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.
The more uninsured, the better? That is right wing logic for you. Having people with health insurance has nothing of do with bubbles.
It absolutely does. At the muzzle of state firepower every April 15, you've established a guaranteed revenue stream to a sector of the economy that now has no incentive to reign in costs.
Providers who now feel they can raise billing prices with impunity to carriers who pass along the costs of serial 'health' users to policyholders who have no choice but to keep paying premiums on fluff insurance or else.
It absolutely does. At the muzzle of state firepower every April 15, you've established a guaranteed revenue stream to a sector of the economy that now has no incentive to reign in costs.
Providers who now feel they can bill with impunity to carriers who pass along their costs to policyholders who have no choice but to keep paying premiums or else.
So basically health insurance should only be available to the rich elites who can afford it. Again, right wing logic.
what governors do in their states, is up to the governor and the state legislature. and that is where state run health care should be done, at the state level not at the federal level.
As long as there are federal tax breaks for employer-provided health benefits, the uninsured deserve a subsidy equal to their excess effective tax rates.
e.g.
Taxpayer A earns $25K cash plus untaxed health insurance
Taxpayer B earns $25K cash.
Taxpayer B pays a higher effective tax rate than A and thus deserves a subsidy.
ACA will be repealed soon enough. Then the concept of enrolling everyone in a medical welfare program will be moot.
What do you envision taking the ACA's place? Or do you see all of the people who are now insured through the law just becoming uninsured once again? Since I'd be one of those people, I'm interested in what your long term vision is on this subject.
One thing I know. Poor people who can't pay for medical care get sicker and they might even spread illness and it has no boundaries... Unless you live in a sterile bubble- and if sick, can't work, or pay bills, or eat, so you just adopted him and take care of all his needs and maybe his family's as well .
Health affect us all. I rather I have well people breathing same air I breathe.
Medicare keeps a very close eye on medical costs. In fact, all healthcare providers and insurance companies use them as the mark so to speak.
The truth is for those around age 60 or so enrolled in ACA, the best Medicare Advantage plans (for ages 65+) offer a better deal, both in cost and coverage.
Yes, it was the idiots the red states sent to Congress who created the hole. There was no hole in the original legislation. It's Republicans in red states who decided they didn't want to cover the people who were supposed to be covered, purely for political reasons, and thus millions of Americans are going without any healthcare right now as a result.
No that's called passing the buck, congress passed the law, the Senate approved it all of them, all knew or should have known the content and the impacts of the changes, and should have provided mitigation for those measures, or delayed passage until the finer details could be worked out. That's what adults should do, never mind people who are laying claim to being professional.
Congress passed it on 219 votes "for" all democrat, out of 435 seats, now tell me, is 219 more than 50%? 34 democrats rebelled and voted Nay. If the Dems had such a majority then why not introduce what they wanted, and not something that doesn't please either side?
Senate was fillibuster proof Dem majority, so once again why is the issue Republicans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
I'm all for universal healthcare or a public option. That's what most Democrats wanted, and still want. Had a few Republicans crossed over during the process we would have it right now, as they could have offset the Blue Dog Democrats who were blocking it, but not a single one would. Again, for purely political reasons.
Again passing the buck, if the Democrats (and by that you mean who you consider democrats, not members of the democratic party) wanted universal healthcare, then why did they not produce a bill to introduce it? The vote in Congress for the ACA was 0 votes for from republicans, 219 votes for from democrats, 4 non-votes, and 34 no votes from democrats. With the 34 "Blue Dog" democrats, and 178 republicans combined it was still not in the majority the 219 democrat votes were enough even if the 4 non-votes were present and voted Nay. How is that therefore the republicans fault, and if the bill was passed by effectively such a majority that 34 of the majority party could vote against every other party present, why wasn't this done? That's not a Republican issue
Senate was even more one sided 60 votes yea 58 dems, 2 independents, 39 repubs nay and one repub non-vote.
ACA isn't universal healthcare, it's a universal insurance requirement, it's always been a universal insurance requirement, and it was written by members of the Health Insurance community. In any world you choose to consider, how can a health insurance requirement result in universal healthcare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
Do you think a single Republican in Congress right now would ever cast a vote for universal healthcare?
If the right bill was passed, with acceptable levels of funding, and acceptable means to obtain that funding I don't see it being a problem. The issue isn't universal healthcare, it's how it's paid for what it provides, and whether or not people can obtain better medical care if they choose to psy for it.
The problem is that all proposals require massive costs (which is weird because we already have a well developed health infrastructure), high costs for service, and therefore require massive public support. The US spends more in public health spending than any country in Europe with a universal healthcare system, and we have to pay insurance on top of that. Where is the money going, because I've never met a poor doctor anywhere in the world (although surprisingly I've met some in the US who seem like they're not exactly flush). Why does the public contribution to health spending exceed per capita European levels, but still require the provision of insurance? How is it that Germany, France, Switzerland and the UK can provide complete health care with less expenditure than the US does in solely public funding? There's something significantly wrong with US healthcare, and the ACA does nothing to address it.
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.
Having people with health insurance has nothing of do with bubbles. 
