Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I hear a lot of passionate opposition to the plan, but I hear nothing about alternative proposals. That goes for this forum as well as the Republicans.

Do you really favor a status quo where you quickly lose access to healthcare if your employer fires you; where 50 million remain uninsured who we all pay top dollar for when they end up in the ER given no preventative care; where insurance companies can drop your coverage when you need it most; where costs have already been skyrocketing for a long time; and where we lead the advanced world in cost per capita and get mediocre quality of life results in return?

I'm open to something else, but I don't think "just go back to the way it was" is sustainable. So...what is that "something else?"

The problem is that this is not the kind of a market where each participant can just bear the full cost of their consumption by themselves; by its very nature, costs need to somehow be shared between the healthy and the sick. That is the essence of the insurance concept. You need some sort of a comprehensive solution, because everyone is in the healthcare market, whether they like it or not.

If Republicans offered a clear, comprehensive solution that addressed cost, quality, and coverage, I could perhaps get behind it. It seems that all they are implying is "we don't care who has health insurance; every man, woman, and child for him/herself. All we care is that there is no Obamacare."
Are you serious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:50 PM
 
408 posts, read 393,606 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Actually, in terms of legislation... there were literally scores of comprehensive programs introduced, either as substitutes for sections, or substitutes entirely.
*During* the 41 votes? Really?

Show me, please. Links would be ideal, if you could provide them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,748,172 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick View Post
Oh my! How did people go to the doctors before the government decided to run the healthcare in this country, I wonder....! That can't be possible. The government is the savior!!!
What aspects of healthcare is government running?

Let's compare this to the rest of the developed world that has true government universal healthcare. Their healthcare costs are a fraction of the costs in the U.S. who is substantially less involved in healthcare beyond protecting lobbies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Default Demagoguery at its finest!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk0p7 View Post
I think as a civilzed society, that I prefer not seeing people that are sick suffering and dying due to lack of health care. Reguardless of anyone's opinion like yours, people are not going to be denied services at an ER. Trust me, I pay for it every year on my property tax though the hospital district. Not only that, my increased insurance premiums are paying for it. A better managed system through something like ACA gets people paying in some money, and will take the burden off my paid for insurance and off my hospital district tax.
This is what you call "demagoguery" folks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,463,986 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
prohibits the practice of refusing to give health insurance, or dropping insurance to people with preexisting conditions.

There is no reason for all the heavy-handed federal government control that we see causing havoc with the ACA.
There is no way to force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions without heavy-handed government intervention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,673,869 times
Reputation: 9174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk0p7 View Post
So you just let the sick that don't have insurance die on the sidewalk then?
If they have the notion it's the government's job to save them, yes, and the sooner, the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:57 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,463,986 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Are you serious?
So what's your solution? Should we just go back to the status quo ante ACA, or do you have any better ideas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
577 posts, read 512,538 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
This is what you call "demagoguery" folks!
Would you like to share you views/opinions on the topic or just take some cheap jab? Please keep the nice conversations going please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:58 PM
 
2,672 posts, read 2,718,496 times
Reputation: 1041
Repealing the ACA is going to do little to stop health cares cost from rising at the Federal level you are still left with Medicare, Tricare, and VA all entitlements and Medicaid a welfare program. Those four programs already consume about 1 trillion dollars. So you cut off 1/10 th of it with ACA which will actually only lower spending about 1.5% on all health care costs. Anybody who talks about cutting ACA without talking at all about Medicare is ignoring the gorilla in the room.

People concerned about the deficit should be talking about reigning in all the entitlements. As an example the real cost of Medicare Part b and D is about $500 yet Medicare recipients unless they are very wealthy only pay $133.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,463,986 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
If they have the notion it's the government's job to save them, yes, and the sooner, the better.
How very Christian of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top