If Republicans manage to find a way to screw up healthcare they will be damaged for decades to come... although, Democrats are already damaged for decades to come, so that may give may give Republicans wiggle room.
Well, DUH. But giving the finger to the minority & telling them to shove it was widely praised, even hailed as 'on the right side of history' and 'brave' at the time. "I won."
If the pure free market model existed (a zero regulation environment), almost no one except perfectly healthy 20 years could afford health insurance.
I don't remember those arguments being used at the time, but nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama, the Republicans should have worked in a bi-partisan manner to make improvements to it. Their priority should be to do what's best for their constituents, not what's best to bandage their hurt egos.
An assumption about a straw man - talk about two wrongs not making a right.
Did I say 'pure'? Or 'zero regulation environment'? When I was a young buck, all I wanted (or needed) was catastrophic coverage for the SMOD or unexpected incapacitating illness, a thing called Major Medical back in the day. And I could buy it, at an affordable cost, because a market existed for it, even though 'regulated'. The demand side of that market didn't go away, but the supply side was inexorably 'regulated' out of existence. The 'regulatory ratchet' is a thing. Suppliers can meet the need/demand only if allowed to. Regulatory requirements as to reserves and re-insurance, aimed at minimizing the risk of insolvency, are good things, but they should stop pretty much there.
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama in an effort to prevent or mitigate the damage that Obamacare would inevitably do... (known once we had a chance to read it, after it was passed).
FIFY again. I consider undoing a 'wrong' a 'right'.
An assumption about a straw man - talk about two wrongs not making a right.Did I say 'pure'? Or 'zero regulation environment'? When I was a young buck, all I wanted (or needed) was catastrophic coverage for the SMOD or unexpected incapacitating illness, a thing called Major Medical back in the day. And I could buy it, at an affordable cost, because a market existed for it, even though 'regulated'. The demand side of that market didn't go away, but the supply side was inexorably 'regulated' out of existence. The 'regulatory ratchet' is a thing. Suppliers can meet the need/demand only if allowed to. Regulatory requirements as to reserves and re-insurance, aimed at minimizing the risk of insolvency, are good things, but they should stop pretty much there.
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama in an effort to prevent or mitigate the damage that Obamacare would inevitably do... (known once we had a chance to read it, after it was passed).FIFY again. I consider undoing a 'wrong' a 'right'.
Oh, I agree. Here in my neck of the woods, there is only one insurance provider, so the ACA failed miserably in that regard. But I'm talking about the underlying good such a program can potentially bring. That's why I don't have a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" perspective.
There is a vocal neo-Libertarian contingent on the SD boards, so I made a bad assumption re: your view on regulation. Sorry about that.
No worries. I've enjoyed the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37eXtN2LfhM
The republicans are working on single payer health care and a tax increase.You can thank them when it happens.
What a disaster. Can't blame House Republicans for not voting for it. The only thing that seems like good news is that Trump and Ryan relented and pulled the bill rather than force and bribe members to walk the plank and vote as Pelosi and Obama did during the passage of failed and disastrous Obamacare.