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 03-28-2014, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,173 posts, read 26,197,836 times
Reputation: 27914

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It's just devastating that so many Americans are getting Health Care coverage now....
It's just more devastating how many millions still aren't....that's almost the same number that didn't at the start of this fiasco, isn't it? And at what cost?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,855,263 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10 View Post
Actually we are still far short of the 30 to 50 million people that are uninsured depending upon your estimate.
6 million was basically the number who had their plans cancelled.

Lots of money spent for basically a rounding error in the number of people who have insurance. Doesn't seem too efficient.
I agree with you. That's a good idea, we need to enter the 21st Century and establish a Single Payer Universal Coverage system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:42 AM
 
3,599 posts, read 6,783,818 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It's just devastating that so many Americans are getting Health Care coverage now....
Considering 80% of newly insured are from the free stuff (medicaid). Only 25% of those signing up for the exchanges are newly insured). The ACA isn't working as plan.

ACA lovers: What is the goal of the law? As I understand it. They promoted the law as "access to affordable health care". What this law is is "access to free health care"

Why don't we just change the name to "Democratic Party accees to free helath care ACT"

It will not be fully paid for. We all know all social programs eventually eat up government budgets. Dems will say wars are a waste of money. Guess what? They are right. Wars are wasteful spending. But you know what is also correct. Wars eventually end. Spending eventually winds down with wars. Social program spending always increases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Holly Springs, NC USA
3,457 posts, read 4,653,554 times
Reputation: 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I agree with you. That's a good idea, we need to enter the 21st Century and establish a Single Payer Universal Coverage system.
No we need to get the government out of the health industry, they have no place in there. It is obvious from this administration that they cannot effectively implement any program such as this and that there is rampant corruption and fraud that will cost taxpayers in the long run. We have an over-reliance on government and insurance to handle health care and it is driving up the costs. It is also very apparent that Democrats and this administration have no idea what "insurance" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,855,263 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Considering 80% of newly insured are from the free stuff (medicaid). Only 25% of those signing up for the exchanges are newly insured). The ACA isn't working as plan.

ACA lovers: What is the goal of the law? As I understand it. They promoted the law as "access to affordable health care". What this law is is "access to free health care"

Why don't we just change the name to "Democratic Party accees to free helath care ACT"

It will not be fully paid for. We all know all social programs eventually eat up government budgets. Dems will say wars are a waste of money. Guess what? They are right. Wars are wasteful spending. But you know what is also correct. Wars eventually end. Spending eventually winds down with wars. Social program spending always increases.
Err, that was the intention of the ACA.. Perhaps this could help you ...

Read the Law | HHS.gov/healthcare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:47 AM
 
3,599 posts, read 6,783,818 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I agree with you. That's a good idea, we need to enter the 21st Century and establish a Single Payer Universal Coverage system.
I'm all for Single Payer. Do you think the Democratic Party can convince:

1. Their voting of people making 20K a year to pay 7-8% in health care taxes (that's what they do in most single payer families)
2. The American Trial Lawyers Association (a major Democratic party ally) that it will be harder to sue like in single payer countries? Look how hard it is to sue the US federal govt at VA or military hospitals. The lawyers hate it.
3. Limited access to doctors/hospitals (that's really how the majority of cost savings occur in single payer). Meaning we will probably have some type of VA health care system style (or equivalent) for the vast majority of people. Remember VA docs love working 7-3PM. I've am in the health care system and many VA essentially shut down their operating rooms starting around 3PM. So it may be a good thing for health care workers so they can work less and have more time off.

I am all game. You can always search my stance on Single Payer. There are a lot of compromises with single payer. We need to be all in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:48 AM
 
7,930 posts, read 9,154,161 times
Reputation: 9345
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I agree with you. That's a good idea, we need to enter the 21st Century and establish a Single Payer Universal Coverage system.
Perhaps. How much will taxes need to be increased across the board to institute such plan? What about those who don't pay taxes. Should we cut their EITC by the same%?

Medicare has financial issues while insuring a small percentage of the population. What changes will need to be made to make sure these financial problems aren't worsened as you add so many more people to be covered?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:49 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I agree with you. That's a good idea, we need to enter the 21st Century and establish a Single Payer Universal Coverage system.
Its always histerical to see people who jump up and down shouting about how wonderful ACA is on one posting, ready to abandon the very same ACA on the next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:50 AM
 
3,599 posts, read 6,783,818 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Err, that was the intention of the ACA.. Perhaps this could help you ...

Read the Law | HHS.gov/healthcare
Nope. The adminstration has gone on record wanting a 50/50 split between new medicaid vs new insured on exchanges. Affordable isn't "free health care". We all know that. A 80/20% split is not sustainable even with subsidies for the 20% of newly insured on the exchanges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2014, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,855,263 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
I'm all for Single Payer. Do you think the Democratic Party can convince:

1. Their voting of people making 20K a year to pay 7-8% in health care taxes (that's what they do in most single payer families)
2. The American Trial Lawyers Association (a major Democratic party ally) that it will be harder to sue like in single payer countries? Look how hard it is to sue the US federal govt at VA or military hospitals. The lawyers hate it.
3. Limited access to doctors/hospitals (that's really how the majority of cost savings occur in single payer). Meaning we will probably have some type of VA health care system style (or equivalent) for the vast majority of people. Remember VA docs love working 7-3PM. I've am in the health care system and many VA essentially shut down their operating rooms starting around 3PM. So it may be a good thing for health care workers so they can work less and have more time off.

I am all game. You can always search my stance on Single Payer. There are a lot of compromises with single payer. We need to be all in.
Well, the reality is that we have not yet grown up enough to be able to do what makes sense. Eventually, we'll get there.
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. The time now is 05:24 AM.

© 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