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.
Yes, I do. Although I support a variety of different choices, I'm not wedded to one.
The FIRST thing I'd do is scrap Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, and replace it with a unified system that applies to everyone , regardless of age.
More broadly I would like a system where about ~70% of the populations most common, routine healthcare needs are covered for by the government for free, costs being set by the government, and funding coming from taxes. And the other 30% -- specifically those things we identify as 'driving up costs' -- is covered by a loosely-regulated, market-oriented private insurance.
Yes, I do. Although I support a variety of different choices, I'm not wedded to one.
The FIRST thing I'd do is scrap Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, and replace it with a unified system that applies to everyone , regardless of age.
More broadly I would like a system where about ~70% of the populations most common, routine healthcare needs are covered for by the government and funded by taxes. And the other 30% -- specifically those things we identify as 'driving up costs' -- is covered by private insurance.
So I'm not sure why you would even attempt to defend anything about Obamacare.......what you are describing is close to what Canada does.
Have to laugh at fools who think the CEO gets all a corporation's profits.
Guess who gets the profits? The millions of American workers and retirees who have $24.7 Trillion invested in their pension plans and retirement accounts:
“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he added.
If this is true the company needs to move to replace him right now. Anyone with half a brain knew this is what would happen. I think he is just lying......I think if he told the truth he would have said...."We expected huge subsidies from the government to offset our losses".
Of course they did! All the insurance companies did, and do. They were the ones who created the damn thing! They expected to tie the hands of their rolls, funneling in millions of new customers (by force) and billions in subsidies.
The millions who who lost the plans they "can keep" [SIC] and the gullible millions who believed they would save money, are both finding out what the reality that common sense dictated. It's costing billions, it's hemorrhaging money, being mismanaged (just like most government ABCs) and the tax payer is on the hook for the boondoggle. SNAFU - Just wait until the end of 2016 when it all kicks in. Obama's pet is going to become a gigantic fiasco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
I don't know where I gave the impression that I defend Obamacare. I have, on other threads today, referred to it as "an incoherent law."
I think the Democrats have a lot of corrupt people in their party who capitulated to lobbying from hospital organizations and health insurers.
I just disagree with Republicans who want to "repeal" it, as if they'd forgotten why the country insisted on reforming healthcare in the first place.
That's like saying you dissagree with those who also see it as "an incoherent law" passed by "corrupt people in their party who capitulated to lobbying from hospital organizations and health insurers"
I mean for goodness sake, aren't bad laws the very thing that should be stopped?I "get" what you're implying, and even agree with you to some extent... but sometimes it's best to put a horse with a broken leg out of its misery, and get a new one.
The ACA has been a broken dysfunctional law from the start. Baically, all it did was throw everyone out of their long held plans, force them into high deductible plans to pay for the millions thrown into Medicaid. It was the long way around to a costly Medicaid expansion, and the pig was dressed up like a showgirl to sell it.
Then get people, maybe yourself included, (certainly not moi), off their fat azzes, moving, taking in fewer carbs, cutting out refined foods, not smoking, moderate to minimal alcohol, zero on the street and pharmaceutical drug abuse = Terrific health outcomes. Simple. And requires zero government intervention. Zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Call me crazy, but I think American health outcomes should be a higher priority than health insurer profit margins and dividend rates.
Of course they did! All the insurance companies did, and do. They were the ones who created the damn thing! They expected to tie the hands of their rolls, funneling in millions of new customers (by force) and billions in subsidies.
The millions who who lost the plans they "can keep" [SIC] and the gullible millions who believed they would save money, are both finding out what the reality that common sense dictated. It's costing billions, it's hemorrhaging money, being mismanaged (just like most government ABCs) and the tax payer is on the hook for the boondoggle. SNAFU - Just wait until the end of 2016 when it all kicks in. Obama's pet is going to become a gigantic fiasco.
And Congress was only too willing to say yes.
And then HHS set up the accounts...risk corridor and reinsurance.
And Rubio closed the loophole for the bailouts.
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.
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.
