Muledeer Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I have been amused watching the Trumpcare bill winding its way through the Republican House. The (anti) climax occurred yesterday when there wasn't even a vote held on it and they declared this effort dead. What happened? Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 It was not brought to the House floor for an actual vote because the extreme wing of the Republican Party wanted amendments that the more moderate wing didn't want. The extremists wanted to pare the bill down so that it only provided what was essentially emergency care -- not a complete list of health care. The moderates were afraid that their constituents would be (rightfully) angry at having most of their health insurance yanked away from them. There is a huge divergence between those two groups and there was no way to get them together. House Speaker Ryan didn't want the public spectacle of having the vote fail. Link to post Share on other sites
Member54880 Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 The House has a Republican majority, but enough Republicans were against the bill that it would fail in the House. Some of them were against it because of how many people would be expected to lose their health coverage over it, and that it was going to repeal some aspects of the Affordable Care Act, but others were against it because it didn't repeal all of the protections that were passed as part of the ACA. Link to post Share on other sites
Tofer Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 39 minutes ago, Sally said: The extremists wanted to pare the bill down so that it only provided what was essentially emergency care -- not a complete list of health care. The extremists are even more extreme than that: they wanted even emergency care not to be covered under what they still somehow want to call "insurance." Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 People should be able to buy what kind of coverage they want specifically. Not buy one package with everything (including things you don't need like with ACA. Thats the reason it was so expensive). The bill that failed was designed to allow you to pick and choose exactly what you wanted. It would only pay for what you wanted it to pay for. I don't see why people were against it. The major issue with healthcare isn't even with insurance, but the patents big pharma and corporatism. Insurance literally means nothing to the majority of people. It should also to be a gauge of people being able to get care. Link to post Share on other sites
ChillaKilla Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Because it stunk, frankly Link to post Share on other sites
Muledeer Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 1 hour ago, スバル said: People should be able to buy what kind of coverage they want specifically. Not buy one package with everything (including things you don't need like with ACA. Thats the reason it was so expensive). The bill that failed was designed to allow you to pick and choose exactly what you wanted. It would only pay for what you wanted it to pay for. I don't see why people were against it. The major issue with healthcare isn't even with insurance, but the patents big pharma and corporatism. Insurance literally means nothing to the majority of people. It should also to be a gauge of people being able to get care. In a perfect world that would be nice, but by your logic, you would not have to buy a health insurance policy that covers pregnancy until after you get pregnant, or addiction insurance until after you have become addicted. That would pretty much take the "what if" premise out of insurance policies and the insurance companies would go under. Insurance works because the people who are doing OK and not filing claims are still paying premiums which pay the costs of those who have suffered losses and filed claims. This is the premise of most insurance models, health, auto, homeowners, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Two words: damage control. And the Republicans are even botching that up. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamer23 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 No one ever expected it to ever pass - there had been so much hate against it from all sides since it had been announced. On the other hand, proposing it may or may not have been an intentional step of the Trump administration to get rid of Paul Ryan, which they seem to use it for now. Link to post Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 12 hours ago, スバル said: People should be able to buy what kind of coverage they want specifically. Not buy one package with everything (including things you don't need like with ACA. Thats the reason it was so expensive). The bill that failed was designed to allow you to pick and choose exactly what you wanted. It would only pay for what you wanted it to pay for. I don't see why people were against it. The major issue with healthcare isn't even with insurance, but the patents big pharma and corporatism. Insurance literally means nothing to the majority of people. It should also to be a gauge of people being able to get care. Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because it would throw 24 million people off health insurance, cut $880 billion from Medicaid, and give a $275 billion tax break to the rich? Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 On 3/27/2017 at 1:17 AM, AcePsycho86 said: Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because it would throw 24 million people off health insurance, cut $880 billion from Medicaid, and give a $275 billion tax break to the rich? Medicaid and unemployment make up ~2 Trillion dollars of the entire budget, while everything else is less. (Yes, including military, which sits at ~600b) IF you want to rag on USA, for maintaining peaceful tensions in the East, and currently in a war, go ahead. BUT, that is why we spend so much on the military. IT is not like USA is just increasing spending in peacetime. USA has long been a maintainer of Peace in certain parts of the world (And being interventionist in others), and has been the front of advanced technology for decades. No one can compete with USA on that. If you are currently in a war, and fighting a terrorist organization. You cannot just cut funds, that is foolish. Please keep in mind, I am an isolationist and don't agree with it interventionism at all. I just know you cannot just bail out, on what you started. So you either do what is right, and fix the problem. OR compromise the safety of the entire western civilization. Gee, I wonder what seems like the best option here. I personally want USA to tell everyone else to go fuck themselves. (Except Japan, because Japan is cool.) Why should the rich pay more than their allocated amount? IF people decided on a tax, and they payed it. Why should it matter if the same people who voted also lowered that tax? Scapegoating the Rich, doesn't seem like it would solve any problem. They have a say in this as well. They are not some group of non-humans. While I don't agree with money in politics, you should not shit on people with money. Many of them do a lot for their communities, and earned what they have. The entire "American dream" was about being successful and passing it down to your kids so they didn't have to work so hard and do more things with their life. Link to post Share on other sites
carbomb Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Because neither Paul Ryan nor Trump are real conservatives, yet promised a conservative bill and failed to provide one. No self-respecting Republican would have voted for it. Link to post Share on other sites
andreas1033 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Its the consequence, of a president whom brought his electoral college votes, so never truly had the support of his party. He never had any real support from republicans during primaries, and election, so when he got in, such things as this was very likely. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 The Never Trump Republicans are being hella stupid in this too. They need to swallow their damn pride and work with Trump. Then again, this just proves what I said that many Dems and Reps are 2 sides of the same coin, the same establishment, and the same problem. The Republicans not supporting Trump are the corrupt ones. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 don't worry, the dudes going against what I think is right are the corrupt ones too. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 8 hours ago, gisiebob said: don't worry, the dudes going against what I think is right are the corrupt ones too. There is no such thing as "right", there is only what works. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 there is no such thing as what works, there is only right and wrong. should you get the individual to believe in you, they will make a broken steamboat cross the atlantic. if you get someone to believe against you they will question why the most accurate clock is showing the wrong time. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, gisiebob said: there is no such thing as what works, there is only right and wrong. should you get the individual to believe in you, they will make a broken steamboat cross the atlantic. if you get someone to believe against you they will question why the most accurate clock is showing the wrong time. No idea what you meant with this^ Right and wrong are concepts that change, and are up to the individual. Actions based in logic, and through experience, that prove that they work, are methods. Some methods that work, can be morally bad. That doesn't mean they don't work. No matter what method one uses, someone will always be excluded since none are perfect. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 so all methods will end up not working for some individuals? almost as if something works or doesn't work based on your own individual point of view of right and wrong? if you want to remove individualism from the argument, would you be able to remove yourself and everyone you cared about from the argument? Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 3 hours ago, gisiebob said: so all methods will end up not working for some individuals? almost as if something works or doesn't work based on your own individual point of view of right and wrong? if you want to remove individualism from the argument, would you be able to remove yourself and everyone you cared about from the argument? Yes. No method can work for everyone. So ww must choose the one that can work for the most people. I am not sure if I am understanding you clearly either. The only methods one should employ, help the majority of any group. Only focusing on the majority, will always lead to some kind of success. Only focusing on the minorities will lead to division, and failure. That is not a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of logical foresight. Also I almost never put myself or others well being into the logic I come up with, in solving a problem. For example. If you have a group of people lost in the woods, in the middle of winter, and starving. 4/5 of them are omnivores. The 5th one is a devout vegan, never willing to eat bugs or meat. The group decides to hunt, but the vegan constantly complains they can't eat meat. The 4 starving people don't care. They just want to eat. The group hunts and catches a deer, but the vegan refuses the meat and goes hungry. The men know there is practically zero veggies for the vegan, since it is wintertime. Should they expend vital resources to find something for the vegan to eat. Or should the vegan violate his belief and adapt, to devour meat. Logically, the vegan should adapt. Him adapting, is putting the majority first. Now all 5 people could live. If the 4 omnivores decide to expend their energy to feed the 1 vegan. The odds of the entire group surviving, decline. Due to unneeded expenditure of vital energy for the individual omnivores to survive. So a division is created in the group. Help or not? Either way, the chances of survival decline more with division. A compromise would be forcefeeding the vegan...but thats a different point for another argument. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 so you support federalized healthcare then? it's not like that idea is some experimental risk like deinstitutionalizing currency, other countries are getting by just fine without maintaining the moneymaking industry of health gambling, it appears to be quite doable and creates a healthier society. sure there are minorities that create headaches with abusing the system for things like drug dependencies and frivolous nonissues that they would now feel entitled to patronage for, but are we or aren't we talking about individuals? Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, gisiebob said: so you support federalized healthcare then? it's not like that idea is some experimental risk like deinstitutionalizing currency, other countries are getting by just fine without maintaining the moneymaking industry of health gambling, it appears to be quite doable and creates a healthier society. sure there are minorities that create headaches with abusing the system for things like drug dependencies and frivolous nonissues that they would now feel entitled to patronage for, but are we or aren't we talking about individuals? IF the government declared all medical patents, and pharmaceutical patents "Illegitimate", and allowed everyone to use them. I would most definitely support federalized health care if they did that. Since the problem with healthcare in America, isn't the healthcare itself, or even the insurance. It is the bureaucracy and corporations surrounding it. There are so many factors in play, that it all adds up to the obscene costs to begin with. Here is a list of things for you to glance over if you have time, that detail many of the things wrong with it. Link to post Share on other sites
SithAzathoth WinterDragon Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 As far as I know it was not brought up to be even looked upon, and it probably would have failed anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.