A compromise on the ACA.

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
I have never understood the GOP's opposition to the ACA since most of the important provisions to it are market based reforms that were Republican ideas in the first place. I've always seen their opposition as being purely at a partisan political level. Be that as it may. I have a question for those who oppose the universal mandate. If the universal mandate were to be ended would you agree to ending the provision in COBRA that requires hospitals to treat all emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay?

It is the free rider problem caused by COBRA that is a very large part of the escalating cost of health care in our nation and why the universal mandate has been justified. Would you be willing to accept that in an emergency you would be turned away from the emergency room if you do not have insurance and cannot pay in order to end the universal mandate?

It would means two things.

#1. In a serious medical emergency if you don't have insurance you will probably die.
#2. If you have insurance and you agree to this compromise you would doom many of those who do not have insurance to die if they have a serious medical emergency.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have never understood the GOP's opposition to the ACA since most of the important provisions to it are market based reforms that were Republican ideas in the first place.
Click to expand...

then why did we have to add all the stupid shit that went into effect THIS year instead of just leaving all the market based reforms that went into effect in 2011?......
 
Every time a 'conservative' criticizes the mandate, I ask if they would be in favor of doing away with Reagan's EMTALA.

Never get an answer. Ever

-----------Merged------------

PostmodernProphet said:
then why did we have to add all the stupid shit that went into effect THIS year instead of just leaving all the market based reforms that went into effect in 2011?......
Click to expand...
Because many 'market based reforms' put a burden on insurers. They knew the mandate would eventually help to balance out the losses.

-----------Merged------------

Althea said:
Every time a 'conservative' criticizes the mandate, I ask if they would be in favor of doing away with Reagan's EMTALA.

Never get an answer. Ever

-----------Merged------------


Because many 'market based reforms' put a burden on insurers. They knew the mandate would eventually help to balance out the losses.
Click to expand...
I see the auto merge works even when you quote someone?

Kind of negates the need for the multi quote button
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have never understood the GOP's opposition to the ACA since most of the important provisions to it are market based reforms that were Republican ideas in the first place. I've always seen their opposition as being purely at a partisan political level. Be that as it may. I have a question for those who oppose the universal mandate. If the universal mandate were to be ended would you agree to ending the provision in COBRA that requires hospitals to treat all emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay?

It is the free rider problem caused by COBRA that is a very large part of the escalating cost of health care in our nation and why the universal mandate has been justified. Would you be willing to accept that in an emergency you would be turned away from the emergency room if you do not have insurance and cannot pay in order to end the universal mandate?

It would means two things.

#1. In a serious medical emergency if you don't have insurance you will probably die.
#2. If you have insurance and you agree to this compromise you would doom many of those who do not have insurance to die if they have a serious medical emergency.
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years. The problem of free riders was created by government. That it was Reagan is of no consequence. It set up an issue of moral hazard and should be repealed.

I am OK with people dying. People die. That is part of life. My guess is that if they knew there was no fall back they would take out catastrophic coverage.

But, I also guess there would still be charity care as there has always been so people would get care.

I know you thought by bringing up Reagan you would create a scenario where rigties would be be loathe to criticize him and do everything to defend him. You probably thought you set an elaborate trap. I am sure there are lots of big Indian little Indian republicans who would oblige you.

But this independent won't take the bait.

BTW it is laughable beyond extreme that you think Obamacare is free market
 
Althea said:
You're wrong. I'm pointing that out
Click to expand...

then shouldn't you point AT something?.......when he talks of Republican market shaped reforms he's referring to keeping students on their parents insurance.....about carrying insurance across state lines.....about no denials for pre-existing conditions.......he is NOT talking about insurance exchanges that don't work and cancelling existing policies because they don't cover maternity expenses for senior citizens, or doubling the amount of premiums while increasing deductibles.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then shouldn't you point AT something?.......when he talks of Republican market shaped reforms he's referring to keeping students on their parents insurance.....about carrying insurance across state lines.....about no denials for pre-existing conditions.......he is NOT talking about insurance exchanges that don't work and cancelling existing policies because they don't cover maternity expenses for senior citizens, or doubling the amount of premiums while increasing deductibles.....
Click to expand...
When you choose to use factual data, as opposed to talking points, we'll continue the discussion.
 
so, my daughter who's trying to get into grad school, qualifies for a federal subsidy......signed up for BC/BS on the ACA web site......was told it would cost her zero.....got a phone call yesterday that unless they receive a payment from her she will not have insurance as of 1/31......spent an hour and 45 minutes on hold yesterday before giving up.......now what, Obamacare?.....

-----------Merged------------

Althea said:
When you choose to use factual data, as opposed to talking points, we'll continue the discussion.
Click to expand...

???....all of what I posted IS factual data.....every thing I mentioned happened to ME!......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have never understood the GOP's opposition to the ACA since most of the important provisions to it are market based reforms that were Republican ideas in the first place. I've always seen their opposition as being purely at a partisan political level. Be that as it may. I have a question for those who oppose the universal mandate. If the universal mandate were to be ended would you agree to ending the provision in COBRA that requires hospitals to treat all emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay?

It is the free rider problem caused by COBRA that is a very large part of the escalating cost of health care in our nation and why the universal mandate has been justified. Would you be willing to accept that in an emergency you would be turned away from the emergency room if you do not have insurance and cannot pay in order to end the universal mandate?

It would means two things.

#1. In a serious medical emergency if you don't have insurance you will probably die.
#2. If you have insurance and you agree to this compromise you would doom many of those who do not have insurance to die if they have a serious medical emergency.
Click to expand...

is this even a real question? the answer is of course.
 
the biggest costs are FUCKING OLD people. not some rando getting a few stiches and ducking out paying for it.

you could also treat people and just make sure to take their houses and stuff.
 
I Love America said:
I have been saying this for years. The problem of free riders was created by government. That it was Reagan is of no consequence. It set up an issue of moral hazard and should be repealed.

I am OK with people dying. People die. That is part of life. My guess is that if they knew there was no fall back they would take out catastrophic coverage.

But, I also guess there would still be charity care as there has always been so people would get care.

I know you thought by bringing up Reagan you would create a scenario where rigties would be be loathe to criticize him and do everything to defend him. You probably thought you set an elaborate trap. I am sure there are lots of big Indian little Indian republicans who would oblige you.

But this independent won't take the bait.

BTW it is laughable beyond extreme that you think Obamacare is free market
Click to expand...

This is how the statists operate:

step 1) force hospitals to treat people that can't pay.
step 2) later, throw your hands up in the air flabbergasted that health care costs are higher for everyone
step 3) propose more government, mandating certain stipulations as a solution to a problem that you created yourself through government mandating things

step 4) pretend you are actually offering a conservative idea by "dealing with the freeloaders" when the freeloaders exist BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN DECISIONS in the first place

They'll do this stuff over and over again. There is only one end goal and that is total control. They'll bait and switch you every damn day of the week. They really are enemies of our country.
 
Karma Police said:
This is how the statists operate:

step 1) force hospitals to treat people that can't pay.
step 2) later, throw your hands up in the air flabbergasted that health care costs are higher for everyone
step 3) propose more government, mandating certain stipulations as a solution to a problem that you created yourself through government mandating things

step 4) pretend you are actually offering a conservative idea by "dealing with the freeloaders" when the freeloaders exist BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN DECISIONS in the first place

They'll do this stuff over and over again. There is only one end goal and that is total control. They'll bait and switch you every damn day of the week. They really are enemies of our country.
Click to expand...
Reagan was a statist?
 
I Love America said:
I have been saying this for years. The problem of free riders was created by government. That it was Reagan is of no consequence. It set up an issue of moral hazard and should be repealed.

I am OK with people dying. People die. That is part of life. My guess is that if they knew there was no fall back they would take out catastrophic coverage.

But, I also guess there would still be charity care as there has always been so people would get care.

I know you thought by bringing up Reagan you would create a scenario where rigties would be be loathe to criticize him and do everything to defend him. You probably thought you set an elaborate trap. I am sure there are lots of big Indian little Indian republicans who would oblige you.

But this independent won't take the bait.

BTW it is laughable beyond extreme that you think Obamacare is free market
Click to expand...
How isn't it a market based reform? It's laughable that you don't believe that as you obviously haven't studied your history.

I remember back when I was active in Republican politics being a volunteer for Rep Deb Price (R) in my district back when the Clintons were trying to reform health care with a combination of market based reforms combined with a public option. The talking points we were trained with by GOP operatives as to the GOP's version of health care reform contained all the main points of the ACA. A unversal mandate, subsidies for the poor, health care market exchanges and standardized reporting requirement. How do you explain that?
 
Karma Police said:
is this even a real question? the answer is of course.
Click to expand...
So you have no issues with the ethics that you would be dooming others to die and that you risk that yourself?

Another question than, if you oppose the universal mandate why don't you then argue for ending the free rider problem?
 
Karma Police said:
the biggest costs are FUCKING OLD people. not some rando getting a few stiches and ducking out paying for it.

you could also treat people and just make sure to take their houses and stuff.
Click to expand...
Seniors do cost a lot but freeriders (freeloaders is a better name) on the system drive the costs up by billions of dollars as when they finally do go to the emergency room basic problems have become serious medical problems and they drive up costs by billions that are passed on to those of us who do have insurance. Why should we have to pay for freeriders irresponsibility?
 
Karma Police said:
This is how the statists operate:

step 1) force hospitals to treat people that can't pay.
step 2) later, throw your hands up in the air flabbergasted that health care costs are higher for everyone
step 3) propose more government, mandating certain stipulations as a solution to a problem that you created yourself through government mandating things

step 4) pretend you are actually offering a conservative idea by "dealing with the freeloaders" when the freeloaders exist BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN DECISIONS in the first place

They'll do this stuff over and over again. There is only one end goal and that is total control. They'll bait and switch you every damn day of the week. They really are enemies of our country.
Click to expand...

Complete strawman. The purpose of requiring hospitals to treat all emergency patients is humanitarian. That even those who have no money deserve basic life saving medical care. If you don't support that requirement under Cobra than you do support denying these people basic life saving care, if they cannot pay, right?

Don't go wish washy on me here Grind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top