What's new
By:

Obamacare

The Thriller said:
Health insurance premiums for most Americans have risen at their slowest rates in 2 decades since Obamacare was enacted. So if you hate skyrocketing premiums then you must love Obamacare.

If you're self employed and can't find affordable insurance then stop blaming others. Get off your ***, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, and figure things out. Go back to school to make yourself marketable. Get s job that offers health insurance. Start up your own insurance company. That's the beauty of this free market system you and your ilk cheer on.
But stop bitching. Get to work
Click to expand...

My beef with the ACA is that it was sold to the American Public as a major shift in how we obtain and afford health care, but it really hasn't been that at all. Forcing everyone to buy insurance just shows that the insurance companies have the president in their back-pocket. I actually use my employer for personal coverage and the marketplace for the rest of my family (this actually saved me a little money). At the end of the day I'm paying a lot of money for insurance that I'm unlikely to every use because the deductible is so high.
I'm all for major reform to make HC more affordable for the middle-class, but the ACA is not what it was sold to be.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It is clear that American's don't want the sort of system you are dreaming for us to have. I don't understand why it would be so important to a non-citizen that we get something we don't want.

As for your second point, our health care decisions impact Canadian politics? How would Canada be impacted if the US did not go single payer? Probably not at all. If the US did change the impacts on Canada would probably mostly be negative. I'll bet the largest impact would be the drug companies increasing their charges to everyone in an effort to make up for lost revenue. R&D budgets would be among the first casualties.
Click to expand...

- I'm not sure why it irritates you that a non-American critiques American politics. I would welcome any interest in Canadian politics from non-Canadians
- your first point is simply and totally false, and you know it. Americans don't want public health care? Are you living under a rock? I bet if you polled people nationally, people would prefer public healthcare over ACA, or over whatever the **** the conservatives have proposed. I'm pretty sure even Hantlers said he'd prefer public HC over what people have right now.
- As if. R&D would be fine. All the money they're spending on marketing would likely be the casualty (can someone tell me a legitimate reason why drug companies should be able to market to consumers again?)
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
My beef with the ACA is that it was sold to the American Public as a major shift in how we obtain and afford health care, but it really hasn't been that at all. Forcing everyone to buy insurance just shows that the insurance companies have the president in their back-pocket. I actually use my employer for personal coverage and the marketplace for the rest of my family (this actually saved me a little money). At the end of the day I'm paying a lot of money for insurance that I'm unlikely to every use because the deductible is so high.
I'm all for major reform to make HC more affordable for the middle-class, but the ACA is not what it was sold to be.
Click to expand...

100% it wasn't-- which is why it perplexes me that any democrat would want to vote for Shillary (who's taken more big pharma donations than any candidate of any party-- which is probably a good thing according to JoeBags)
 
dalamon said:
can someone tell me a legitimate reason why drug companies should be able to market to consumers again?
Click to expand...

Is there a precedent saying they can't/shouldn't? I get that people think it's ridiculous that since the consumers are not the ultimate decision makers and that this drives up healthcare costs, but can we think of a legal reason why this shouldn't be happening?
 
babe said:
Except I don't watch Fox much. And, actually, I exhort the masses to think for themselves.

I checked in my "true believer" name tag when I had a good friend working for KSL television, on the news team, who told me how decisions were made about what should be broadcast. KSL is the top news retailer for Salt Lake. I was even friends with the son of the general manager, and my brother in law worked for them in the business side. My neighbor was one of their radio talk show hosts, too. And did I mention KSL is owned by the Mormon Church?

I don't much for either a managed press that has priestly delusions for feeding the masses with appropriate materials, or for being part of that managed public world view. Look at your sources with a questioning, critical eye if you want to rise in the ranks of political advocacy, or at least if you want to get a whiff of truth now and then.
Click to expand...

I do mang! The guys at best buy all seem legit!
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
My beef with the ACA is that it was sold to the American Public as a major shift in how we obtain and afford health care, but it really hasn't been that at all. Forcing everyone to buy insurance just shows that the insurance companies have the president in their back-pocket. I actually use my employer for personal coverage and the marketplace for the rest of my family (this actually saved me a little money). At the end of the day I'm paying a lot of money for insurance that I'm unlikely to every use because the deductible is so high.
I'm all for major reform to make HC more affordable for the middle-class, but the ACA is not what it was sold to be.
Click to expand...

I get turned off any time someone uses "middle class" to support an opinion. At best, it's a scapegoat. At worst, it's underlying meaning is another bailout for the lazy but those deemed worthy instead of the lazy but deemed unworthy.

**** the middle class; the whiny little bitches don't deserve the luxuries that modern life has given them. I say raise their taxes, raise their insurance rates, and humble them a little.
 
DutchJazzer said:
The Senate voted 51-48 to begin the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

bye felicia.
Click to expand...
Now if only they'd begin the process of figuring out how to fix or replace it. I often feel like a Republican Congress is only good for tearing things down/apart and not building up.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
JazzGal said:
Now if only they'd begin the process of figuring out how to fix or replace it. I often feel like a Republican Congress is only good for tearing things down/apart and not building up.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

They have worked hard at that image for 8 years. Pretty astounding really.

They often have no alternative plan or massively fail to get the plan they do have out there and talked about. On almost any issue.
 
JazzGal said:
Now if only they'd begin the process of figuring out how to fix or replace it. I often feel like a Republican Congress is only good for tearing things down/apart and not building up.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Sometimes crappy, outdated, archaic laws need to be tore down an replaced. Democrats do nothing but stand in the way of modernizing programs that were set up 50-100 years ago.

Take social security for example. You want to talk about tear down? How about there refusal to fix it an let it go bankrupt an cause a national crisis?
 
Stoked said:
Bet the Dems hate that they changed the filibuster rules. Short sighted.
Click to expand...

everything the left does in my humble opinion is short sighted

they take away freedom of association. not seeing the long run.
thye wanna take away guns. lets see in the future how important guns will be.


if i was a us citizen all i would care about is is the replacement mandatory or not. if not **** it sooner or later a catastrophic health insurance plan will come up. and then get a health-savings account for me and my family
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
My beef with the ACA is that it was sold to the American Public as a major shift in how we obtain and afford health care, but it really hasn't been that at all. Forcing everyone to buy insurance just shows that the insurance companies have the president in their back-pocket. I actually use my employer for personal coverage and the marketplace for the rest of my family (this actually saved me a little money). At the end of the day I'm paying a lot of money for insurance that I'm unlikely to every use because the deductible is so high.
I'm all for major reform to make HC more affordable for the middle-class, but the ACA is not what it was sold to be.
Click to expand...

Forcing everyone to buy health insurance has nothing to do with insurance companies having the president in their back pocket. It has, however, everything to do with the fact that insurace pools must be large enough (with enough enrollees) so as to spread risk and cost across a sufficiently large number of people to manage costs.

I'm guessing (but don't know for certain) that insurance companies would prefer, by and large, not to have the ACA.

I'm waiting, and may keep waiting forever, for the day when Republican leaders and rank and file finally contemplate the prospects and implications of kicking tens of millions of people off the insurance rolls once they finally repeal the ACA.

However, given that so many of them thought nothing of keeping poor people off the insurance rolls, by refusing to accept Federal expansion of Medicaid in their states (government provided health insurance for the poor), it's hard for me to conclude anything other than they just don't give a mierda for the plight of the uninsured or the poor.
 
Now that the GOP's #1 priority is repealing Obamacare, it's going to be fun to watch all the complaining about rates continuing to climb despite Obamacare being gone. Does anyone actually think premiums are going to drop once the ACA is gone?

I've made a 180 over the past several years. I was very resistant to the ACA initially. I didn't like the idea of "forcing" anyone to pay for insurance through a private company. As I grow older (33), have a family, and realize an increased need for quality, affordable healthcare, I've come to terms with the fact that Obamacare was not all that bad. It was a step in the right direction to eventually offer a government option or single-payer system.

We pay so much more for healthcare (17%+ of our GDP) than any other country yet by almost ANY METRIC have similar or worse healthcare outcomes for our citizens. Despite personally being a fiscal conservative, I've come to the conclusion that the free-market and healthcare just don't mix. Why? Price elasticity of demand. No matter how much it costs, we still have to pay for healthcare. If the cost of water coming into your homes tripled, would you still pay for it? Of course you would, we need it to survive. What if water costs rose to 50% of your household earnings? Would you still buy it. Yes, but I bet you would be very careful with how much you used. A similar phenomenon has occurred in healthcare (even those insured) where people have to make difficult decisions between health and money. This drives down healthcare results.

The government has to get more involved, not less. Our rates are not going to plummet now that Trump is going to kill the ACA, they will continue to rise. W're going to have millions less with insurance and guess who is going to pay for their care when they arrive at the hospital for catastrophic care?
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Forcing everyone to buy health insurance has nothing to do with insurance companies having the president in their back pocket. It has, however, everything to do with the fact that insurace pools must be large enough (with enough enrollees) so as to spread risk and cost across a sufficiently large number of people to manage costs.
Click to expand...

Apologetics is not your strong suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top