One of the the key parts of this compromise, is that the repeal of the individual mandate (a popular measure by all calculations) will be part of the final bill. While this will lead to some squawking over at the CBO over how many people will "lose insurance" - that number being tied directly to what amounts to a choice, will dampen that particular claim. People will instinctively know that nobody is being "forced" out of their insurance. They are simply dropping insurance because they no longer will have to purchase it.
 |
| “I see no need to wait for Doug Jones to become a senator.” |
Moreover, it's almost assured that once this passes, that the CBO estimates will prove to be wildly wrong... as they have been for nearly everything associated with Obamacare. Also, considering the lion's share of the insurance "losses" calculated by the CBO generally came from the individual mandate, any future attempts to repeal or otherwise change Obamacare, will not come back from the CBO with the massive numbers they have been otherwise suggesting.
The votes appear to be there in both chambers, with the fence sitter Susan Collins giving a thumbs up, and pushing for a vote prior to the Senate seating Doug Jones. This looks like it will pass both chambers and signed into law before Congress goes home for the holidays.
14 comments:
Freedom being returned to We The People.
It's ironic that the arguments given to remove the individual mandate are so similar to those I expressed here when Obama and Congress were designing the ACA. Conservatives, including here, argued vigorously against me about that. Some even going so far as to declare that I "know nothing" about it, and "every Industry Expert" disagreed with me.
So what happened? It took years for my heresy to become conservative dogma?
Or is it really about that other elephant in the room, insurance subsidies for the poor?
WP your position then was not to pass Obamacare at all, I don't recall, just asking?
As predicted ACA fucks the middle class
Price Hikes Put Health Insurance Shoppers Into Difficult Choices
Yep. Damn pact of lies and stolen wealth.
WP your position then was not to pass Obamacare at all, I don't recall, just asking?
I was supportive of Obamacare in general, opposed to the individual mandate, and on record that fulfilling the promise of "$2500 per year cheaper premiums" was a litmus test over whether the scheme succeeded. I was willing to allow the $2500 claim to apply to out of pocket expenses, not just premiums, because costs shifting from premiums to high deductibles makes it apples to oranges.
That promise failed to manifest by the way, so I consider the law failed. Costs have risen, not dropped, and that's something that really does need to be addressed by Congress instead of these repeal side-shows.
You can't have guaranteed issue and no prex without the mandate, and as a Libertarian that's galls me to say. However as Risk Management Major, I get it. If carriers can't be allowed to properly price for the exposure the death spiral occurs.
Maybe we should have addressed medical costs rather than insurance reform. But there are a whole lot bigger oxes to gore in that scenario, med mal lawyers, big Pharma, AMA, hospital assoc., than a few insurers.
Just saying
It's as I predicted
Oh and narrowing the rating bands to 3 to 1 really screwed the young healthies, you needed to stabilize the market
Another of my predictions
Maybe we should have addressed medical costs rather than insurance reform.
Bingo. Which was also my position at that time.
Maybe we should have addressed medical costs rather than insurance reform.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i was watching MSDNC the night howard dean addressed that and said that you don't address medical costs without addressing tort reform, and lawyers - being overwhelmingly democrat - would never allow it.
snowball's chance in hell.
Ty,it failed on every account.
said that you don't address medical costs without addressing tort reform, and lawyers
Which was my reference to med mal
Medical malpractice not just the attorneys but the issue of docs practicing defensive medicine, unnecessary tests etc. to prevent lawsuits
But when one party is so beholding to the trial lawyers they had an absolute scumbag as VP on their ticket, there is no hope
In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: ''She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.' ''
Tort reform is one small piece of the necessary changes, and faces hurdles from Conservative lawmakers as well. A big problem is that the current Republican idea of tort reform is primarily unconstitutional schemes to screw the little guy. The answer isn't caps and other gimmicks, but to fundamentally define what people CAN sue their doctors over, along with statutory guidelines covering the monetary liability.
The middle class tax hike is nearing it's final judgement. I'm half expecting it to fail, kicking the can into next year.
Post a Comment