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.
So, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin was one of the key votes in making Mitch Mengele McConnell smile today. Is this really what Wisconsin voters bargained for when they elected another republican to represent them? When you can't take your sick kids to the doctor will that possibly wake you up to the fact that the GOP doesn't give a good gosh-darn about you?
Yep, when you have a choice between buying a health insurance with high premium that would still prevent you from going to a doctor because of several grand deductible, or to pay a fine to IRS for not having that useless insurance (instead of using that money to pay to the doctor). Obamacare was such a wonderful law, that made Insurance companies richer and an average middle-class working American poorer.
Senator Johnson is delivering everything to the voters that he has promised. Sure, although I would guess most of us that voted for him want nothing to do with replacing the ACA and just want it repealed. The other best option would be to do nothing and let it collapse on its own.
But just to take the OP's bait, what does not taking your sick kids to the doctor have to do with insurance?
The "Nay" votes should all be ashamed of themselves: this vote was merely one to open up debate on the subject. A nay vote was essentially a vote against free speech.
Brrabbit has it right: The UCA forced working people to pay excessive premiums for essentially unusable insurance (ie- no insurance at all from the practical standpoint) and extended a free ride at taxpayer expense to a few working poor, usually younger, healthier entry level types who don't really need insurance. The unemployed poor have been adequately covered by Medicaide for 50 years.
How badly do we really need insurance? Well, by coincidence (??) the years in which "universal" Obamacare coverage has been in effect is the only period in American history when life expectancy has gone down.
But of course, Liberals have never let facts get in the way of their POVs.
The "Nay" votes should all be ashamed of themselves: this vote was merely one to open up debate on the subject. A nay vote was essentially a vote against free speech.
Brrabbit has it right: The UCA forced working people to pay excessive premiums for essentially unusable insurance (ie- no insurance at all from the practical standpoint) and extended a free ride at taxpayer expense to a few working poor, usually younger, healthier entry level types who don't really need insurance. The unemployed poor have been adequately covered by Medicaide for 50 years.
How badly do we really need insurance? Well, by coincidence (??) the years in which "universal" Obamacare coverage has been in effect is the only period in American history when life expectancy has gone down.
But of course, Liberals have never let facts get in the way of their POVs.
Obamacare also created the current opiod crisis in America with "free drugs"
Obamacare was such a wonderful law, that made Insurance companies richer and an average middle-class working American poorer.
I agree the insurance companies having made tons of money with their super high deductible Obamacare policies. Just look at the 10 year chart of United Health Care with its 900% gain.
I think most voters knew what they were getting when they voted for Johnson. A lot of these people already have health care through work or their their spouse's work, or they haven't had to deal with a catastrophic illness yet, so they don't need to concern themselves with the more vulnerable people in society. That's the typical approach: "I've got mine, so tough luck to the rest of ya."
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
I think most voters knew what they were getting when they voted for Johnson. A lot of these people already have health care through work or their their spouse's work, or they haven't had to deal with a catastrophic illness yet, so they don't need to concern themselves with the more vulnerable people in society. That's the typical approach: "I've got mine, so tough luck to the rest of ya."
I run into this a lot. "I got my own problems, I don't care about anyone else" types. Seems to be the Republican mentality.
The "Nay" votes should all be ashamed of themselves: this vote was merely one to open up debate on the subject. A nay vote was essentially a vote against free speech.
The legislators should try to improve the ACA already in place (many options exist to this effect), but the Republicans are more concerned with undoing Obama's legacy--or at least, not giving him credit for anything-- than with improving the quality of life for most Americans.
The result is that the Republicans have been spinning their wheels on the ACA issue for weeks, and haven't been getting much else done. No tax reform--nothing else that has greater potential for bipartisan support. What a waste of time, energy, and resources.
Quote:
Brrabbit has it right: The UCA forced working people to pay excessive premiums for essentially unusable insurance (ie- no insurance at all from the practical standpoint) and extended a free ride at taxpayer expense to a few working poor, usually younger, healthier entry level types who don't really need insurance. The unemployed poor have been adequately covered by Medicaide for 50 years.
The ACA has allowed millions of people (many of them middle- and working-class Republicans) to have adequate (or any) health insurance, in many cases for the first time in their lives.
Certainly, the ACA needed many improvements when Trump took office, and the more he and his allies ignore it, the worse it'll get. But they can take their time: they have lots of money and great insurance, so don't need to rush.
Quote:
How badly do we really need insurance? Well, by coincidence (??) the years in which "universal" Obamacare coverage has been in effect is the only period in American history when life expectancy has gone down.
An example of the logical fallacy that correlation equals causation (if that claim is even valid).
Also, though life expectancy in the U.S. has generally trended upward since records have been kept, there have been troughs downward, as well.
Quote:
But of course, Liberals have never let facts get in the way of their POVs.
You may be surprised to learn that it's the Conservatives who are more likely to be skeptical of science and other realms where "facts" come into play.
The ACA has allowed millions of people (many of them middle- and working-class Republicans) to have adequate (or any) health insurance, in many cases for the first time in their lives.
Last time I checked for Obamacare Insurance, I got a great selection of wonderful plans at a cost of $600-800 per month with the lowest deductible I was able to find being $3K. How having a health insurance at a cost of $6K (that won't even pay for any service until I shell out another 3K) make it better for me than paying to a doctor out of my pocket? Is that what you call an adequate? And even if millions of people are getting that adequate insurance, why I should pay for them and yet have no benefits of having insurance for myself (because I cannot afford to shell out 3K - I have to skip all those medical services available to others)?
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.
