those in high risk categories are pooled, which makes for low premium costs and for all high risk folks pooled to pay extremely high premium costs.

What he is proposing is a perversion of insurance. An example: he will only insure those who are actuarially not a risk of having an accident i.e. those prices will be very low or is that an inducement to get your vote for lowering your premium costs artificially? and all the other folks are pooled to pay high premiums which will be partially paid by the federal government so the low risk pool does not see their money from taxes going to the insurance of the high risk pool. What a plan.

Spkr Ryan does not understand insurance but he does understand political manipulation.