What would it take?

I agree, call it the ACA. Just think getting that name in there is just for politics.

I agree, call it the ACA. Just think getting that name in there is just for politics.

Both names are politically motivated. Obamacare carries a negative connotation. The Affordable Care Act carries a positive one. Both get used to create the political tone the speaker wants to spend.

Republicans probably will name their act, the Truly Affordable Care Act (TakeCare for short), while Democrats will tag it TrumpCare. The name that sticks will give a sense of public support/disdain for it.

Basically I'm just saying call it what it is, lol.

Interesting article from a guy who just retired from where I work: Examining The President’s Speech To Congress (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/01/examining-the-presidents-speech-to-congress/)

He leans left too, but I think he's reasonable...

Solid speech. Short on details - big on aspirations. Loved the "I'm not here to represent the world. I'm here to represent the US." (or something like that).

Also, liked the focus on economic goals as opposed to social issues. If he gets off twitter, and pulls off a few more of these speeches - throw in a rally or two for the faithful - the Dems are going to have some real problems in the next election (mid-term) where they have 23 incumbents up for reelection versus only nine for the Republicans - plus two independents who caucus with the Dems.

Someone said to me, "If he fixes healthcare so that costs are controlled and basically retains coverage for the at-risk folks, he will get four more years."

I think the speech was the first step down that road. Still, lots of promises, and for me, I am not seeing how the math is going to work. New infrastructure, more defense spending, fixes to healthcare - lots of new money being spent. Just wondering where it's supposed to come from b/c, apparently, everyone is getting a tax cut.

Speeches like this should be aspirational and outline big picture plans. However, the devil is always in the details.

Solid speech. Short on details - big on aspirations. Loved the "I'm not here to represent the world. I'm here to represent the US." (or something like that).

Also, liked the focus on economic goals as opposed to social issues. If he gets off twitter, and pulls off a few more of these speeches - throw in a rally or two for the faithful - the Dems are going to have some real problems in the next election (mid-term) where they have 23 incumbents up for reelection versus only nine for the Republicans - plus two independents who caucus with the Dems.

Someone said to me, "If he fixes healthcare so that costs are controlled and basically retains coverage for the at-risk folks, he will get four more years."

I think the speech was the first step down that road. Still, lots of promises, and for me, I am not seeing how the math is going to work. New infrastructure, more defense spending, fixes to healthcare - lots of new money being spent. Just wondering where it's supposed to come from b/c, apparently, everyone is getting a tax cut.

Speeches like this should be aspirational and outline big picture plans. However, the devil is always in the details.

the devil is in the government. just saying...

Basically I'm just saying call it what it is, lol.

Interesting article from a guy who just retired from where I work: Examining The President’s Speech To Congress (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/01/examining-the-presidents-speech-to-congress/)

He leans left too, but I think he's reasonable...

It's a good article and I agree with a lot of his points. Healthcare reform was a messy business the first time around and the ACA was a horrible compromise that basically poured gas on the old broken system.

I do think the author's downplaying the role of malpractice is disingenuous. The study he cites analyzes only actual payments for lost claims and legal costs. The study says only these factors are the "costs" of malpractice and to include premiums would be to "double count" those costs because that is what the premiums are intended to cover. Okay, true enough BUT (and it's a big Kim Kardashian type but) the study uses this rational to entirely ignore insurance company profits saying they are not a "cost" of the doctor's actual malpractice. Sorry, that's just intellectual dishonesty. Insurance companies, the premiums they charge, and the profits they make are an essential element of malpractice costs. If insurers don't make a profit, the indemnity payments don't get made, doctors go bankrupt, and injured patients get no financial recoveries. W/out insurance companies, their profits, and the profits the make, the risk of being a doctor would be to great for anyone to bear.

We had a looong discussion about the whole healthcare reform issue back in the day. At the time, I think I predicted the ACA would be good for about four or five years and then competition would dry up because of the structure's systemic unprofitability and shortly thereafter the exchanges would become the only options. Once that occurred, costs would spiral out of control very quickly. The article cited fails to note that it's not just Kentucky where private carriers are leaving; almost every exchange has fewer private carriers than when first enacted - 38% now have only one or two .

Preliminary Data on Insurer Exits and Entrants in 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/preliminary-data-on-insurer-exits-and-entrants-in-2017-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/)

The ACA [I]is imploding. Once it does, simple market dynamics of insurance and the ACA's structure of allowing opt outs with penalties will easily double and treble costs to the government through the exchanges.

The ACA was a Band-Aid to a broken system. It barely addressed the symptoms and most certainly did not address the underlying flaws of our current health-care system. The benefits that it has provided (and there are many) will be short-lived or force draconian economic cuts to other programs.

... but, four years ago, we walked down the road of least resistance. The piper will be coming for his payment shortly.

It's a good article and I agree with a lot of his points. Healthcare reform was a messy business the first time around and the ACA was a horrible compromise that basically poured gas on the old broken system.

I do think the author's downplaying the role of malpractice is disingenuous. The study he cites analyzes only actual payments for lost claims and legal costs. The study says only these factors are the "costs" of malpractice and to include premiums would be to "double count" those costs because that is what the premiums are intended to cover. Okay, true enough BUT (and it's a big Kim Kardashian type but) the study uses this rational to entirely ignore insurance company profits saying they are not a "cost" of the doctor's actual malpractice. Sorry, that's just intellectual dishonesty. Insurance companies, the premiums they charge, and the profits they make are an essential element of malpractice costs. If insurers don't make a profit, the indemnity payments don't get made, doctors go bankrupt, and injured patients get no financial recoveries. W/out insurance companies, their profits, and the profits the make, the risk of being a doctor would be to great for anyone to bear.

We had a looong discussion about the whole healthcare reform issue back in the day. At the time, I think I predicted the ACA would be good for about four or five years and then competition would dry up because of the structure's systemic unprofitability and shortly thereafter the exchanges would become the only options. Once that occurred, costs would spiral out of control very quickly. The article cited fails to note that it's not just Kentucky where private carriers are leaving; almost every exchange has fewer private carriers than when first enacted - 38% now have only one or two .

Preliminary Data on Insurer Exits and Entrants in 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/preliminary-data-on-insurer-exits-and-entrants-in-2017-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/)

The ACA [I]is imploding. Once it does, simple market dynamics of insurance and the ACA's structure of allowing opt outs with penalties will easily double and treble costs to the government through the exchanges.

The ACA was a Band-Aid to a broken system. It barely addressed the symptoms and most certainly did not address the underlying flaws of our current health-care system. The benefits that it has provided (and there are many) will be short-lived or force draconian economic cuts to other programs.

... but, four years ago, we walked down the road of least resistance. The piper will be coming for his payment shortly.

You're right but as I remember and I have been wrong before wasn't it all so mentioned how close the ACA was to what Mitt Romney had done in Massachusetts and had he won we would be in a similar situation,so the republicans can't just blame Obama for the mess.

Were you dressed in all white as you watched it?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


Nope, Red ,White and Blue.What about you?

You're right but as I remember and I have been wrong before wasn't it all so mentioned how close the ACA was to what Mitt Romney had done in Massachusetts and had he won we would be in a similar situation,so the republicans can't just blame Obama for the mess.

The dems modeled it on the Massachusets plan that was put in place while Romney was governor. I think he was instrumental in getting passed there.

However, my recollection is that Romney opposed the ACA and that it was not the plan put forward by the R's at the time or even really close to it.

... and I don't JUST blame Obama, I blame everyone who voted for it:

In December 2009, the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 39 for Obamacare. The Washington Post reported “The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote.”

In March 2010, the U.S. House voted 219 to 212 for Obamacare. 34 House Democrats and all of the House Republicans voted against Obamacare. The NO votes were the only bipartisan votes.

oh, the Democrats.

http://oregoncatalyst.com/25561-reminder-obamacare-passed-single-republican-vote.htm

first rule of being considered politically astute - never blame Obama
second rule of being considered politically astute - always blame Bush
third rule of being considered politically astute - be willing to call a deer a horse if it likes to be a donkey