J. Clarence
Jul 20, 2017 · 2 min read

I fundamentally disagree, the intent matters. There is a meaningful distinction between a bailout, which is meant to sure up balance sheets to avoid a catastrophic meltdown, and intentionally allocating spending to subsidize the cost of care for people with less money. Additionally, the Republican plan prior to it being dropped also allocated funding to dedicate to these high risk pools, but just appropriated the funds via different means. The effect was the same, and, assuming their best intentions, it also was not to explicitly make insurance companies more profitable, but rather to ensure that poor people would be able to access care.

Well, the ACA was based on a Republican model, and in fact just a few years prior a plan very much like it was the official platform of the party. The Obama administration dragged out the process of passing the bill, in an effort to attract Republican support, given that the administration stripped the more progressive provisions. So unlike the current Republican plans, which never attempted to win over Democrats, you cannot say the same for Democrats when it came to Republicans: single-payer? Gone. Medicare for all? Gone. Medicare for those 55 and older? Gone. What in the current GOP plan was an olive-branch to Democrats, again?

You are asking a different question regarding shrinking of welfare handouts. That being said, money should not be wasted, and we should focus on how we are spending what we have allocated first before we suggest new spending; however, that in and of itself does not mean that we have been spending enough as we should have.

Heart disease is the number cause of death in most developed countries. It isn’t the metric I would use to determine whether or not a country has a successful healthcare system, because, no matter where you live, it is probably what is going to kill you. Not because your particular country has better or worst healthcare, but just because the heart overtime will naturally fail, as it wasn’t meant to beat forever. Cancer is sort of similar. Instead I am going to look at preventative illnesses, quality of life, management of chronic illnesses and so on.

Life expectancy dropped for the first time during the same period that the law was enacted. So far all we can say is that it is correlative not a causal relationship. What else happened during the same period? Oh, yeah, a major financial and crisis, which placed many people out of work and added stress. Say nothing of the fact that we need to look at long term trends, especially if we are comparing to decades, than just a blip.

It’s not that I am opposed to more choices, that come with fewer regulations that facilitate the emergence of more choices, but rather that is not what this plan put forth by Republicans would do. It would push sick people to high risk pools, inadequately subsidize those pools, and lock out people of the insurance market if there is a gap in their coverage. That does not produce more options and more consumer choice, but that is what the GOP bill sought to do.

)
    J. Clarence

    Written by

    Amateur Wonk. Free-Market Progressive. DC resident. Policy and politics lover. Doughnut aficionado.