Scalise says they're working on something better? Fifteen years of working on something better for the insurance companies (no more pre existing conditions, perhaps?) That's encouraging news. How's infrastructure week going?
Speaker Johnson: "We actually are working on better alternatives right now to lower premiums for families." Concepts of plans? Why improve things in the 21st century when the Republicans are developing something to take effect in the 22nd century?
Because Obama was President, Republicans refused to support any aspect of the ACA. Democrats made concessions that diminished the ability of the act to succeed but we're intended to draw support from the right. Yet once the Act was diminished to appease them, no Republicans voted for the bill. Then red states refused to participate, reducing the pool of insured under the Act and straining the system. Compounding the problem, Congress, by then Republican refused to do the necessary tweaks that were found necessary once the program began.
The irony of it all is that the ACA was developed on a Heritage Foundation's health care proposal to counter Clinton's attempts at solving the crisis. Republicans backed themselves into a corner when Obama used their plan as a model. And it's a pretty good indicator of why, for all the Republican bluster, they've got nothing to replace it except going back to the old, failed ways. And they're biting off their heads to spite their face if the extensions are not approved. When the prices skyrocket, the cry for a single payer plan will grow exponentially.
Bankruptcy rates were cut in half in the two years after Obamacare was passed. While the initial overall cost of care went up briefly, as people who had not had access to care went and got their backlogged issues addressed, eventually the overall cost of care went down as well, as exiting critical issues were taken care of, and people were able to get more consistent preventative care, which is cheaper than emergency and catastrophic treatments (and has better outcomes). Healthier populations are cheaper to take care of (and are more productive). These gains will be lost if Republicans roll back Obamacare.
But… I don’t disagree with Sarah’s point about giving the Republicans the rope to hang themselves. The Democrats are shutting down thee government to prevent … the REpublicans (who won the election pretty handily) from doing a really unpopular thing. Why? Didn’t the Democrats get the memo? Elections have consequences. I think we should start giving people the grace of living with those consequences. Maybe they’ll learn something. Maybe they won’t. Who knows. Last time the Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare, a lot of people found out it’s not just brown people in cities who are benefitting. Stop calling it the Big Beautiful/awful/whatever Bill. It’s Trumpcare. Hang it on the Republicans. See what the voters do.
Now that Trump has all these tariffs funds that he can spend without congressional approval, why don’t the Dems draft up an EO for Trump to sign saying that for 2026 the extended subsidies will be funded from his tariff pot? At a minimum it puts Trump on the spot when he rejects it.
Still glad that the Republicrats claim to have a "concept of a plan" to replace the current healthcare situation. Negotiate with thugs at your peril-they are never distinguished by their principles or their honesty. As dear old Ronnie used to say "trust but (which negates the premise) verify" in plain English meaning don't trust the bastards and nail their feet to the floor. Of course, Demopublicans always defer to thugs so good luck with that.
Main effects of the lapsing subsidies will likely be increased morbidity and medical bill induced bankruptcies in the affected population - mostly appearing to be rural and elderly. No worries, though, the grandkids will take up the slack-or not. YMMV.
Everyone keeps telling the GOP and the media (and Larry and David Ellison) that MAGA doesn't support the GOP, nor do the RINO's, Dems, blacks, Hispanics or LBGTQ. But the richest have this idea that Trump will make them richer - or sue them. Sad spineless people. Even Trump is weird - retire dude , you will never spend enough money before you die -and in the end, no one cares about your legacy.
I couldn't help giggling at the quote from Scalise: "We actually are working on better alternatives right now to lower premiums for families." I guess we should look for their proposal in "about two weeks" or so.
It should have been a teachable moment for the Dems when they learned that GOP ruled states would fight to limit the expansion of Medicaid despite the low cost and high benefit to their citizens. The Dems assumed that even the GOP wouldn't turn down a cheap way to help the most needy in their states. Instead, of course, the GOP turned opposition to Medicaid expansion into another front in the culture war and an article of faith among the red folk. And the lesson the Dems should have learned is that they need the power to crush GOP opposition to social progress since the GOP is pathologically uninterested that project.
Each day, as a supporter of NPR, reference is made to the purpose of the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, that medical care be seen not as a privilege to Americans, but a right.
This distills the basis of the Republican/conservative objection to universal health care as they deem the right to be socialism.
And as an aside, consider which special interest has the most to lose with a program of universal coverage. Just check to whom the health insurance industry focuses its political contributions. A clue: It ain't Democrats.
The continuing inability to methodically and frankly discuss this fundamental topic may well be the best example of how our Liberal Democracy has struggled to demonstrate compelling usefulness.
I lived in 3 different European countries, returning to the USA in 2010 after a decade of experience with several approaches to universal health care. It was shocking to me how many Americans were so indoctrinated with a false narrative about how the rest of the world lives. The personal experiences of myself and my family carried no weight with at least half the country, who were totally unable to even consider the idea that some form of national government involvement could be beneficially in any way. The literally were unable to hear my personal experiences about the convenience, cost, and quality. More than one acquaintance responded with some variation of “well, I have a friend who lived in England, and he says……”.
Republicans living in total denial about the economic and practical outcomes enjoyed by the rest of the world may be an insurmountable barrier to any further improvement in cost or complexity. Unfortunately, the Democrats have never been able to boil this down to a simple message. In many (most?) countries, if one of the 2 major political parties had no position on health care reform, they would suffer at the polls, but Obama was never able to make it clear that the Republicans were not even willing to discuss the Affordable Care Act. The President and Congress were able to take advantage of a period of Democratic control and use it to add further complexity to what was already a Byzantine mess, and this has subsequently proven to be a rhetorical opportunity for a Republican Party that lacks the imagination, and courage, to imagine some sort of alternative that would actually be acceptable to their own supporters.
It remains baffling to me that the points made by Jonathan are not part of our national dialogue. No other people in the world wastes so much time and energy struggling with a convoluted and adversarial payment system. No other people spends this much money per capita. No other people treats access to basic care so cavalierly. The primary reason has been the eagerness of the Republican rank and file to believe easily disproven propaganda about the relative success of healthcare across the globe. And in spite of having so much actual human experience to draw from, the technocratic Democrats have been unable to develop a counter narrative.
I worry that we are experiencing the system that we deserve.
When will the MAGA crew realize that the ACA is the only viable option to “Medicare for all” or a similar plan. Thus the ACA is the “conservative” alternative.
The cost of healthcare is what it is. The insurance industry needs higher “premiums” to pay healthcare providers what they need to stay in business. Insureds can’t afford the necessary premiums. As such subsidies must fill the gap.
Voters seem to understand the above, but many GOP legislators don’t. The ones that do are afraid to say so. Maybe we need a national referendum to determine how to finance the coverage folks need/want. It’s dollars in vs dollars out. Sadly, only the government can solve, and only higher taxes can fund the solution. Only when voters speak up will Congress reluctantly agree.
The for profit insurance industry is exactly why we cannot have real health care in this country. Check out the CEO compensation at these so-called insurance companies.
Back in the 1980's I had a disabled child and the only "insurance" we could get for him was through the State of Minnesota. The premiums for just him was $1300.00 a month, the deductible was $7000.00 and the 200 page policy of exclusions, co-pays etc. made it a non-starter in our budget. He actually had nowhere near those kinds of health expenses on a regular basis. He was physically disabled which did not equate to needing a lot of actual medical care.
I am also sick of people like Scalise, who was shot but had exceptional tax-payer provided health care bleating about why the rest of us shouldn't have that same health care.
Not sure what percentage of administrative costs that is but just how many zeroes does one need in their bank account while they are cancelling policies, denying claims and denying procedures to insured.
The GOP dilemma in Johnson's own district: 118K of his constituents are covered via the extension of the subsidies in the ACA. 40% of his constituents receive subsidies through Medicaid - one of the highest concentrations in the country. In essence, he has to convince almost 50% of his constituents to vote against their own best interests.
Scalise says they're working on something better? Fifteen years of working on something better for the insurance companies (no more pre existing conditions, perhaps?) That's encouraging news. How's infrastructure week going?
Speaker Johnson: "We actually are working on better alternatives right now to lower premiums for families." Concepts of plans? Why improve things in the 21st century when the Republicans are developing something to take effect in the 22nd century?
Republicans will only make things worse. You can trust me!
Because Obama was President, Republicans refused to support any aspect of the ACA. Democrats made concessions that diminished the ability of the act to succeed but we're intended to draw support from the right. Yet once the Act was diminished to appease them, no Republicans voted for the bill. Then red states refused to participate, reducing the pool of insured under the Act and straining the system. Compounding the problem, Congress, by then Republican refused to do the necessary tweaks that were found necessary once the program began.
The irony of it all is that the ACA was developed on a Heritage Foundation's health care proposal to counter Clinton's attempts at solving the crisis. Republicans backed themselves into a corner when Obama used their plan as a model. And it's a pretty good indicator of why, for all the Republican bluster, they've got nothing to replace it except going back to the old, failed ways. And they're biting off their heads to spite their face if the extensions are not approved. When the prices skyrocket, the cry for a single payer plan will grow exponentially.
Bankruptcy rates were cut in half in the two years after Obamacare was passed. While the initial overall cost of care went up briefly, as people who had not had access to care went and got their backlogged issues addressed, eventually the overall cost of care went down as well, as exiting critical issues were taken care of, and people were able to get more consistent preventative care, which is cheaper than emergency and catastrophic treatments (and has better outcomes). Healthier populations are cheaper to take care of (and are more productive). These gains will be lost if Republicans roll back Obamacare.
But… I don’t disagree with Sarah’s point about giving the Republicans the rope to hang themselves. The Democrats are shutting down thee government to prevent … the REpublicans (who won the election pretty handily) from doing a really unpopular thing. Why? Didn’t the Democrats get the memo? Elections have consequences. I think we should start giving people the grace of living with those consequences. Maybe they’ll learn something. Maybe they won’t. Who knows. Last time the Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare, a lot of people found out it’s not just brown people in cities who are benefitting. Stop calling it the Big Beautiful/awful/whatever Bill. It’s Trumpcare. Hang it on the Republicans. See what the voters do.
Now that Trump has all these tariffs funds that he can spend without congressional approval, why don’t the Dems draft up an EO for Trump to sign saying that for 2026 the extended subsidies will be funded from his tariff pot? At a minimum it puts Trump on the spot when he rejects it.
The Tarriffs are already spoken for- they have to replace all the soybean revenue for the farmers.
But at least make him publicly say no.
Still glad that the Republicrats claim to have a "concept of a plan" to replace the current healthcare situation. Negotiate with thugs at your peril-they are never distinguished by their principles or their honesty. As dear old Ronnie used to say "trust but (which negates the premise) verify" in plain English meaning don't trust the bastards and nail their feet to the floor. Of course, Demopublicans always defer to thugs so good luck with that.
Main effects of the lapsing subsidies will likely be increased morbidity and medical bill induced bankruptcies in the affected population - mostly appearing to be rural and elderly. No worries, though, the grandkids will take up the slack-or not. YMMV.
Thank you Jonathan. Nice piece of work with good backup.
Everyone keeps telling the GOP and the media (and Larry and David Ellison) that MAGA doesn't support the GOP, nor do the RINO's, Dems, blacks, Hispanics or LBGTQ. But the richest have this idea that Trump will make them richer - or sue them. Sad spineless people. Even Trump is weird - retire dude , you will never spend enough money before you die -and in the end, no one cares about your legacy.
They're still working on a better approach. How many years has it been.
I couldn't help giggling at the quote from Scalise: "We actually are working on better alternatives right now to lower premiums for families." I guess we should look for their proposal in "about two weeks" or so.
So effing stupid.
It should have been a teachable moment for the Dems when they learned that GOP ruled states would fight to limit the expansion of Medicaid despite the low cost and high benefit to their citizens. The Dems assumed that even the GOP wouldn't turn down a cheap way to help the most needy in their states. Instead, of course, the GOP turned opposition to Medicaid expansion into another front in the culture war and an article of faith among the red folk. And the lesson the Dems should have learned is that they need the power to crush GOP opposition to social progress since the GOP is pathologically uninterested that project.
Each day, as a supporter of NPR, reference is made to the purpose of the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, that medical care be seen not as a privilege to Americans, but a right.
This distills the basis of the Republican/conservative objection to universal health care as they deem the right to be socialism.
And as an aside, consider which special interest has the most to lose with a program of universal coverage. Just check to whom the health insurance industry focuses its political contributions. A clue: It ain't Democrats.
The continuing inability to methodically and frankly discuss this fundamental topic may well be the best example of how our Liberal Democracy has struggled to demonstrate compelling usefulness.
I lived in 3 different European countries, returning to the USA in 2010 after a decade of experience with several approaches to universal health care. It was shocking to me how many Americans were so indoctrinated with a false narrative about how the rest of the world lives. The personal experiences of myself and my family carried no weight with at least half the country, who were totally unable to even consider the idea that some form of national government involvement could be beneficially in any way. The literally were unable to hear my personal experiences about the convenience, cost, and quality. More than one acquaintance responded with some variation of “well, I have a friend who lived in England, and he says……”.
Republicans living in total denial about the economic and practical outcomes enjoyed by the rest of the world may be an insurmountable barrier to any further improvement in cost or complexity. Unfortunately, the Democrats have never been able to boil this down to a simple message. In many (most?) countries, if one of the 2 major political parties had no position on health care reform, they would suffer at the polls, but Obama was never able to make it clear that the Republicans were not even willing to discuss the Affordable Care Act. The President and Congress were able to take advantage of a period of Democratic control and use it to add further complexity to what was already a Byzantine mess, and this has subsequently proven to be a rhetorical opportunity for a Republican Party that lacks the imagination, and courage, to imagine some sort of alternative that would actually be acceptable to their own supporters.
It remains baffling to me that the points made by Jonathan are not part of our national dialogue. No other people in the world wastes so much time and energy struggling with a convoluted and adversarial payment system. No other people spends this much money per capita. No other people treats access to basic care so cavalierly. The primary reason has been the eagerness of the Republican rank and file to believe easily disproven propaganda about the relative success of healthcare across the globe. And in spite of having so much actual human experience to draw from, the technocratic Democrats have been unable to develop a counter narrative.
I worry that we are experiencing the system that we deserve.
When will the MAGA crew realize that the ACA is the only viable option to “Medicare for all” or a similar plan. Thus the ACA is the “conservative” alternative.
The cost of healthcare is what it is. The insurance industry needs higher “premiums” to pay healthcare providers what they need to stay in business. Insureds can’t afford the necessary premiums. As such subsidies must fill the gap.
Voters seem to understand the above, but many GOP legislators don’t. The ones that do are afraid to say so. Maybe we need a national referendum to determine how to finance the coverage folks need/want. It’s dollars in vs dollars out. Sadly, only the government can solve, and only higher taxes can fund the solution. Only when voters speak up will Congress reluctantly agree.
The for profit insurance industry is exactly why we cannot have real health care in this country. Check out the CEO compensation at these so-called insurance companies.
Back in the 1980's I had a disabled child and the only "insurance" we could get for him was through the State of Minnesota. The premiums for just him was $1300.00 a month, the deductible was $7000.00 and the 200 page policy of exclusions, co-pays etc. made it a non-starter in our budget. He actually had nowhere near those kinds of health expenses on a regular basis. He was physically disabled which did not equate to needing a lot of actual medical care.
I am also sick of people like Scalise, who was shot but had exceptional tax-payer provided health care bleating about why the rest of us shouldn't have that same health care.
Do you think eliminating for profit
insurance companies will somehow reduce overall administrative costs?
What % of administrative costs are represented by CEO salaries, in your opinion?
Joseph Zubretsky, Molina Healthcare
Total compensation: $22,131,256
CEO pay ratio: 278:1
Karen Lynch, CVS Health
Total compensation: $21,317,055
CEO pay ratio: 380:1
David Cordani, Cigna
Total compensation: $20,965,504
CEO pay ratio: 277:1
Gail Boudreaux, Elevance Health
Total compensation: $20,931,081
CEO pay ratio: 383:1
Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth Group
Total compensation: $20,865,106
CEO pay ratio: 331:1
Bruce Broussard, Humana
Total compensation: $17,198,844
CEO pay ratio: 238:1
Sarah London, Centene
Total compensation: $13,246,447
CEO pay ratio: 171:1
Not sure what percentage of administrative costs that is but just how many zeroes does one need in their bank account while they are cancelling policies, denying claims and denying procedures to insured.
The GOP dilemma in Johnson's own district: 118K of his constituents are covered via the extension of the subsidies in the ACA. 40% of his constituents receive subsidies through Medicaid - one of the highest concentrations in the country. In essence, he has to convince almost 50% of his constituents to vote against their own best interests.