Saturday, May 6, 2017

Disasters, Protections and the Perceived Superiority of Simplicity

Yesterday the House of Representatives took the first substantial step toward repealing and replacing Obamacare. They did this after 7 years of the masturbatory act of voting more than 60 times (as of Groundhog Day of 2016) to repeal it. They did this after complaining that the vote in favor of Obamacare didn't allow ample time to read the 2,000 page bill yet voted without ample time to read the 700 page bill that repeals and replaces the plan.

And they did it despite an obvious groundswell of support for the plan, even if many people don't realize that the same ACA they rely on is the negro-named socialist tyranny of Obamacare.
"Obamacare has made health care less accessible and more expensive for people across this country"--Rep. Cathy McMorris Master (R, WA) at House Republicans 
Yes, this is true if you ignore the reality of actual data.

1. The percent of Americans without insurance has fallen.
From LA Times
Less accessible? More people have coverage.

2. The number of Americans who go without treatment because of costs is down.

I didn't understand the LA Times infographic so I'll created this instead 

Okay, so I made a second one, this one more qualitative in nature.
"Access to medical care has improved substantially; the share of people reporting that they have recently forgone medical care because they could not afford it has fallen by more than a third since the ACA became law" from the GPO's 2017 Economic Report to the President.

Less accessible? Fewer people are forgoing treatment because of cost.

3. Costs are down and increases are lower than they were before Obamacare was implemented.
From LA Times

From LA Times

From LA Times
Anyone who dealt with healthcare before Obamacare has to admit that the costs continued to increase at substantial rates. Companies often changed insurance providers every 2 years meaning people who were lucky enough to have employer-provided insurance were often faced with whether or not they should change doctors or incur out-of-network charges.

More expensive? Well, costs continue to rise but since the introduction of Obamacare costs have risen slower than prior and individual spending by service type is down. Costs are still going up, but in a way that pre-Obamacare markets could never manage.

Saying "If you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor" is literally the worst this Barack Hussein Obama did to this country. Not because that was in any way harmful, but because Obama was a fucking great president.

Millions of people didn't have that before Obamacare so why would they have it after? Also doctors retire, die, move... you can't expect someone to keep a doctor after that doctor has died.

An Op-Ed in today's Washington Post--"My son has a preexisting condition. He’s one of the reasons I voted for the AHCA."--by Rep. Cathy McMorris Masters (R, WA) prompted today's blog rant.

Let's put aside that the title of the piece reminds me of a random piece of overheard background dialog in Noah Baumbach's Kicking & Screaming (Girl at bar: "Well my brother's gay so... I know!"): "well my son has a pre-existing condition, so... I know!" it seems to say. [See also: I have many black friends so I can't be racist.]

No, ignore that paragraph. Let's start with its actual content.
When Obamacare was introduced, Republicans and Democrats knew the status quo wasn’t working. But Republicans rejected the notion that to help 2 million people with preexisting conditions get access to care, we needed a 2,000-page bill that transformed one-sixth of the economy.
First, Republicans rejected every notion because for 8 years all they did was push back against everything Obama tried to do. In 2009 when Obama tried to combat a serious unemployment issue and crippled economy, his attempts at a stimulus bill ended up at about half the size it ought to have been (and then Republicans who neutered it got to call it ineffectual) because Tea Party activists and deficit hawks from the conservatives of the country were up in arms about its affect on the national debt. Donald Trump's $1.1 trillion infrastructure improvements bill has already passed or soon will, despite the fact that it's not adequately (or even remotely) funded. Oh, and if you don't know it, Obama's stimulus bill was essentially an infrastructure improvements bill. Fucking shovel ready shit.

Anyone who objected to the stimulus in 2009 but supports this is either 1) a mindless partisan hack, 2) racist or 3) both.

It's okay to have supported the 2009 and reject the current because unemployment is half of what it was. It's okay to support them both because you think infrastructure is important and deficit spending isn't a concern for you. But picking the more egregious in a less needful time is just wrong. The party that proclaimed "country first" in 2008 continues to live by the "cunty first" slogan.

OMG this is rambling. That Obamacare was 2,000 pages was an outrage!!! The replacement bill is only 700 pages, ergo it's superior.

Ugh, actually does she object to the fact that is was 2,000 pages, or to the fact that it transformed 1/6 of the economy, or both?

With no benchmark to compare it to, who can say if 700 pages is more appropriate for a thing that's going to transform 1/6 of the US economy?!!!

For comparison, the 2013 US Federal tax code is 73,954 pages.

For comparison, the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines for Made in America label compliance are 42 pages.

For comparison, the US ban on assault weapons is non-existent.

You know what, this is exhausting. Shut the fuck up, I'm going to bed.

No comments: