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.
Nothing. Just pointing out that healthcare was nationalized so that ~9% of the insured population could have a slightly easier and more expensive way to get a high deductible, high premium health care plan, which they could have gotten before ObamaCare, along with the 300 million people who found a non-government way to be insured.
Just musing...
There were reasons why some people weren't able to have a non-government way of being insured. Those who lost their jobs, but were too young for Medicare for one. Those who can't afford the premiums for their employer-provided insurance for another. Obamacare was the most affordable, most comprehensive and best insurance that we have ever had.
I personally think healthcare should be provided to every citizen in our country by the government, but I'm sure I won't see that in my lifetime.
Obama care is a straight line descendant of Nixon's universal health insurance plan. Obamacare was literally the Republican plan.
If you want true reform, than the end of employer based health insurance needs to be done. Employment and health insurance needs to be separated from each other. What I would like to see employers having a choice of offering health insurance or directly subsidizing the premiums of their employees on the marketplace and still allow the employees to use pre tax dollars.
This is the basic reason the Pubs have no solution.
No, this is:
The debate took on aspects of the ridiculous, as debates with Democrats frequently do, when the leftist fanatics said things that boiled down to "If you don't like our big-government schemes for running the nation's health care, let's see if YOUR big-government schemes for running the nation's health care are bigger and better than ours!"
The Republicans, flummoxed as usual by Democrats' challenge "Can you be more big-govt liberal than we are?", could not come up with an answer to satisfy the Dems (as though the Dems had any intention of accepting ANY answer from Republicans).
I never heard ANY Republican give the correct answer, which is "Assigning big govt to run health care is fundamentally wrong, and will result in skyrocketing costs, reduced health care for a great many Americans, and general chaos as they find themselves locked into those skyrocketing costs and diminishing returns, unable to escape the program once their preferred programs are destroyed by government."
The debate took on aspects of the ridiculous, as debates with Democrats frequently do, when the leftist fanatics said things that boiled down to "If you don't like our big-government schemes for running the nation's health care, let's see if YOUR big-government schemes for running the nation's health care are bigger and better than ours!"
The Republicans, flummoxed as usual by Democrats' challenge "Can you be more big-govt liberal than we are?", could not come up with an answer to satisfy the Dems (as though the Dems had any intention of accepting ANY answer from Republicans).
I never heard ANY Republican give the correct answer, which is "Assigning big govt to run health care is fundamentally wrong, and will result in skyrocketing costs, reduced health care for a great many Americans, and general chaos as they find themselves locked into those skyrocketing costs and diminishing returns, unable to escape the program once their preferred programs are destroyed by government."
The cost of HC varies so enormously individual to individual, that relying on the individual alone is going to fail way too often. Keeping Gov't out of it, means keeping money out of it. And for that reason it will fail for way too many.
This is why we have Medicare in the first place. Then Medicaid. And even more conventional private insurance which alleviates much of the potential financial burden off the individual.
That being said, free markets can do well with our relatively young and healthy. And those are large chunks of our people. Unfortunately no one stays that way.
No. The hmo act was the only part which did pass. The plan did not pass for two reasons Watergate and Ted Kennedy. Kennedy later referred to it as his greatest regret.
No. The hmo act was the only part which did pass. The plan did not pass for two reasons Watergate and Ted Kennedy. Kennedy later referred to it as his greatest regret.
Is your memory that short? Before Obamacare, the uninsurable and elderly already had medicaid and medicare to help them. All Obama and the Democrats did was expand the welfare state to the point where medical care is poorer and more costly because it added more big government.
Only if they qualified. You had to have a minor child and receive KTAP to get Medicaid for yourself before the ACA/expanded Medicaid. KTAP was limited to so many years. So, when you timed off that, no medical care for you. The uninsurable were often unemployable due to health conditions that employers refuse to accommodate.
The ACA was pretty much the same thing that Hillary Clinton was pushing years before that failed to be approved.
I was turned down for Medicaid for years and couldn't get medical care for my health conditions because I didn't qualify. I have been refused even menial employment because of the same health conditions. Society refuses to let people like me have employment while lying about us and saying that we are lazy and don't want to work. "There's no excuse not to have a job" all while the job creators make every excuse not to hire you.
I was very opposed to the ACA and I argued against it. I was very upset when it passed. The expanded Medicaid ended up saving my life though so I feel weird about it now. I just wish it was expanded in Tennessee so I could go there and get out of Kentucky. I would go back to no medical care at all if I moved there.
If you qualify for disability, you become eligible for Medicare after 2 years. You are eligible for Medicare if over 65 years and have enough credits, disabled for more than 2 years and end stage renal disease. There might be a few other reasons but I can't remember.
Medicaid is for the poor regardless of age and children foster care. It's easier for children to qualify.
My question is how many people have actually had an aca plan? If you qualify for subsidies, the premiums aren't horrible because they are limited to, I think, 9.5% of your income. If your income is below a certain amount, there are csr plans, you can get. The people who have the most problems with it are those just about the cut off point. There should be a max income percentage instead of being 4x poverty. The difference between those under and over can be thousands of dollars. Anyway, providers like my aca plan because it doesn't require a lot of prior authorizations outside of surgeries and the like.
I'm curious: when the marketplaces opened, how many states made access available to the plans already used by their municipal employees? It seems like it would be the most cost-effective option for everyone, even at full personal cost, compared to the miniscule coverage offered by how many fly-by-night companies that popped up.
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.