Trump

[Play Angry]

Shocking that people that actually pay taxes will be the ones to get cuts.....how does that work? This is personal as well, and we all think what happened to you and your family sucks, because it does, but you're still taking it personally. The 23 million number doesn't pass muster, AND besides, the vast majority of whatever the number is will CHOOSE to not have health care. It's hardly taking it away. You should stop listening to lib talking points.

It gets lost a lot in the crossfire that this bill doesn't do away with the safety nets that existed prior to 2013. If you basically like Obamacare a lot, but don't want to subsidize policies for those with more than de minimis assets then this is a dream bill. The Cruz amendment is sort of its own disaster because of the eventual explosion of the gap between the two tracks of plans.

I get that there's no way to please everybody but boy is it disheartening that nobody pretended to take a stab at a conservative reform effort here.

[ShockingButTrue]

[jdshock]

Shocking that people that actually pay taxes will be the ones to get cuts.

Lots of folks who make less than $200k a year still pay taxes, but people in the absolute top brackets are receiving the greatest benefit. This is true even if you look at it as a percentage of income. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/senate-leaderships-health-bill-big-tax-cut-especially-top-one-percent

If you want to argue with his point (i.e., that Trump appears to support something that's good for Trump), argue with his point. Don't just dismiss it as an something only an imbecile could think up.

[Play Angry]

Another way to think of the current health care bill proposals is this:

If Democrats had sought to snipe a half dozen or so votes from Republican senators and maybe 10-20 Republican members of the HOR by creating a "bipartisan" version of Obamacare that included input from moderate Republicans along with the Democrat supermajority at that time, I would have expected it to look an awful lot like these current proposals. This would have been considered a colossal, epic win for circa 1994 Hillary Clinton.

[Aargh]

Shocking that people that actually pay taxes will be the ones to get cuts.....how does that work? This is personal as well, and we all think what happened to you and your family sucks, because it does, but you're still taking it personally. The 23 million number doesn't pass muster, AND besides, the vast majority of whatever the number is will CHOOSE to not have health care. It's hardly taking it away. You should stop listening to lib talking points.

I have had to deal with the possibility that if I had ANY medical problems, even problems not related to the cancer, that it could easily bankrupt my family. There is very little in life that can make you feel more guilty than leaving your family penniless in an attempt to save your own life.

There is NOTHING as disturbing as contemplating that situation. Unless you've been there, there is virtually no way to understand the absolute devastation a situation like that causes. I do not wish that experience on another human being.

You can call me soft, or call me a raging liberal if you choose. I don't care. You've obviously never been in the position of either unable to afford insurance or be denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

I worked and paid taxes for over 40 years. Then I became uninsurable and unemployable. If it can happen to me, it can happen to about anyone who is not sitting on a million dollar nest egg.

[Kel Varnsen]

A couple of points I'll make on health care (I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseam):

- Health care is not the same as health insurance. The two terms keep being used as interchangeable and that is not the case at all. Health insurance has become nearly a ponzi scheme, and doctor's offices can offer cheaper methods (subscription-based) that help people, especially families, get the care they need.

- For those in situations like Aargh's, while I believe communities should be more active in caring for those less fortunate (people in every community have become more isolated), there is nothing at a governmental level that should be forced upon taxpayers. Ever. As a citizen, you own neither someone else's labor, nor the fruits of that labor. If you do, that's slavery. It's not charity, and it's not Christian (anyone remember the Bible verses where Jesus said, "force people to give what they have to the poor"?) contrary to what many would claim. It does not create incentive to add value to society.

- Most people don't need health insurance for checkups or annual doctor's visits. They need health insurance for catastrophic illnesses/diseases.

- When the left claims that people "lose" the health care they were forced by federal law to get, well, that's a crock of you-know-what.

[ShockCrazy]

A couple of points I'll make on health care (I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseam):

- Health care is not the same as health insurance. The two terms keep being used as interchangeable and that is not the case at all. Health insurance has become nearly a ponzi scheme, and doctor's offices can offer cheaper methods (subscription-based) that help people, especially families, get the care they need.

- For those in situations like Aargh's, while I believe communities should be more active in caring for those less fortunate (people in every community have become more isolated), there is nothing at a governmental level that should be forced upon taxpayers. Ever. As a citizen, you own neither someone else's labor, nor the fruits of that labor. If you do, that's slavery. It's not charity, and it's not Christian (anyone remember the Bible verses where Jesus said, "force people to give what they have to the poor"?) contrary to what many would claim. It does not create incentive to add value to society.

- Most people don't need health insurance for checkups or annual doctor's visits. They need health insurance for catastrophic illnesses/diseases.

- When the left claims that people "lose" the health care they were forced by federal law to get, well, that's a crock of you-know-what.

I would hesitate to include Christianity since Render unto Caesar has many interpretations and it could be claimed the exact opposite. Also people frequently think about government involvement in healthcare the entirely wrong way, it's not about paying for someone else's healthcare, it's about distributing the burden of healthcare that we all will face at some point across everyone over time. Also I don't understand the point of your 3rd bullet.

[Kel Varnsen]

I would hesitate to include Christianity since Render unto Caesar has many interpretations and it could be claimed the exact opposite. Also people frequently think about government involvement in healthcare the entirely wrong way, it's not about paying for someone else's healthcare, it's about distributing the burden of healthcare that we all will face at some point across everyone over time. Also I don't understand the point of your 3rd bullet.

The "render unto Caesar" argument it appears you are making would make more sense if I had said, "I won't pay taxes since I'm being forced to pay for someone else's health care". The context of that story was Jews asking Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Roman government. It does not mean that Jesus supports the government taking money from citizens by force.

"Distributing the burden of health care" inevitably means paying for someone else's health care at the threat of force. That's the very essence of the phrase you gave. If we all face it, then why not just let each person pay for their own (this is not the crux of my argument at all, just an illustration)?

[Play Angry]

The repeal without replacement vote fails 45-55. Republicans who voted against are listed below:

	Susan Collins Me.
	Dean Heller Nev.
	Lisa Murkowski Alaska
	Lamar Alexander Tenn.
	Shelley Moore Capito W.Va.
	John McCain Ariz.
	Rob Portman Ohio

Collins, Heller and Murkowski voted No on each of the first two offerings. The rest of the list above voted in favor of the original repeal and replace option last night.

[shockmonster]

Same as the one that Mike Lee and Jerry Moran killed last week I believe.

No. I just heard that they have now voted No to the Cruz Anendment which was a tweak to last weeks bill (it allowed for catastrophic coverages and fewer options ) and now they voted No on a straight repeal of Obamacare.

[ShockCrazy]

The "render unto Caesar" argument it appears you are making would make more sense if I had said, "I won't pay taxes since I'm being forced to pay for someone else's health care". The context of that story was Jews asking Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Roman government. It does not mean that Jesus supports the government taking money from citizens by force.

"Distributing the burden of health care" inevitably means paying for someone else's health care at the threat of force. That's the very essence of the phrase you gave. If we all face it, then why not just let each person pay for their own (this is not the crux of my argument at all, just an illustration)?

Well first, do you imply all taxes are by force then? Because that seems to be the stance you have taken. Also it's amusing you would say he doesn't support taxes taken by force since tax collectors at the time were government endorsed shakedowns by nature of how taxes were collected at the time(a bid process with collectors being allowed to collect as much as they could and keep the difference).

Why not let them pay themselves? Because money can be saved by distributing the burden. It's akin to buying in bulk. You can mitigate cost across multiple incidences, rather than an individuals certain circumstances.

[Play Angry]

No. I just heard that they have now voted No to the Cruz Anendment which was a tweak to last weeks bill (it allowed for catastrophic coverages and fewer options ) and now they voted No on a straight repeal of Obamacare.

The Cruz Amendment was part of the proposal that Moran and Lee killed. It was the reason Cruz was in favor of it, as opposed to the immediately preceding version which he remained uncommitted to.

Just the same, it is all failing. They have a couple of days to figure it out or we are back where we ended last week.

[SB Shock]

A couple of points I'll make on health care (I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseam):

- Health care is not the same as health insurance. The two terms keep being used as interchangeable and that is not the case at all. Health insurance has become nearly a ponzi scheme, and doctor's offices can offer cheaper methods (subscription-based) that help people, especially families, get the care they need.

I think that is a key issue. We keep talking health insurance, but what people want is health care. Affordable health care. Previously that mechanism was through health insurance programs. But that has changed now - it harder and harder to get health care through insurance. And there will be some people who will not be happy unless that health care is free (no or minimal out of pocket expenses).

Then you have another subset of people who are not happy if anything is forced on them. And finally we don't have a political process in place that is willing to find a compromise, and it seems both sides are concerned with the lobbyist than the needs of the people.

[WuDrWu]

One area that I felt never got enough attention was the pre-existing clause.

I never really heard anyone discuss this in depth. If you only want insurance when you get sick, that's not going to work. People understand this yes? I can't buy car insurance right after I get into an accident. And if I could, my premiums would be the price of the car, and then some.

If you mandate coverage, then there is no lapse, so why is there any talk of pre-existing conditions? If you have to have coverage, then you have coverage. You're always covered, therefore by definition nothing is pre-existing, right?

What am I missing? (I understand if there is no mandate, then the question comes back into play).

@Aargh:, I understand and I sympathize with your family's plight. I know I come across as terse, but I don't ask anything from another that I don't ask more from myself. I want the best possible, doable, outcome for everyone. More so for everyone BUT me. But I know that answer isn't the best healthcare that money can provide that is available to every man woman and child. It's not possible.

Why is it not possible? First, what if I want to go to the best doctor? Does she have to work 24/7 to accommodate me, and everyone else that wants to see her instead of someone nearby?

Not every doctor is a great doctor, just like every coach isn't a great coach.

We need to return at least SOME (and I believe a plurality) responsibility to the patient to manage their lives. Those that know me are aware I'm unlikely to live a long life. Could I be "treated"? Perhaps...probably certainly. With a bottomless pit, almost definitely. But I'm aware some of my problems I'm responsible for. I believe too often we project our own desires onto others. Bad things will happen in this world.

I want better for everyone else. Screw me. I couldn't give a rat's **** about me. I guess I'm ranting about offense taken that somehow I want granny killed off early and to keep all my income to buy and sell people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But I want to discuss the truth. Truth isn't discussing people having health insurance taken from them when they didn't want it in the first place. Truth isn't talking about slashing healthcare spending when it's really reducing built in increases from an overinflated 7% to a still overinflated 4%. Truth isn't talking about closing healthcare options when EVERY man woman and child can walk into an emergency room and be seen.

We all (I think) agree things need to be fixed, tweaked at a minimum. Please for the love of God can we stop placing the blame on folks that are carrying the lion's share of the burden already, whether or not we agree that they should carry a further burden? And to be clear, I am not one of those people, regardless what my tax return may or may not say.

[jdshock]

I never really heard anyone discuss this in depth. If you only want insurance when you get sick, that's not going to work. People understand this yes? I can't buy car insurance right after I get into an accident. And if I could, my premiums would be the price of the car, and then some.

If you mandate coverage, then there is no lapse, so why is there any talk of pre-existing conditions? If you have to have coverage, then you have coverage. You're always covered, therefore by definition nothing is pre-existing, right?

What am I missing? (I understand if there is no mandate, then the question comes back into play).

If we try to incorporate a system without the mandate but also allow pre-existing condition coverage, that system is going to break incredibly quickly.

But to your point about why there is a discussion under a mandate, there could still be a scenario where someone had a lapse in coverage, for whatever reason.