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.
Feel free to link that Republican plan that you are talking about. It should have been easy for them to get this plan to pass the House since they are in control of the House.
Pollsters predetermine poll outcomes by the questions they pose versus not.
Let's take it to an extreme. Do you support boots on the ground in the Middle East or death by beheading?
How do you think most people polled will respond?
The Center for Health and Economy is a recently formed think tank. The organizer said" ACA is the beginning of healthcare reform, not the end. Not everything about the ACA is terrible. Stop trying to repeal the ACA and fix it". Anything beyond this is a conservative media spin.
The high level fix includes :
Arefundable tax credit for purchasers of individual private insurer plans to help offset the cost of those plans. Any unused tax credit not applied to premiums would be credited to an HSA account.
Does not discriminate against those with preexisting conditions so long as the gap between insurerance plans does not exceed 1 year. An 18 year old would have 1 year to get insured before the insurer could discriminate. Someone who lost their job would have 1 year to become reinsured before an insurer could discriminate.
The high level summary does not mention an individual or employer mandate.
It does not seek to disrupt employer subsidized insurance but intends to cap the tax benefit for those employers who subsidies more than 75% of the premium cost.
It seems to allow states to determine if they will allow junk policies or not. It does not appear to offer consumer protections.
It encourages interstate commerce. ( there is no federal law that prevents selling insurance across state lines.)
It does not get into the weeds of conflicting state laws or in vs out of network coverage.
It seeks to encourage insurers to offer lower cost individual plans to those with healthier lifestyles. Smokers and overweight/ obese would pay a higher premium than non- smokers with a normal range BMI.
Calls on states to enact sensible malpractice reform- tough challenge given many state constitutions preclude reform.
No mention of a cap on insurer profit or individual out of pocket cost. Not clear if this is an area that would defer to the ACA, or not.
No mention of subsidies in the high level summary or how healthcare costs to consumers will be reduced.
NEVER have a majority of Americans supported the ACA. Not when it was debated. Not when it was passed. Not when it was "implemented". The continued defiance of the will of the people by the Obama administration runs completely antithetical to their push to enfranchise everyone and then use 'the will of the people' to want to push through, for example, gun law reform or immigration reform.
The ACA is flawed. A complete repeal is not necessary but replacement is. In addition to the big changes coming after the election, wait until the bailouts for these insurance companies take place - this will be, once again, running completely against what the Democrats rail against (government helping big business).
Well, THAT Democrat talking point just got obliterated. Next....
You should have read some of those links. They mostly amounted to,"We don't know how this would be implemented, not do we outline how giving $1500 of tax credits to for the purchase of health insurance policies actually pays for coverage or benefits people who probably already don't pay federal income taxes, but we know it'll fix it!"
Not going to happen unless there is a better system in place to replace it, going back to what we had will not fly, otherwise Millions would all of a sudden be without any healthcare coverage and the old system was a failure.
Most countries in the developed world have some form of national universal healthcare. No two countries have the same system. Germany has the oldest, dating back to 1883. Unlike the US people, the rest of the developed world seems to understand that healthcare legislation is a living document requiring ongoing revision and reform. In contrast, healthcare in the US is politics as usual at both the federal and state level.
Putting the best interests of the American Hospital Association, big pharma, insurers and mobility device manufacturers before the best interests of the people for 75+\- years led to " right now". $ billions are spent each year to lobby Congress to favor these special interests. No liberal or conservative legislation is going to fix everything that's broken given the big money that's behind US healthcare.
Better than having no insurance or a junk plan that you pay for that doesn't actually cover anything.
Not a day goes by that I don't recall one of the early poster child's for the anti- Obamacare drums. This 55 year old woman in Florida was complaining about her former policy being cancelled and the outrageous cost of Obamacare.
This woman was typical of the masses who believed all insurance is alike. Her former plan did not cover tests, treatment or hospitalization. Instead, her $ 600 a year plan covered a limited number of routine visits to a doctor each year. She was unaware that she could shop for insurance and qualified for a substantial subsidy given she was a low wage worker.
No clue what would have happened if she discovered a lump, had a stroke or heart attack. I guess it would have sucked to be her.
NEVER have a majority of Americans supported the ACA. Not when it was debated. Not when it was passed. Not when it was "implemented". The continued defiance of the will of the people by the Obama administration runs completely antithetical to their push to enfranchise everyone and then use 'the will of the people' to want to push through, for example, gun law reform or immigration reform.
The ACA is flawed. A complete repeal is not necessary but replacement is. In addition to the big changes coming after the election, wait until the bailouts for these insurance companies take place - this will be, once again, running completely against what the Democrats rail against (government helping big business).
I don't see any big changes coming out of the elections. If the Republicans take the Senate we will simply have lost any chance, however remote, of bipartisan approach to addressing our health policies. It is unlikely that anything to fix the ACA will advance in the Senate or the House. Repeal and backdoor attempts at that are, of course, DOA at the White House. If Clinton runs in 2016 and her coattails are as long as some think they will be, we may get a fix after that.
For anyone who doesn't know what a 'push poll' is, the 2nd option in the poll is a great example ---
“2. It should be repealed and replaced with a conservative alternative that aims to lower health costs and help people get insurance."
Cripes, who wouldn't want an alternative, conservative or liberal, that lowers health costs and helps people get insurance.
Some surveys try to be impartial; this one stinks from the getgo.
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.
