Healthcare - Since the 2010 passing of the American Care Act, Republicans have been vowing to fight and repeal it. However, even though they've held a House majority since 2010, a Senate majority since 2016, and the presidency since 2017, they have failed to pass any meaningful legislation that can alleviate the effects of a straight repeal of the law. Therefore, they are aiming to replace it with something better. This year, we've seen two attempts to replace Obamacare (the nickname for the ACA), and a third is imminent. Here are two interesting articles on the topic.
Politico - a little more of a breakdown of each effect, not much analysis
Vox- More of a deep look into the similarities and differences between all the different bills
Questions (just answer 1):
1. Should we disband the Congressional Budget Office? If major legislation like this one will go unchecked by the CBO, what's the point of having it around and then ignoring it?
2. In your opinion, what are the most dangerous sections of the Graham-Cassidy bill? The most reasonable? Problems with Obamacare you'd like to see fixed?
3. In 2013, Democrats voted to enact a rule that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote." Earlier this year, Republicans decided to reduce the 60-vote Supreme Court confirmation limit to a majority. Republicans are planning to pass the legislation discussed above with a simple 51-vote majority used specifically for budgetary issues instead of the traditional 60-vote super-majority.What is your opinion on these examples, which demonstrate that Senate is becoming increasingly less cooperative and more partisan? How can we address partisanship and create a culture of compromise?
3. I personally believe that it isn't right to reduce the vote for cloture from a 60 to 51-vote majority. I believe that doing so would not only break tradition, but it would also divide the Democratic and Republican parties even further due to how easy it would be for a specific party to create a cloture without the help of members from the other party. I believe that we should actually increase the vote to 65 or 70. Doing such would require party cooperation, as members of other parties would have to come together in order to stop a filibuster.
ReplyDelete2. In my opinion, the most dangerous sections of the Graham-Cassidy bill are that it allows insurers in the private market place to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, and would punish states like California who were strong supporters of Medicaid. Some of the most reasonable parts of the bill include allowing individuals to contribute more to their health savings account and overall, states are given more power to decide things like what counts as a health care benefit and how different ages should be treated. A few problems with Obama care that I would like to see fixed are the lack of insurance options under the program, the fact that Obama care is very expensive and adds even more debt to the U.S. Additionally it has resulted in a shortage of primary doctors and longer wait times in the emergency room.
ReplyDelete2. The most dangerous part of the Graham-Cassidy Bill is by how much money it will actually cut from the actual program. The purpose of the bill is to allow states that wish to keep Obamacare to be able to do that on a state wide level, rather than a national level. Beneficially, it would no longer restrict states from the bill and allow them to choose whether or not they want to keep Obamacare. This was an issue with Obamacare beforehand, since those who tried to cancel their plans with Obamacare would result in many people loosing their health insurance.
ReplyDeleteOMG - disband the CBO because the current Congress and President don't like their conclusions. Let's protect our nonpartisan institutions in the age of hyper partisanship...
ReplyDelete2. I think that the most dangerous part of the bill is that it discriminates against those with preexisting conditions, and it would punish states that expand Medicaid a lot, like California, which would lose $78 billion in funding if this bill were passed. I think the most reasonable part is that most Obamacare taxes would remain untouched. The problem I have with Obamacare is that it's not a universal healthcare system. Ideally, I would like to have a universal healthcare system like in Sweden, where healthcare is funded by taxes.
ReplyDeletePartisanship is inevitably dangerous. Republicans and Democrats alike tend to rush legislation when they have the opportunity to favor their own interests. The cloture vote reduction is a prime example of a party trying to grab more power without considering the consequences. By the time Democrats retake any house of Congress, Republicans will see that their advantage when they had a majority becomes a burden on their minority power. Parties need to pull focus away from cheap attempts at temporary domination, and recognize that no long term plan can succeed without bipartisan cooperation.
ReplyDelete1- It is my opinion that we should not disband the Congressional Budget Office. It is vital to making sure bills that involve any type of budget or money should be reviewed by an independent part of the government. The non partisan nature of the CBO is extremely important as it makes sure that one party does not go crazy with its policy when it will do significant damage to the American economy. Republicans seem fixed on quickly passing a new health care bill even though the CBO thinks that the new plan will actually hurt more than help. Ignoring the Budget Office by any party is dangerous because the party has its own interests in mind while the CBO has to make sure all the American people don't get screwed economically.
ReplyDelete2. The most dangerous aspects of the Graham-Cassidy Bill is that it will cut money from almost all states budgets implementing Medicaid and eliminating tax credits, making it more expensive for dependent Americans to afford adequate health care for themselves and their families. Not to mention mandates requiring employers to provide health care for their employees being eliminated would only encourage bigger, more powerful business, leaving employees with new expenses for health care. Allowing citizens to use their pretax health savings account in order to help pay for insurance premiums would be a very reasonable aspect of the bill, and even a positive that could be added to a revised bill. ObamaCare, however, is not perfect and making doctors readily available instead of understaffed would provide for a better, more fluid experience for everyone involved.
ReplyDelete