The Hypocrisy of Healthcare

Overheal

"Congress is moving fast to rush through a health care overhaul that lacks a key ingredient: the full participation of you, the American people." — Paul Ryan, July 18, 2009

"We shouldn't rush this thing through just to rush it through for some artificial deadline. Lets get this thing done right." — Paul Ryan, July 2009

So if the reporting is reasonably true, the Republicans are trying to pass the AHCA (Obamacare repeal/replacement bill) through the Senate by July 4th. Presumably so our chief elected narcissist can make July 4th a "day of independence" from healthcare, or something.

So we're talking about two weeks. Within 2 weeks, they expect to bring a version of the bill to the Senate floor, where it will receive less than 20 hours of floor time before being voted on. The house version of the bill was shot through and reads as a disaster, with CBO's projections noting for instance, how much money would be saved because 23 million more people would be ejected from health insurance and the reduced mortality rate would lead to lower healthcare costs.

If this sounds remotely familiar, it's because you've entered a parallel universe, where the GOP is trying to ram healthcare down America's throat by fast-tracking it in a manner which does not amount to representation of the people, by the people, or for the people. The same GOP who blasted then -speaker of the house Pelosi for saying "we need to pass the bill to find out whats in it", were comfortable with passing a bill they hadn't read. Which is especially funny given that they lauded how much smaller the bill was compared to the ACA.

In closed doors, the GOP is wheeling and dealing amongst its members to get the 50 votes it needs to pass a Senate version of the bill without any say-so from Americans or the other side of the aisle. The tiebreaker of course, will be VP Pence, unless they find a vote elsewhere. It is puerile hypocrisy of the highest order, that is taking advantage of a media brownout caused by Trump's constant foot-in-mouth syndrome. The same kind of blinding hypocrisy that caused them to block Merrick Garland from the SCOTUS.



When interviewed, Republicans make it clear they have no idea what they're doing aside from trying to get to 51 votes internally: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/16/15810524/senate-ahca-explain-please

Jeff Stein, Vox
I want to ask a very broad question: What do you think this health care bill will accomplish that will improve America? What's the positive case for this bill?

Chuck Grassley
Well, I can tell you what it's going to do for Iowa. We are one of those states that in a couple of weeks if [the insurer] Medica pulls out, we'll have 94 of our 95 counties won't have any insurance ,even for people who have the subsidies. That's what we have to concentrate on now.

Jeff Stein
How do you think the bill will fix that problem?

Chuck Grassley
Well, by bringing certainty to the insurance market. They don't have that certainty now.

Jeff Stein
By bringing certainty to the insurance market. What certainty?

Chuck Grassley
What?

Jeff Stein
What do you mean by certainty?

Chuck Grassley
Well, they can't even file. They have to check the rates real high if they don't know what the government policy is. And so the certainty is that passing a bill gives the health insurance companies certainty.

Jeff Stein
Wouldn't not passing a bill also do that?

Chuck Grassley
No, it ... well, yeah — it gives them certainty that you'll have a lot higher rates than if you pass the bill.

Jeff Stein
So you're saying [the bill] will lower the rates?

Chuck Grassley
Um, if you're talking about lowering the rates from now down, no. The rates could be way up here. [Points to sky] And if they — if we get a bill passed, it maybe wouldn't go up or would go up a heck of a lot less than they would without a bill.

Jeff Stein
By "rates," are you talking about premiums?

Chuck Grassley
Yeah, premiums. … I'm sorry I have to go.

Tara Golshan, Vox
Generally, what are the big problems this bill is trying to solve?

John McCain
Almost all of them. They’re trying to get to 51 votes.

Tara Golshan
Policy-wise. What are the problems [in the American health care system] this is trying to solve — and is the bill doing that right now?

John McCain
Well, it's whether you have full repeal, whether you have partial repeal, whether you have the basis of it. It's spread all over.

Tara Golshan
But based on the specifics of the bill you have heard so far, is it solving the problems [in the health care system]?

John McCain
What I hear is that we have not reached consensus. That’s what everybody knows.

Tara Golshan
Right, but outside of getting the votes. From what you hear of the actual legislation being written, is it solving the problems you see —

John McCain
It's not being written. Because there's no consensus.

Tara Golshan
But generally speaking, what are the big problems it is trying to solve?

John McCain
You name it. Everything from the repeal caucus, which as you know, they have made their views very clear — Rand Paul, etc. And then there are the others on the other side of the spectrum that just want to make minor changes to the present system. There’s not consensus.

Whatever they pass is going to be a chaotic, compromising pile of pulp, presumably now all just to satisfy a now 7-year promise of repealing Obamacare, without haven't any clear replacement plan in mind, just to satisfy an artificial deadline to satisfy low-information voters.

ancapailldorcha

I wish that they'd just try to make the ACA work rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems that they want rid of it because of whose legacy it is almost as much as to push their small government agenda. The Netherlands has a similar system and it's one of the best systems in Europe.

Jim2007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wish that they'd just try to make the ACA work rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems that they want rid of it because of whose legacy it is almost as much as to push their small government agenda. The Netherlands has a similar system and it's one of the best systems in Europe.

There are several European examples available that all work better than the US and if they were serious about it, adapting anyone of them would improve their situation!

If they really don't want government involved, then they could adapt the system we have hear in Switzerland - completely private. Our health dept. employs less than 500 people, but everyone is required to have health insurance and for the standard insurance, all companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions. Yes it is the most expensive in Europe, but it is still cheaper than what they have, everyone is covered and we do not waiting lists.

But for them it is all about the lobby, not fixing the problem.

Overheal

This exchange was truly bizarre, Sen. McCaskil isn't so much trying to get blood from a stone but blood from a stone's Page. In fact, Mr. Hatch seems utterly senile in this conversation:

ancapailldorcha

Jim2007 wrote: »

But for them it is all about the lobby, not fixing the problem.

Aye, this seems to be it. I've noticed that in some sectors, such as airlines that there seems to be a dearth of competition. Odd thing is that you have seniors and people with medical conditions who hate the ACA. I know a nurse in the US and she works in a home where she says the seniors have Fox News on all the time and believe every word of it.

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Aye, this seems to be it. I've noticed that in some sectors, such as airlines that there seems to be a dearth of competition. Odd thing is that you have seniors and people with medical conditions who hate the ACA. I know a nurse in the US and she works in a home where she says the seniors have Fox News on all the time and believe every word of it.

Don't they have Medicare?

ancapailldorcha

Yourself isit wrote: »

Don't they have Medicare?

Probably but I think that that's just for seniors. I'm fairly sure the GOP would object to it on principle and would like to cut it with the aim of completely removing it.

Wanderer78

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Aye, this seems to be it. I've noticed that in some sectors, such as airlines that there seems to be a dearth of competition. Odd thing is that you have seniors and people with medical conditions who hate the ACA. I know a nurse in the US and she works in a home where she says the seniors have Fox News on all the time and believe every word of it.

Thankfully there are millions of Americans that see through the crap that's spread on the mainstream feeds, and realise the mess that is their healthcare system. I hope for their sake they can change it

Jim2007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Aye, this seems to be it. I've noticed that in some sectors, such as airlines that there seems to be a dearth of competition. Odd thing is that you have seniors and people with medical conditions who hate the ACA. I know a nurse in the US and she works in a home where she says the seniors have Fox News on all the time and believe every word of it.

If you have not read it, grab a copy of: What's the matter with Kansas, it goes some way to explaining this mentally.

Overheal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#720eead86187

Came across this old but insightful piece while up to some factchecking, and yes, the GOP loved the idea of the Individual Mandate, before the Democrats agreed with them. After that, they had to be against it, because being against the Democrats is at the core of their political platform.

This tells you something about why Republican party leaders have had such a hard time addressing health policy issues over the last few years. Rather than make a prolonged case for health policy that does not involve endless expansion of entitlements and insurance subsidies, the GOP has instead focused primarily on reacting to Democratic proposals. The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare. Medicare's prescription drug benefit was passed by a Republican president and a Republican Congress under the pretense that if they didn't do it, Democrats would, and it would be worse. In the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans spent more energy arguing against the law's Medicare payment cuts than any other part of the law. Riding a wave of anger over ObamaCare's passage to electoral victory in 2010, party leadership continued to refuse to talk about broader entitlement reform. And now they're on track to nominate [Romney] who, in his only gig as an elected official, signed a state-based law that would provide the model and foundation for ObamaCare—their top legislative target.

Previously in the-GOP-doesn't-do-health-policy: Republicans Didn't Make the Case for Medicare Reform.

Sidenote, it's depressing how hard this conversation is to stoke. Either people don't care or they feel hopeless about, and out of control, the situation.