Post Reply
1 of 1
Republican cynicism on health care on full display
299 Views |
3 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by cinque
Why would Grassley vote more than seven times to abolish OCare and then point with pride to a constituent that his votes were not successful.
Why do you cons still support people who think so little of you?
Why do you cons still support people who think so little of you?
Make Racism Wrong Again
https://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-is-working-134610702.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca&fbclid=IwAR1yWwuNiEds5uGJjljHL8KZhQ9lsKPOXHWU4onyMhPLOis4KUuaKZyW7Gc
Ex-CBO director: Obamacare 'is working' and we've 'wasted almost a decade' trying to dismantle it
In the midst of a battle over U.S. health care, the debate over the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has remained at the forefront.
Doug Elmendorf, dean of the Kennedy School of Government and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2009 to 2015, told Yahoo Finance's Rick Newman that the ACA (also known as Obamacare) "is working" and trying to repeal it is counterproductive.
"More than 20 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have it without the Affordable Care Act," Elmendorf said at the Milken Conference. "That's a huge improvement in their access to health care and a reduction in the out-of-pocket costs that they face."
Elmendorf continued: "Is the law perfect? No. Can we do more to expand health insurance coverage further? Yes. But we've wasted almost a decade now in discussing ways to tear apart that act. We should be looking for ways to build on it and move forward."
''We've made good progress'
Since Obamacare went into effect in 2012, it has been met with opposition from Republican politicians who have made numerous attempts to repeal the legislation. And in December 2018, a Texas judge called ACA's legality into question after ruling that its mandate was unconstitutional and if that part of the law was invalid, so was the rest of the law. The case is currently under appeal. (The Trump administration has made it clear that it sides with the judge on the issue.)
In the meantime, the country is still split on the issue. According to a recent Gallup poll, 50% of Americans approve of the ACA, while 48% disapprove. And health care costs continue to be a main concern, as a different Gallup poll indicated that over 50% of Americans worry "a great deal" about the availability and affordability of health care.
"We've made good progress in expanding health insurance coverage, so more Americans are covered," Elmendorf said. "I think the big challenge now is reducing costs. And that's not so much to be accomplished through plans like Medicare for All, but through changes in how we pay for health care and organize the delivery of health care.
'Blowing up the system ... I don't think is the best approach'
Politicians have recognized the public for a wider health care net, and many have made it a key campaign issue heading into the 2020 presidential election. Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed a Medicare for All plan.
However, Elmendorf doesn't think Medicare for All is the right approach.
"The right way to improve the American health care system is incrementally," Elmendorf said. "Blowing up the system in order to put everybody into a new program I don't think is the best approach."
Medicare for All would cost an estimated $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years and would get rid of the private insurance system, eliminating the need for employers to provide insurance for their workers. Federal health care spending would rise to $3.5 trillion per year, according to a Rand analysis.
There are several incremental ways to improve the health care system incrementally, Elmendorf said, including "how we pay for care to pay for keeping people healthy, rather than paying for each piece of care they receive."
"The problem we have in our health care system is that we're not staying healthy enough, and we're being forced to treat a lot of diseases," he said. "If we paid for keeping people healthy, then we'd have fewer diseases to treat."
Ex-CBO director: Obamacare 'is working' and we've 'wasted almost a decade' trying to dismantle it
In the midst of a battle over U.S. health care, the debate over the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has remained at the forefront.
Doug Elmendorf, dean of the Kennedy School of Government and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2009 to 2015, told Yahoo Finance's Rick Newman that the ACA (also known as Obamacare) "is working" and trying to repeal it is counterproductive.
"More than 20 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have it without the Affordable Care Act," Elmendorf said at the Milken Conference. "That's a huge improvement in their access to health care and a reduction in the out-of-pocket costs that they face."
Elmendorf continued: "Is the law perfect? No. Can we do more to expand health insurance coverage further? Yes. But we've wasted almost a decade now in discussing ways to tear apart that act. We should be looking for ways to build on it and move forward."
''We've made good progress'
Since Obamacare went into effect in 2012, it has been met with opposition from Republican politicians who have made numerous attempts to repeal the legislation. And in December 2018, a Texas judge called ACA's legality into question after ruling that its mandate was unconstitutional and if that part of the law was invalid, so was the rest of the law. The case is currently under appeal. (The Trump administration has made it clear that it sides with the judge on the issue.)
In the meantime, the country is still split on the issue. According to a recent Gallup poll, 50% of Americans approve of the ACA, while 48% disapprove. And health care costs continue to be a main concern, as a different Gallup poll indicated that over 50% of Americans worry "a great deal" about the availability and affordability of health care.
"We've made good progress in expanding health insurance coverage, so more Americans are covered," Elmendorf said. "I think the big challenge now is reducing costs. And that's not so much to be accomplished through plans like Medicare for All, but through changes in how we pay for health care and organize the delivery of health care.
'Blowing up the system ... I don't think is the best approach'
Politicians have recognized the public for a wider health care net, and many have made it a key campaign issue heading into the 2020 presidential election. Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed a Medicare for All plan.
However, Elmendorf doesn't think Medicare for All is the right approach.
"The right way to improve the American health care system is incrementally," Elmendorf said. "Blowing up the system in order to put everybody into a new program I don't think is the best approach."
Medicare for All would cost an estimated $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years and would get rid of the private insurance system, eliminating the need for employers to provide insurance for their workers. Federal health care spending would rise to $3.5 trillion per year, according to a Rand analysis.
There are several incremental ways to improve the health care system incrementally, Elmendorf said, including "how we pay for care to pay for keeping people healthy, rather than paying for each piece of care they receive."
"The problem we have in our health care system is that we're not staying healthy enough, and we're being forced to treat a lot of diseases," he said. "If we paid for keeping people healthy, then we'd have fewer diseases to treat."
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."
Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
The cynicism of these people knows no bounds. They have absolutely nothing to substitute for OCare and are intentionally seeking to remove protections for preexisting conditions:
(CNN)The Trump administration offered its first full argument Wednesday for its reversal on the Affordable Care Act, arguing in new court filings that the entire law "should not be allowed to remain in effect."
The government argues in the filings that the so-called "individual mandate" requiring Americans to have coverage is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law should therefore also be struck down, even if the government "might support some individual provisions as a policy matter."
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/read-justice-department-filing-obamacare-struck-down/index.html][/url]
Read: Justice Department filing saying Obamacare must be struck down
The landmark legislation provides health care coverage to millions of Americans.
In the filing, Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt acknowledged that the administration had previously argued that parts of the law could remain in effect even if the individual mandate were struck down, but he said, the administration had come to believe it could no longer defend that position. He suggested that rewriting the statute by "picking and choosing which provisions to invalidate" would interfere with the role of Congress and the "proper course" for the courts would be to strike down the law in its entirety.
The brief was filed with the conservative-leaning 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear arguments in July and possibly tee up a Supreme Court case next term that could finally decide the fate of the law and render a decision during the heart of the presidential election.
If the law is struck down, it would be a major victory for President Donald Trump, who has worked his entire presidency to wipe away a signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration.
Last month, the President tweeted that Republicans were developing a "really great" health care plan with "far lower premiums" than Obamacare and that a vote will be taken "right after" the election.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton -- a leader of the coalition of challengers -- argued that Congress' action undercut the legal justification for the individual mandate, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court under the taxing power, and as a result rendered the central provision unconstitutional.
"The case is not about whether the ACA is good or bad policy," Paxton argued in briefs also filed Wednesday, "it is about the constitutional limits on our federal government and the proper text-based interpretation statutes."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, leading a coalition of 20 Democratic states, stepped in to defend the law when the .
(CNN)The Trump administration offered its first full argument Wednesday for its reversal on the Affordable Care Act, arguing in new court filings that the entire law "should not be allowed to remain in effect."
The government argues in the filings that the so-called "individual mandate" requiring Americans to have coverage is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law should therefore also be struck down, even if the government "might support some individual provisions as a policy matter."
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/read-justice-department-filing-obamacare-struck-down/index.html][/url]
Read: Justice Department filing saying Obamacare must be struck down
The landmark legislation provides health care coverage to millions of Americans.
In the filing, Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt acknowledged that the administration had previously argued that parts of the law could remain in effect even if the individual mandate were struck down, but he said, the administration had come to believe it could no longer defend that position. He suggested that rewriting the statute by "picking and choosing which provisions to invalidate" would interfere with the role of Congress and the "proper course" for the courts would be to strike down the law in its entirety.
The brief was filed with the conservative-leaning 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear arguments in July and possibly tee up a Supreme Court case next term that could finally decide the fate of the law and render a decision during the heart of the presidential election.
If the law is struck down, it would be a major victory for President Donald Trump, who has worked his entire presidency to wipe away a signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration.
Last month, the President tweeted that Republicans were developing a "really great" health care plan with "far lower premiums" than Obamacare and that a vote will be taken "right after" the election.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton -- a leader of the coalition of challengers -- argued that Congress' action undercut the legal justification for the individual mandate, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court under the taxing power, and as a result rendered the central provision unconstitutional.
"The case is not about whether the ACA is good or bad policy," Paxton argued in briefs also filed Wednesday, "it is about the constitutional limits on our federal government and the proper text-based interpretation statutes."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, leading a coalition of 20 Democratic states, stepped in to defend the law when the .
Make Racism Wrong Again
Who still thinks Republicans will protect preexisting conditions?
Make Racism Wrong Again