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.
Because we have two fundamentally opposing viewpoints:
-Republicans *generally* believe the power of the marketplace will provide adequate health care solutions, and want to minimize government subsidies or involvement to get to that end.
-Democrats *generally* believe health care should be subsidized for those who cannot afford it, and are willing to have government involvement to get to that end.
Everyone please spare me your partisan viewpoint (from either side). That's really the choice we are making as a nation-which direction, and how far in that chosen direction. Reasonable, rational, educated people can see the same set of facts and come up with different conclusions, and that's what is happening here. Lawmakers are representing their constituencies as best as they can.
And if you get rid of the ACA, what will the 'marketplace' do differently than what it was doing in 2009 when 45 million people were uninsured and a million people a year filed bankruptcy, a large number of them because of medical bills?
And you're right, Democrats generally feel that at least some level of healthcare is a right and your ability to get care if you are seriously ill or injured should not be predicated on how much money you have. You are also right when you say that Democrats feel the government should be involved in that process because we don't believe that we can depend upon private charity to provide healthcare to people.
And if you get rid of the ACA, what will the 'marketplace' do differently than what it was doing in 2009 when 45 million people were uninsured and a million people a year filed bankruptcy, a large number of them because of medical bills?
And you're right, Democrats generally feel that at least some level of healthcare is a right and your ability to get care if you are seriously ill or injured should not be predicated on how much money you have. You are also right when you say that Democrats feel the government should be involved in that process because we don't believe that we can depend upon private charity to provide healthcare to people.
Well they better come up with a better way to fund it then expecting people to buy an insurance policy they don't want, can't afford, and can't even use. And any tax to cover everyone for everything would bankrupt everyone.
There's nothing in that article that states that Pelosi is against the plan, just that she didn't FULLY endorse it. What that means is anyone's guess. Maybe it means what you claim - though I doubt it, maybe it means she likes some of the ideas but not others, maybe it means she would like a few additions. In any event the Democrats are not currently IN a position to make this plan - or any other right now - a reality.
Of course that may change before too awfully long.
So WHY did you lie and claim that Democrats never proposed any "fixes" when you now claim you posted this very link months ago? These are concrete proposed "fixes" by Democrats - whether or not Pelosi gives her full endorsement.
Ken
The DNC continues to vote down universal health care. They worked and cheated against the candidate that supported universal health care. As long as those like yourself are going to make excuse for the bought and paid off portion of the party (the portion running things) we are never going to have universal health care.
Well they better come up with a better way to fund it then expecting people to buy an insurance policy they don't want, can't afford, and can't even use. And any tax to cover everyone for everything would bankrupt everyone.
Sorry, how are we paying for the extra $700 billion for the useless wars?
Health Insurers in New Mexico To Implement Record-High Premium Increases
Franchini says that instability of the exchanges is the main reason insurers want premium rate increases. By raising premiums, insurers can be more confident about participating in Obamacare if the extra cash can insulate them from major financial losses.
This is wall street talking. They have not had any major financial losses, they just want to make sure their profits are protected. Profits. That's what Obamacare is all about. Profits.
It's unsustainable. It needs defeated. Do the (R)'s have the answer? No they do not. Neither do the (D)'s but we will continue to support these two corrupt institutions.
They sure could agree on an extra $700 billion for the war machine.
Do you even understand what you are promoting here? This is no fix. We did this already--paid billions to insurance companies to "cover their losses" to cover high risk sick people, to give discounts to low income patients, expand tax credits, expand catastrophic health insurance (which is no coverage at all). Who is going to pay for the subsidies Democrats are proposing to expand and continue while providing zero coverage at a high cost? And you think this is good? More of the same failed system? You're a smart guy. I don't need to tell you that the height of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and over again.
Young people refused to buy into Obamacare because they saw exactly what it was--which, in part, created the losses. Why did they not opt in? Way too expensive for no coverage. And yet you are proposing the very same failed program, except with "robust marketing strategies" to suck people in with even better sales lines than the ones before: "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," and "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," and "you will save $2500 a year."
BS. Lipstick on a pig does not make it anything but a pig. I will fight against any proposal to pay insurance companies billions of dollars to cover their losses as we have done for years while providing no insurance at a high cost.
When Democrats passed this monstrosity, it was based on lies and the "stupidity of the American people" per its own author. Time for the Senators to have to use the same coverage they inflicted and continue to inflict upon the American people.
The proposed "fixes" are out there. I guess Fox News just doesn't bother to report that eh? Probably because they like their viewers ignorant.
1) Create an annual $15 billion reinsurance fund. ObamaCare had a reinsurance program for three years from 2014 to 2016 to provide payments to insurers that enroll higher-cost, sicker individuals.
2) Continue ObamaCare's insurer payments, which reimburse them for giving discounts to low-income patients. Insurers have blamed the uncertainty over whether these payments will continue as a reason for their proposed double digit rate increases in 2018.
3)Have "robust marketing strategies" to ensure that more people enroll during open enrollment periods.
4)Allow a buy-in option for Medicare for people nearing retirement age.
5)Expand tax credits by age, geography and income to help people buy insurance. Currently, about 84 percent of ObamaCare participants get a subsidy.
6)Expand the availability of catastrophic health plans that include essential health benefits and coverage for primary care for younger enrollees. These plans, meant to protect people from worst-scenarios, tend to have low monthly premiums and high deductibles.
That fact that YOU haven't read about the proposed "fixes" doesn't mean they are not THERE. It just means that YOU haven't been paying attention.
There are several proposed "fixes" to Obamacare. Some folks may like them, some folks may hate them - but to claim that there are no proposed "fixes" is just plain ignorant.
Bleak ones, I'm not very optimistic about the near future.
Actually if the Republicans continue to actively work to defund and wreck the ACA and things get really bad, it might offer the opportunity to get one passed. It seems that the older I get, the more pessimistic I am about Americans doing the right thing. Trump's election being a prime example...
The Republicans CAN'T "defund" ObamaCare ......... the Democrats already did that.
The Republicans can't even get to 50 votes to do anything at all about ObamaCare.
ACA stands as written and passed by Democrats without a single Republicans vote.
The "defunding" you are talking about is a result of a Federal Court order because the Congress that was controlled by Democrats failed to provide the Insurance Company Bailouts and now it is imploding.
It WILL take a vote in Congress to fund it ..... and they can't get more than 48-49 votes to do anything at all.
There's nothing in that article that states that Pelosi is against the plan, just that she didn't FULLY endorse it. What that means is anyone's guess. Maybe it means what you claim - though I doubt it, maybe it means she likes some of the ideas but not others, maybe it means she would like a few additions. In any event the Democrats are not currently IN a position to make this plan - or any other right now - a reality.
Of course that may change before too awfully long.
So WHY did you lie and claim that Democrats never proposed any "fixes" when you now claim you posted this very link months ago? These are concrete proposed "fixes" by Democrats - whether or not Pelosi gives her full endorsement.
Ken
It's 10 Dems with an idea ....... It's not a Bill.
There has never been a Bill proposed by Democrats for a "fix". It's a Secret.
Do you even understand what you are promoting here? This is no fix. We did this already--paid billions to insurance companies to "cover their losses" to cover high risk sick people, to give discounts to low income patients, expand tax credits, expand catastrophic health insurance (which is no coverage at all). Who is going to pay for the subsidies Democrats are proposing to expand and continue while providing zero coverage at a high cost? And you think this is good? More of the same failed system? You're a smart guy. I don't need to tell you that the height of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and over again.
Young people refused to buy into Obamacare because they saw exactly what it was--which, in part, created the losses. Why did they not opt in? Way too expensive for no coverage. And yet you are proposing the very same failed program, except with "robust marketing strategies" to suck people in with even better sales lines than the ones before: "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," and "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," and "you will save $2500 a year."
BS. Lipstick on a pig does not make it anything but a pig. I will fight against any proposal to pay insurance companies billions of dollars to cover their losses as we have done for years while providing no insurance at a high cost.
When Democrats passed this monstrosity, it was based on lies and the "stupidity of the American people" per its own author. Time for the Senators to have to use the same coverage they inflicted and continue to inflict upon the American people.
So, what do YOU propose?
Do you have a better idea?
Ken
As a matter of fact,
Medicare for all.
Those who are able to score a job with private insurance, can continue to feel superior.
The rest are on Medicare, including those in Congress and all other government employees.
At the very least, that ought to cut down on attempts to undermine Medicare.
Next question.
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.
