3 ms·

> That has in part become the issue in modern politics, any compromise no matter how minor is seen as a loss. Because to those who are now getting hit with hug

by thunky 1y ago

> That has in part become the issue in modern politics, any compromise no matter how minor is seen as a loss. Because to those who are now getting hit with huge insurance bills as a direct effect of that compromise, and may have to go without insurance at all, it is a loss. And nothing has been done to address the underlying reasons and bad incentives that have led to this outcome. Which is also a failure.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
>Because to those who are now getting hit with huge insurance bills as a direct effect of that compromise, and may have to go without insurance at all, it is a loss. Because the Republicans slashed the premium tax credits to pay for tax cuts for rich people.
- mothballed 1y ago
  The fact Republicans wouldn't repeal ACA but would repeal the tax credits just shows both sides prefer it to be broken. Democrats could shove through enough votes to repeal ACA to make health insurance cheaper for lower-risk groups without tax credits; Republicans could re-instate tax credits. Instead we are stuck in this bastardized half-socialized model that gets the worst of all worlds. Politics in the USA has basically gridlocked to it being much cheaper to shit on the other guy than to fix things. In two party system you can actually win by only making the other guy look worse, which only requires breaking things in a way that can be pointed at the other guy, somehow we are stuck in this local minima.
  - abustamam 11mo ago
    And now the US is having the longest govt shutdown ever, millions of people losing their food stamps, millions of people potentially seeing their Healthcare costs skyrocket, and neither side seems willing to compromise, with the GOP blaming the democrats for the shutdown, which really is not productive.
  - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
    This is nonsense. You have Democrats working to get more healthcare to more people, via increased taxation, and you are blaming them for Republicans holding them back.
    - thunky 11mo ago
      It's both of their faults. Blaming one party or the other is what got us into this this hole and what keeps making it deeper. The ACA was passed in 2014. Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have had since then to get off their butts and do something to fix the serious flaws it came with. Flaws that made insurance too unaffordable for millions of people so they had to risk it and go uninsured.
      - LordDragonfang 11mo ago
        Years Pres Senate House SC 2013-2015 D D(+8) R(+33) R(+1) 2015-2017 D R(+10) R(+59) -(+0) 2017-2019 R R(+4) R(+47) R(+1) 2019-2021 R R(+8) D(+35) R(+1) 2021-2023 D D(+0.5) D(+9) R(+3) 2023-2025 D D(+2) R(+9) R(+3) 2025-2027 R R(+8) R(+4) R(+3) When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising? Dems haven't had solid control of all three legislative bodies since it passed, and Republicans have vocally made it their priority to oppose the ACA in any way possible, and are unwilling to give an inch. Even the hair thin margin post-2020 was unusable for this due to the handful of DINOs that all needed to vote in lockstep. Meanwhile, R's had unilateral control of the government for four straight years, and they voted to make everyone's lives worse, as you're complaining about. They said over and over they were going to repeal it, like you suggest, and then turned around and made it obvious that was a blatant lie. Because despite its flaws, even the gutted ACA is still wildly popular and a vast improvement over the previous status quo. (It turns out keeping workers healthy is critical for the economy) This is not a symmetric problem. It really is one party making it worse.
        thunky 11mo ago
        > When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising? The Democrats did have full control when they first passed the ACA and they ended up getting in their own way. But I never said that the Democrats were supposed to fix it on their own. I said both parties are to blame. It shouldn't require one team have full control for something to happen. That's the real issue. They refuse to work together, and somehow this gets them more support (votes). Both sides. Total shit show.
  - vkou 11mo ago
    > The fact Republicans wouldn't repeal ACA but would repeal the tax credits just shows both sides prefer it to be broken. It really doesn't. All it shows is that team R is following it's usual playbook of "The government is broken - elect me, and I'll make sure of it." > Democrats could shove through enough votes to repeal ACA to make health insurance cheaper for lower-risk groups without tax credits The only true part of that statement is that they could get enough votes to repeal it without replacement. But it wouldn't make anything cheaper. The only way insurance would get cheaper is if it went back to not covering pre-existing conditions, which is contrary to the whole point of insurance. It's wild that you're blaming the dems for... Not repealing without replacement, and pushing us straight into a completely broken shitshow? > lower-risk groups Oh, I understand now. You're are explicitly unhappy that the dems aren't agreeing to your plan to massively hike rates for anyone with a pre-exisiting condition, or literally any complication that would get them discriminated against prior to the ACA. Sorry, that's a shitty thing for you to be fighting for, and they are in the right to not do it.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      ACA without subsidies is a regressive tax due to the price differential cap from young to old. It's a wealth transfer from younger/poorer people to older/wealthier people still on private insurance. Health risks track most closely with being older and thus on average wealthier. It's just the people that have tricked you, have used statistical correlation and cover of pre-existing condition to hide the fact what they're actually doing is robbing from the poorer to subsidize the richer.
      - vkou 11mo ago
        It's a wealth transfer from healthy people to sick people. That's the whole point of health insurance. Older people are sicker and older people are wealthier, but older sicker people on ACA plans are not wealthier than the median. It's a sleight of hand to collate the two (old-rich and old-sick), but sure, if this is such a large concern, the solution is adding means testing, not just leaving sick people with care they can't afford.
vkou 11mo ago
The original plan was for single-payer, but the Blue Dog democrats fucked it up, because they didn't want to lose their seats, so they pushed for a compromise solution. They then all lost their seats to tea-party and proto-maga types who were screeching about FEMA internment camps and death panels killing grandma.

by thunky 1y ago

lotsofpulp 1y ago

>Because to those who are now getting hit with huge insurance bills as a direct effect of that compromise, and may have to go without insurance at all, it is a loss. Because the Republicans slashed the premium tax credits to pay for tax cuts for rich people.

mothballed 1y ago
The fact Republicans wouldn't repeal ACA but would repeal the tax credits just shows both sides prefer it to be broken. Democrats could shove through enough votes to repeal ACA to make health insurance cheaper for lower-risk groups without tax credits; Republicans could re-instate tax credits. Instead we are stuck in this bastardized half-socialized model that gets the worst of all worlds. Politics in the USA has basically gridlocked to it being much cheaper to shit on the other guy than to fix things. In two party system you can actually win by only making the other guy look worse, which only requires breaking things in a way that can be pointed at the other guy, somehow we are stuck in this local minima.
- abustamam 11mo ago
  And now the US is having the longest govt shutdown ever, millions of people losing their food stamps, millions of people potentially seeing their Healthcare costs skyrocket, and neither side seems willing to compromise, with the GOP blaming the democrats for the shutdown, which really is not productive.
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago
  This is nonsense. You have Democrats working to get more healthcare to more people, via increased taxation, and you are blaming them for Republicans holding them back.
  - thunky 11mo ago
    It's both of their faults. Blaming one party or the other is what got us into this this hole and what keeps making it deeper. The ACA was passed in 2014. Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have had since then to get off their butts and do something to fix the serious flaws it came with. Flaws that made insurance too unaffordable for millions of people so they had to risk it and go uninsured.
    - LordDragonfang 11mo ago
      Years Pres Senate House SC 2013-2015 D D(+8) R(+33) R(+1) 2015-2017 D R(+10) R(+59) -(+0) 2017-2019 R R(+4) R(+47) R(+1) 2019-2021 R R(+8) D(+35) R(+1) 2021-2023 D D(+0.5) D(+9) R(+3) 2023-2025 D D(+2) R(+9) R(+3) 2025-2027 R R(+8) R(+4) R(+3) When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising? Dems haven't had solid control of all three legislative bodies since it passed, and Republicans have vocally made it their priority to oppose the ACA in any way possible, and are unwilling to give an inch. Even the hair thin margin post-2020 was unusable for this due to the handful of DINOs that all needed to vote in lockstep. Meanwhile, R's had unilateral control of the government for four straight years, and they voted to make everyone's lives worse, as you're complaining about. They said over and over they were going to repeal it, like you suggest, and then turned around and made it obvious that was a blatant lie. Because despite its flaws, even the gutted ACA is still wildly popular and a vast improvement over the previous status quo. (It turns out keeping workers healthy is critical for the economy) This is not a symmetric problem. It really is one party making it worse.
      - thunky 11mo ago
        > When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising? The Democrats did have full control when they first passed the ACA and they ended up getting in their own way. But I never said that the Democrats were supposed to fix it on their own. I said both parties are to blame. It shouldn't require one team have full control for something to happen. That's the real issue. They refuse to work together, and somehow this gets them more support (votes). Both sides. Total shit show.
- vkou 11mo ago
  > The fact Republicans wouldn't repeal ACA but would repeal the tax credits just shows both sides prefer it to be broken. It really doesn't. All it shows is that team R is following it's usual playbook of "The government is broken - elect me, and I'll make sure of it." > Democrats could shove through enough votes to repeal ACA to make health insurance cheaper for lower-risk groups without tax credits The only true part of that statement is that they could get enough votes to repeal it without replacement. But it wouldn't make anything cheaper. The only way insurance would get cheaper is if it went back to not covering pre-existing conditions, which is contrary to the whole point of insurance. It's wild that you're blaming the dems for... Not repealing without replacement, and pushing us straight into a completely broken shitshow? > lower-risk groups Oh, I understand now. You're are explicitly unhappy that the dems aren't agreeing to your plan to massively hike rates for anyone with a pre-exisiting condition, or literally any complication that would get them discriminated against prior to the ACA. Sorry, that's a shitty thing for you to be fighting for, and they are in the right to not do it.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    ACA without subsidies is a regressive tax due to the price differential cap from young to old. It's a wealth transfer from younger/poorer people to older/wealthier people still on private insurance. Health risks track most closely with being older and thus on average wealthier. It's just the people that have tricked you, have used statistical correlation and cover of pre-existing condition to hide the fact what they're actually doing is robbing from the poorer to subsidize the richer.
    - vkou 11mo ago
      It's a wealth transfer from healthy people to sick people. That's the whole point of health insurance. Older people are sicker and older people are wealthier, but older sicker people on ACA plans are not wealthier than the median. It's a sleight of hand to collate the two (old-rich and old-sick), but sure, if this is such a large concern, the solution is adding means testing, not just leaving sick people with care they can't afford.

vkou 11mo ago

The original plan was for single-payer, but the Blue Dog democrats fucked it up, because they didn't want to lose their seats, so they pushed for a compromise solution. They then all lost their seats to tea-party and proto-maga types who were screeching about FEMA internment camps and death panels killing grandma.