Obamacare is soon dead? What next?

[PIPEWRENCH]

So then we tax the crap out of the elderly and poor.. sure. Force more people into poverty.

sure.

Actually they would contribute the least. The elderly and the poor don't buy much to pay tax on. The people who spend the most will pay the most. That would be the rich and upper middle class. Either way we have to pay for health care or we can just start shooting the sick and putting them out of their misery. I say we take all the people out of the loop that are only getting rich on other peoples suffering. We don't need commission sales people, we don't need impressive buildings with penthouses for the billionaires who own the insurance companies, all the commercials, the bribes I mean campaign contributions, and everything else that is not directly providing health care. We cut a few trillion dollars worth of fat and health care becomes affordable.

 

[Jay59]

You can't go back. All the gold diggers in our healthcare system have already raised prices to compensate. You cannot regulate the very people that own our government.

The only way our health care will ever be affordable is we have to get all the gold digging middlemen who do nothing to provide health care out of the loop. First the insurance companies have to go. They do not provide health care just profit from it. True single payer with a sales tax on all goods sold in the country is the only thing I can come up with.

If the government was competent to run things we would have a lot less trouble with a list of things. The free market people have a point. Areas typically out of pocket, eg eye exams and dental, have not gone up nearly as quickly, yet care has continued to improve. We do need to eliminate the middleman, in this case the government.

 

[jghiretire]

Ending ACA makes the best of a bad situation. It's an improvement but we were still better in 2008.

Paying 900 per month for a single person with a deductible of 5k was better?? Trump has gutted what he can of the ACA and now he wants to totally kill it in the court.
Pre-existing conditions?? Too bad so sad.

 

[jghiretire]

it works if you work it. If ya lay-a-bout with your hand out, then no it prolly dosent work to well for you.

My husband works very hard for his money - and he has good healthcare coverage but we will still have to pay at least 25k and he's going to die leaving me in some debt. So that works well how, exactly??

 

[jghiretire]

A woman is virtually guaranteed to not die.

You are not paying attention - it really isn't that good in America.

 

[jghiretire]

Only if you're talking to affluent people who have never been uninsured and have faced a serious illness or injury, or a set of profound genetic issues or birth defects.

Prior to the ACA, insurance companies had pretty much free reign to kick you off your policy for almost any reason they wanted.

Wendell Potter, former CIGNA Healthcare Vice President
Mr. Potter is likely to tell you a much different story.

ACA is a flawed piece of legislation which attempted to rectify the abuses of the health insurance industry.
It succeeded in making healthcare more accessible for many millions of Americans but it never offered a public option, because the public option was killed off by Congress.

All in all, the Affordable Care Act is a mixed bag. But it is the reason my son is still alive.

This x1000

 

[Jay59]

Paying 900 per month for a single person with a deductible of 5k was better?? Trump has gutted what he can of the ACA and now he wants to totally kill it in the court. Pre-existing conditions?? Too bad so sad.

Very little of ACA changed. Some off book funding to insurance companies has been discontinued and the individual mandate has been repealed.

The rest is intact. It was just very bad from the start.

 

[jghiretire]

Very little of ACA changed. Some off book funding to insurance companies has been discontinued and the individual mandate has been repealed.

The rest is intact. It was just very bad from the start.

It would have been ever better had the GOP worked with Obama to make it better but NO God forbid that should happen anymore.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

If the government was competent to run things we would have a lot less trouble with a list of things. The free market people have a point. Areas typically out of pocket, eg eye exams and dental, have not gone up nearly as quickly, yet care has continued to improve. We do need to eliminate the middleman, in this case the government.

The free market has corrupted our government. Until we remove them from owning both parties, the candidates, and who ever we elect we should expect nothing else. We the people are to blame. Between the rich and powerful, the corporations they own, the unions, and special interest we the people have lost control of our government. This is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

[Jay59]

The free market has corrupted our government. Until we remove them from owning both parties, the candidates, and who ever we elect we should expect nothing else. We the people are to blame. Between the rich and powerful, the corporations they own, the unions, and special interest we the people have lost control of our government. This is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

There is definitely a balance to draw. I could see a program where the government did catastrophic and emergency care and let the market fill in the gaps.

 

[Jay59]

It would have been ever better had the GOP worked with Obama to make it better but NO God forbid that should happen anymore.

The Republicans were not asked to work with the Democrats at any point. ACA was shoved through by main force.

 

[ecofarm]

You are not paying attention - it really isn't that good in America.

I lived in rural Africa, where it costs little and many die.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

There is definitely a balance to draw. I could see a program where the government did catastrophic and emergency care and let the market fill in the gaps.

I think just the opposite. I would like to see all the preventative care provided by government and people have policies for catastrophic. Taking care of your teeth from a child is better than paying for implants later. I know too many people that end up with catastrophic health problems because they cannot chew their food. They stop eating healthy fruits and vegetables for soft foods or juices. I think as a child and young adult too many people do not go see their family doctor until their is a real bad problem or later in life when it is too late. Then they say if had only known. Prevention is always better and cheaper than trying to fix the train wreck later in life. I was carrying 5 gallon buckets of coal, rock, sand, and dirt as 12 year old child. Now I am paying the price.

 

[Jay59]

I think just the opposite. I would like to see all the preventative care provided by government and people have policies for catastrophic. Taking care of your teeth from a child is better than paying for implants later. I know too many people that end up with catastrophic health problems because they cannot chew their food. They stop eating healthy fruits and vegetables for soft foods or juices. I think as a child and young adult too many people do not go see their family doctor until their is a real bad problem or later in life when it is too late. Then they say if had only known. Prevention is always better and cheaper than trying to fix the train wreck later in life. I was carrying 5 gallon buckets of coal, rock, sand, and dirt as 12 year old child. Now I am paying the price.

Prevention is an odd choice of words. What you propose is the opposite.

I get your point about proactive measures. However, that is the last area I want the government responsible. Tax incentives, perhaps. Education, certainly. Nothing more rigorous. Government is much too one-size-fits-all.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Prevention is an odd choice of words. What you propose is the opposite.

I get your point about proactive measures. However, that is the last area I want the government responsible. Tax incentives, perhaps. Education, certainly. Nothing more rigorous. Government is much too one-size-fits-all.

I don't want the government to do anything but pay for it with our tax dollars. But I do agree our government is too corrupt right now to be in such a responsible position. Just look at the Russian witch hunt. If all that time and energy was used to actually accomplish something useful instead of generating hate and prejudice we could be well on our way to providing health care for everyone.

 

[Jay59]

I don't want the government to do anything but pay for it with our tax dollars. But I do agree our government is too corrupt right now to be in such a responsible position. Just look at the Russian witch hunt. If all that time and energy was used to actually accomplish something useful instead of generating hate and prejudice we could be well on our way to providing health care for everyone.

You make my point. Government programs are used to grind political axes.

Better to keep it at arm's length from the government and provide a lot more choice.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

You make my point. Government programs are used to grind political axes.

Better to keep it at arm's length from the government and provide a lot more choice.

Better to take back our government and have it work for us like it is supposed to.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Yes exactly. That people are born into this world with the idea the world owes them a living, healthcare and a safe place to live is effing jsut crazy talk, but worse it’s an indicator of a sick deceased immature mindset...grow up.

I'd say your attitude is the sick.

Humanity survived in the olden days by looking after each other. People were born into tribes and they'd make sure people survived, if they could.

Your view is that everyone is an island, that no one should help them.

People are different, some people are born with problems and others aren't. So, you're telling me that people with pre-existing conditions and can't get a job paying loads of money should just die? That sounds like a sick mindset.

The simple fact is the US federal govt spends more on healthcare per capita than the UK govt does. And yet the UK govt provides healthcare for everyone.

People are stronger together. Separating them makes rich people richer. Which is why the Republicans are such fans of not having single payer.

 

[Jay59]

Better to take back our government and have it work for us like it is supposed to.

It/s a nice dream, but that's all it is. People do not get the government they want. They get a government they will tolerate. It's better to have a relatively weak government, because a strong government cannot be influenced. That is why rights do not give to you, they take power from the government.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

It/s a nice dream, but that's all it is. People do not get the government they want. They get a government they will tolerate. It's better to have a relatively weak government, because a strong government cannot be influenced. That is why rights do not give to you, they take power from the government.

Maybe one day we will be smart enough to see how the rich and powerful are using the 2 parties to keep us divided so we never unite and make our government work for us.

 

[Jay59]

Maybe one day we will be smart enough to see how the rich and powerful are using the 2 parties to keep us divided so we never unite and make our government work for us.

Are they? I don't see it that way. The rich have more access. They can make their points more easily than you of I, but it's a balanced factor. I do not see control of either party much less both.

J

 

[iguanaman]

Did it happen during Obama? It didn't.
Personally I am not in favor of banning a specific type of gun, any specific type, because it is not an effective deterrent to sales, so it's a pointless symbolic gesture that overwhelmingly singles out people who are law abiding, and doesn't do a thing to stop criminals.

It's like saying, "Pot is legal but we're outlawing brownies because children might eat them."
Really? Seriously? Give me a break, it just means people will go on buying and making brownies anyway, only now responsible adult users will be criminals.
Just don't let children be anywhere near those kinds of brownies, the same way you don't let them near your Bacardi 151.

I'm sure that there will be calls to do this or do that, but there have been calls to do all kinds of things in both Republican and Democrat years.
I'm saying that it is impossible to ban or confiscate guns, because actually carrying something like that out is a disastrously expensive failure, and the American people, even Democrats, will not stand for it. There are plenty of mainstream independents, mainstream liberals and Democrats who respect the Second Amendment. If we stop polarizing and tribalizing, it becomes possible to reach out to these people and dialogue with them.

I CANNOT tell you that ALL Democrats aren't gun banners. Of course some of them are.
Not all Republicans are in favor of outlawing abortion altogether, but there are some who do think we need a total ban.
Some states have enacted absurd laws to that effect and those state laws are being challenged, even by other Republicans.

Are we supposed to let the extremists run the show?

Just a comment about guns. Do you think universal background checks with no loopholes should be the law? Also we do need to take the guns of spouse abusers and mental patients don't we? Adding some sanity to gun ownership is not the same as taking away all guns.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Are they? I don't see it that way. The rich have more access. They can make their points more easily than you of I, but it's a balanced factor. I do not see control of either party much less both.

J

Who do you think funds the parties? When Hillary was a shoe in and going to be our next president the Clintons were paid several millions of dollars to give speeches. Nobody seems interest now. Maybe because she cannot make favorable political decision for their companies. How many politicians are going to tell the people who financed their campaigns that they will yote favorably for the people who did not? These politicians are owned from the local all the way up to the president. The real problem is not the illegal pay but the billions that are legally paid by super packs and the rich. The only reason for 2 parties is the illusion of choice and to keep us divided. If 1 party were really any better than the other wouldn't the majority of people by now have figured it out. No they keep us close to 50/50 divided so the rich and powerful can run things. They just keep blaming the other party keeping us divided.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Just a comment about guns. Do you think universal background checks with no loopholes should be the law? Also we do need to take the guns of spouse abusers and mental patients don't we? Adding some sanity to gun ownership is not the same as taking away all guns.

I have no problem with any of the above. Much of it already is the law, but with no enforcement teeth in some places.
But as far as I know, we're supposed to take guns away from spousal abusers, crooks and mental patients.

If we did a better job enforcing laws already on the books, it would make a dent.
Right now, we're hearing that it is possible to outright lie on background check paperwork and the errors are seldom if ever checked, which pretty much renders background checking a silly joke.

Time and time again we hear about mass shootings and then we find out that law enforcement had been advised any number of times about the shooter being more than a bit unhinged, with nothing done about it. It's like the abused kids who turn up dead after child welfare had already been told numerous times that the kid was at risk.

Apparently verifying gun background checks and looking after at risk abused kids is thankless work that no one wants to do.
But it has to be done, and we have to be willing to provide the funds to do it, instead of paying for useless bans on specific firearms.

 

[Jay59]

Who do you think funds the parties? When Hillary was a shoe in and going to be our next president the Clintons were paid several millions of dollars to give speeches. Nobody seems interest now. Maybe because she cannot make favorable political decision for their companies. How many politicians are going to tell the people who financed their campaigns that they will yote favorably for the people who did not? These politicians are owned from the local all the way up to the president. The real problem is not the illegal pay but the billions that are legally paid by super packs and the rich. The only reason for 2 parties is the illusion of choice and to keep us divided. If 1 party were really any better than the other wouldn't the majority of people by now have figured it out. No they keep us close to 50/50 divided so the rich and powerful can run things. They just keep blaming the other party keeping us divided.

I have no doubt of the Clinton's graft. One need only look at their real estate. Fortunately, the Dan Rostenkowskis and Bill/Hillary Clintons are newsworthy for their rarity. The influence of money is more subtle. I do find it interesting that Rosty is from the same Chicago machine that produced Barack Obama, but that is all there is for present--interest. In comparison, Republicans are like the driven snow. Reporters will give a Democrat some slack but never a Republican. Even minor missteps are often career ending.