pull down to refresh

The GOP’s ObamaCare Opportunity (WSJ, The Editorial Board)www.wsj.com/opinion/the-gops-obamacare-opportunity-c866afa7
166 sats \ 6 comments \ @Cje95 2h Politics_And_Law
This is a complete flip of the script by the Wall Street Journal. Since the start of Trump 2.0 the WSJ has been extremely critical and vocal on the Admin and have urged Republicans in Congress to push back on Trumps policies. Now though the script is flipped as they are encouraging Republicans in Congress to deny Democrats what they want in the Obamacare subsidies and essentially show the American people how terrible the healthcare law is. Trump has been open to the idea of extending the subsidies only making the whole WSJ story more interesting.
The Editorial Board though is 110% right though. Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is terrible and has only increased insurance rates, decreased the number of doctors taking insurance, and led to the huge issues at emergency rooms to name just a few. People do not want these programs offered unless the government pays down a huge portion of it and that just further shows how unpopular it is and more importantly how bad the underlying program system is.
You can't just keep slapping a Band-Aid on a torn off arm or lipstick on a pig. The legislation has to be addressed and significant changes need to be made.
write
preview
related posts
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 2h
Obamacare is terrible and I was saying it's terrible since 2009 when they were first trying to pass the bill. It doesn't actually fix any of the inherent problems.
I don't know how to get progressives to reflect on why their policies never make anything better. Whether it's housing or healthcare, their policies always create a new group of people dependent on government subsidies, while doing nothing to address the issues in the system that make things unaffordable to begin with.
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 OP 2h
The single thing that was good over the entire bill was preventing insurance companies from either kicking you off or denying your insurance due to preexisting conditions. Thats it.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 2h
Even the pre-existing conditions part is bad policy imo. You cannot force companies to take on money-losing clients without massive distortions. I'm actually of the opinion that a public option for all makes the most sense. Here's where I differ from many other conservatives and libertarians.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 2h
So prior to the law someone like me who was born with a condition that was not detected until I was 20 Blue Cross and Blue Shield could have kicked me off of my insurance because it was a pre existing condition. No one knew about it though because it was a very rare thing. My parents spent 20 years paying into it so it doesnt make sense to me that insurance companies would be able to kick me off once I needed to use it for surgery.
What insurance companies should do is either A) create two groups or B) if you hit health markers you get a bigger and bigger discount.
The prior law though was just way to loose and let them really get away with kicking people off for a ton of reasons that really were not valid. It would be different if I was changing policy but my parents were on the same plan since I was born.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 49m
My parents spent 20 years paying into it so it doesnt make sense to me that insurance companies would be able to kick me off once I needed to use it for surgery
I agree. But the way I see it isn't whether they should or shouldn't be allowed, but why the default contract is year-to-year to begin with. Why doesn't the market support insurance plans where you pay into it for 30 years, so that when you're young and healthy you're paying into it, but if you get sick when you're older it's there if you need it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 1h
Insurance needs to die to begin with anyway. Its use case simply does not belong with a profit driven organization.
Fuck insurance. Make fraternal organizations popular again: https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/benefits-considerations-for-fraternal-organizations-described-in-irc-section-501c8
reply