PCXV
Well-Known Member
Inflation was already a problem. Control drug prices, create a public non-profit option, standardize costs for common procedures and services.
Obamacare is a great success
- Thread starter MickFoster
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Healthcare was already not affordable before the ACA. Without innovative provisions in the ACA that reduced the growth of healthcare costs, just keeping the old system would mean even higher cost of coverage now.
I'm worried about the rate of health care cost growth too. Associating high cost of coverage with the ACA is unsurprisingly stupid of you to do.
Healthcare coverage costs are going up at a high rate because congress did not pay the bills as agreed in the ACA legislation. Insurance companies increased rates because congress failed everybody in this. They did it so that pinheads like you will complain. It was for propaganda purposes. They created this crisis.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
http://fortune.com/2016/10/04/obamacare-exchanges/
The Obamacare Exchanges Are a Mess and It’s Not Really Obama’s Fault
That a law needed changes was not a sign of its failure; it was a sign of it being a law.
Today’s Republicans have taken the position that since the Affordable Care Act must be repealed, it must not be fixed. Why repair the car you’re about to send to the scrapyard? The problem of course is that six years have passed, and there has been no repeal nor major fixes.
Sadly, we’ve all gotten used to this. Ah these wacky partisan times! But it’s worth repeating: to try to damage Barack Obama, Republicans have intentionally made Americans suffer more. The target has always been the president; the victims turn out to be millions of families.
Some conservatives might say, Obamacare has created such a convoluted structure that it can only be replaced. Yet Congress has not even acted on the conservative proposals to replace Obamacare. The “replace” part of “repeal and replace” never materialized. Obvious fixes are viewed entirely through the lens of politics. The Weekly Standard, for instance, criticized one helpful legislative adjustment that did happen as “needlessly putting GOP fingerprints on” Obamacare.
For small businesses or individual families who rely on the individual health insurance market, that doesn’t do us much good. The Republican position at this point is that it’s better to let people suffer than muddy their political message. That’s not governing, that’s policy nihilism. And cruelty.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
ok, so your argument seems to be, that Republicans did not pay the healthcare companies bills as agreed, therefore the program broke down and got extremely expensive?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when republicans say obamacare is broken, they are not complaining, they are bragging about what they did to it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Uh yeah. That's kind of what the article said. You can read, correct? The promised and agreed upon funding was derailed by the Republican Congress, who made it clear they'd rather see people suffer than fund the law. Policy nihilism.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
As far as I can tell, the article only said Republicans refused to change/alter Obamacare. It doesn't mention anything about withholding funding.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
24k a year...
Yeh, I pay $100,000 a year to get my Dragon's claws trimmed.
Thanks Obama!
billy4479
Moderator
So here's how I look at it . Government taxes us 33% of are income . Now with mandatory health insurance some people fork over 50% of there income. Young people between 25-35 lets say used to not buy insurance they're mostly healthy don't see a need . Well because there forced to buy a product they don't use . Shouldn't prices drop for are elderly and senior care ? Now that theses companies have tons more clients paying for but not using the service? It's taxation with out representation. There are governments were people are taxed 50 % of there income and the government does alot for them to earn that tax rate .
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
"Nim-nut" free-loader? Is that what we are calling sick people now? Take your average family of four - let's say they own a small business and are not eligible for a group plan. What would turn those people into "nim-nut" free-loaders? Why any sort of long term illness even a minor, treatable health problem. Not being part of a group, the insurance company is free to pass along the cost of this illness to the family of four - or they could drop them all together. I know somebody in this situation. Their monthly premium went from about $500 /month to $7500 per month. That does not happen under the ACA.
So you and @spandy keep that in mind. The only thing separating you from becoming loathsome leeches reaching into your pocket is one bad test result.
You are both useless, selfish pricks. Your views are not what made America great, they are what made America the single largest collection of hypocritical bastards in history.
MickFoster
Well-Known Member
Senior care and the elderly are covered under Medicare. I pay $12.90 a month for supplemental insurance.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Taxation without representation? Are you serious? Do you know what Congress is? Is English your primary language?
Also, I urge you to look at your Federal taxes. Compare what you earned with what you pay. You are not paying the Federal government one third of what you make.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
You are getting ripped off. I will do it for $70K
MickFoster
Well-Known Member
And the rich are paying less if anything at all, and with this administration it will only get worse. The economic policies of the republicans only get us into economic trouble. Look at history the last 30 years.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Fake moderator, fake news, okay
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I do. But the nation is largely going by alternative history. It is af if they believe that you can get an accurate view of the 50s by watching "Father Knows Best".
The truly rich do not care about their health care costs. The costs are trifling to them. They are more concerned with the profitability of the insurance companies.
Cut those sickos loose. Let them die on the street or let the government pay for them. Why should we allow them to pee into their lucrative insurance pools? That's why we have Medicaid, to keep those profits up while we shift the costs to the middle class who actually pay Federal taxes!
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
But they do use it. They just don't realize it until they do. If you really think America's youth not having health care access and coverage in the event of a medical problem is a good thing, then you and I do not share the same feelings about society and our obligations to each other.
I insult your knowledge because it is incomplete, uninformed and yet still manages to get your central point across which is "fuck you, me first".
Why would I question your English? Because I respect language - it has meaning. Yours showed a distinct lack of skill or effort that offended my sensibilities. Do I still have that right? It was not your prose alone I took issue with, it was the underlying thoughts which, yes - I was able to discern.
By throwing your hat into the ring you are taking a certain amount of the burden of my loathing for "American-minded" boobs that voted for this wannabe dictator. I take it seriously.
Back to your taxation without representation claim - which I consider without merit... The youth of America (over 18 ) vote just like anybody else. Those younger have their decision making done by adults. So please tell me how they are not represented? Oh gee, they might not benefit as much as a 58 year old - so what? There are people who don't even drive and the Federal government still builds roads.
You cannot throw a term around like "taxation without representation" without knowing what the fuck it means - which you obviously do not. That is not my fault. I don't even give a shit if you think your definition fits. It just doesn't. It is a matter of fact - not opinion.
I believe that society has obligations. You clearly see it only as a way to better yourself while everybody else can take a flying fuck. I reject your view. I consider it loathsome. I am personally offended that a Western society founded in the Judeo-Christian tradition is still arguing over the basic right of a human being to get healthcare without layers of for-profit insurance companies holding sway over them - and I am an atheist.
Why is America outspending every developed country that has universal healthcare? How can you know that and still think that your opinions might not need to be modified to conform with reality?
Lastly, what are the implications of your actual policies? Allowing people to opt out with no penalty? What would that do to the system? The answer is, it would break the current system and go back to a time were tens of millions were uninsured and receiving no healthcare until their condition worsened to the point of needing major medical procedures and a hospital stay. Who would pay for that? The US taxpayer. Is this an efficient way of doing it? NO! But it shifts the burden away from those rich enough to afford not to pay Federal taxes - like our President. Or, alternatively, we can just give them a safe warm place to die.
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Amazing. Nobody gave a shit about the laws requiring auto-insurance. People don't fuck around when it comes to their hoopty.
Jesus wept.
Jesus wept.