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.
When voters elect people that love corporations and their bribe money and hate the government, what do we think will happen? These puppets dont care about ordinary folks. Their donors laugh at the voters for electing people who they think care about them.
I am very confused here.
If the "people elected" loved corporation and their "bribe money" (what do you call it when unions donate to Democrats?), why would the people elected INCREASE the subsidies to the insurance companies?
The only reason Obamacare lives is because government has been subsidizing and supporting premiums. Without that government money, the market would already have imploded because of the incredibly complex law's mandates.
If you want healthcare reform, do it the right way. Create a bill that everyone can get behind, and transition to it slowly.
The Democrats have ZERO interest in creating a workable solution. If they did, they would have used some ideas from the right when crafting the bill and they would have gotten some GOP votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
The healthcare system is not something you can just change overnight - it's ridiculously complicated and requires years to re-work.
The Democrats have ZERO interest in creating a workable solution. If they did, they would have used some ideas from the right when crafting the bill and they would have gotten some GOP votes.
You mean like by using Romney-care as the model for the ACA? The Republicans were certainly never going to support the ACA because of Obama - but you should check your history. The ACA WAS the compromise bill.
I personally don't think it was that great, mainly because it doesn't address cost, the biggest issue in the HC system - but it was a start. The HC system was not sustainable before the ACA - and it still isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Uh......
That is exactly what Obamacare did.
No, it did not. It took years to fully roll out. Are you serious?
You mean like by using Romney-care as the model for the ACA? The Republicans were certainly never going to support the ACA because of Obama - but you should check your history. The ACA WAS the compromise bill.
I personally don't think it was that great, mainly because it doesn't address cost, the biggest issue in the HC system - but it was a start. The HC system was not sustainable before the ACA - and it still isn't.
No, it did not. It took years to fully roll out. Are you serious?
Obamacare took years to roll out because Obama kept postponing it to win elections.
Obamacare took years to roll out because Obama kept postponing it to win elections.
As someone that actually worked in the HC industry at the time (and still do) - this is not true at all. The effort it took to re-work things for the ACA was significant and required a lot of time to implement.
Hospitals needed time/effort to implement.
Insurance companies needed time/effort to implement.
Employers needed time/effort to implement.
The government needed time/effort to implement.
It was not a switch that was flipped overnight. And certainly people weren't just cut off of their HC immediately because of some idiot politicians holding people's HC hostage as a bargaining chip.
"President Donald Trump told advisers in an Oval Office meeting Tuesday that he favored ending crucial Affordable Care Act payments to insurers, Politico reported, a move that would almost guarantee chaos in the individual health insurance market.
If he kills the subsidies he'll be handing the midterms to the Democrats on a silver platter. I'm kinda torn on what I'd like for him to do. I don't want to see people who depend on these subsidies suffer. On the other hand, I want to see the GOP suffer greatly.
Agreed. Most people who got coverage through the ACA got it through medicaid, not through the exchanges. So if you destroy the exchanges, you no longer have any cover to repeal and replace the ACA. Any repeal/replacement just becomes a bill to scale back medicaid.
Yes you're right it should, and be replaced with a Medicare for all single payer system.
According to the liberal think tank, Urban Institute, Medicare for all would cost the Fed Gov an additional $3.2 trillion per year over the span of ten years. The US would have to implement a 25% national VAT tax (like many European/Scandinavian countries already have) to fund single payer Medicare for all. Would you agree to that?
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.
