Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...HaHa!!!! Forget ridiculous campaign promises to the dupes. Go after ridiculous hospital and doctor costs, tort reform, make the exchanges nationwide and the competition more healthy, and stop the GOP from sabotaging ACA. FIX IT. We'll be doing that forever. It was never O-Care anyway. HE wasn't for the mandate...
How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.
Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.
my gawd, take it easy, 50 days into this.GOP will be a laughing stock if they dont repeal Obamacare!
The bottom line is that we know that the ACA is not perfect and needs improvements. But those who oppose it , whether or not they favor the GOP alt- NEVER, EVER, want to discuss the benefits and ALWAYS highlight the costs and other downsides of it. It is clearly an ideological position rather than an objective analysis with the goal of actually improving the health care system, and yes, the health of Americans which they seem to have little concern for.I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.Need we say any more?
Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.
If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts
What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.
Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.
Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.
Soooo, a family of 4 with an income just under 50K is at 200% FPL (poverty line)
Poverty Guidelines
Then with the subsidy and cost sharing reduction ... the out of pocket max is 4500 or 4700 for the family?
Out-of-pocket Maximum Limits on Health Plans - Obamacare Facts
The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies
And that could actually be lowered (thank God since that's 10% of income) to go up to covering 94% and limiting out of pocket to around 2400?
The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies
I probably did that wrong. I mean it's better than nothing and that means better than before Obamacare. Still not as good as Medicaid.
They are already a laughing stoke- for many reason- not just the health care debacle, although that is way up thereGOP will be a laughing stock if they dont repeal Obamacare!
You dont even have insurance through the ACA. putz. You have zero idea what you are talking about, just a big mouthWell it's simple, one must pay out of pocket until the deductible is met and only then does the insurance kick in. before obummerfail, I paid 6k, 3k me and 3k my wife. now it is 9k and it is going to go up again.I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.Need we say any more?
Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.
If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts
What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.
Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.
Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.
As was a limit to maximum life time coverage, 40% overhead on most policies, pre existing conditions. Want to go back to that?that was all being done before obummerfail.Well, at least in theory, if you get a tax credit of Xamount of dollars, you could pay the doc out of pocket, and get the money back when you don't have to pay Uncle Sam as much come tax time. But I have no idea if the gop will go that route. We'd still have the problem if some guy catches cancer or something that no one outside the top .1% can pay out of pocket for.How can you buy health care without insurance?I don't think that's what the CBO found. Those young folks didn't buy insurance, unless they were fools.
The question is whether those people who lose coverage, working families, will see increased ability to access healthcare because they keep their subsidy and can buy HC directly w/o insurance. And that we cannot know, because we don't know what the bill will eventually be that is sent to Trump.
Which is everyone who gets cancer, or a heart attack.
My friend spent two months in hospital undergoing 4 rounds of aggressive chemotherapy. Who can afford that without insurance?
Your comment and Flopper's post at # 608 sort of go hand in hand. But first, one success of Obamacare is that all people with non-Medicaid coverage did gain preventative care with no deductalbe. There's no doubt that prevenative coverage of cancer cardiovascular disease are cost effective. The earlier you catch most cancer, the cheaper it is, and generic Lotril is better than a stroke. The easier preventative care is to get, the less the country has to spend overall.
And deductables do serve a useful purpose in that they cause people to choose not to access services they can do without. For example, shoe orthopedic or sleep clinics. There's a distinction beteween convenience and necessity. The problem arises when they are so high a working class family can't afford to have kid's broken arm tended without. And, politically Obamacare was unsustainable as passed, because lower income income-tax payors had crappier plans than people on Medicaid.
But basically Obamacare accepted our system of Employer Sponsored and Mediciaid Medicare and tried to bridge the gap of the uninsured. It was not an actual market reform. The price transparency and lack of competition between suppliers of devices and drugs, insurance companies, hospital/HMO momopolies .... was all driven by regulations. Ezekiel Emanuel describes it's outlines below.
Why Healthcare in America Is So Expensive | TIME.com
Stephen Brill was also on the panel. He wrote Bitter Pill, which is linked.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf
I really do not understand Sec. Price's plan, beyond being a tax cut for device buildres (hah!) and millionaires, and being a move towards getting rid of Medicaid as we know it and perhaps a return to charity hospitals where there was truly a difference in levels and quality of care for those who did not do useful work in society and those of us who do. And, I'm not sure that wasn't a good goal, heartless though it may seem. Making everyone have equal outcomes is not necessarily kind.
A living wage, duh. Can you read?People having money to spend DUHHHHHHHH....If thee demand is too low then why are you pushing for higher minimum wages? How is that going to increase the demand?Yeah, that makes a giant leap in assumptions, doesn't it?
Just make yourself more marketable, right?
Do you know anything about economics, supply and demand?
If there is too much labor and not enough demand, there is nothing labor can do, it doesn't matter silly. Nice try. There are no simple answers when the elites have used government to enrich themselves at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
. . . and where does that money come from?
. . . . and the money for a "living wage" comes from where?
Just one comment on your post. Republicans seem to think the new law is going to significantly expand competition. I disagree because the primary factors that limit health insurance company expansion is state laws and regulations, building new networks and relationships, and existing competition. It's an expensive and risky investment, particular with the federal government changing the ground rules with each change in the control of government.Well, at least in theory, if you get a tax credit of Xamount of dollars, you could pay the doc out of pocket, and get the money back when you don't have to pay Uncle Sam as much come tax time. But I have no idea if the gop will go that route. We'd still have the problem if some guy catches cancer or something that no one outside the top .1% can pay out of pocket for.How can you buy health care without insurance?I don't think that's what the CBO found. Those young folks didn't buy insurance, unless they were fools.Yeah, 14 million young healthy people will no longer carry health insurance because they wont be under threat of imprisonment and fines for not carrying excessive amounts of insurance that they do not need.
In other news, millions of Americans who had to pay excessive taxes for 'cadelac insurance plans' will be no longer targeted for that special tax. Dimmocrats call it a "windfall for the most wealthy of Americans" in news at 11.
The question is whether those people who lose coverage, working families, will see increased ability to access healthcare because they keep their subsidy and can buy HC directly w/o insurance. And that we cannot know, because we don't know what the bill will eventually be that is sent to Trump.
Which is everyone who gets cancer, or a heart attack.
My friend spent two months in hospital undergoing 4 rounds of aggressive chemotherapy. Who can afford that without insurance?
Your comment and Flopper's post at # 608 sort of go hand in hand. But first, one success of Obamacare is that all people with non-Medicaid coverage did gain preventative care with no deductalbe. There's no doubt that prevenative coverage of cancer cardiovascular disease are cost effective. The earlier you catch most cancer, the cheaper it is, and generic Lotril is better than a stroke. The easier preventative care is to get, the less the country has to spend overall.
And deductables do serve a useful purpose in that they cause people to choose not to access services they can do without. For example, shoe orthopedic or sleep clinics. There's a distinction beteween convenience and necessity. The problem arises when deductables are so high a working class family can't afford to have kid's broken arm tended without. And, politically Obamacare was unsustainable as passed, because lower income income-tax payors had crappier plans than people on Medicaid.
But basically Obamacare accepted our system of Employer Sponsored and Mediciaid Medicare and tried to bridge the gap of the uninsured. It was not an actual market reform. The price transparency and lack of competition between suppliers of devices and drugs, insurance companies, hospital/HMO momopolies .... was all driven by regulations. Ezekiel Emanuel describes it's outlines below.
Why Healthcare in America Is So Expensive | TIME.com
Stephen Brill was also on the panel. He wrote Bitter Pill, which is linked.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf
I really do not understand Sec. Price's plan, beyond being a tax cut for device buildres (hah!) and millionaires, and being a move towards getting rid of Medicaid as we know it and perhaps a return to charity hospitals where there was truly a difference in levels and quality of care for those who did not do useful work in society and those of us who do. And, I'm not sure that wasn't a good goal, heartless though it may seem. Making everyone have equal outcomes is not necessarily kind.
The Great American Healthcare legislation will be no effective at fixing the problems than the ACA because the real problems are not being addressed. These pieces of legislation just address who will benefit and will suffer. The ACA favored the poor and low income workers at the expense of wealthy and upper middle class workers. The new healthcare bill favors the young and the wealth at the expense of older workers and the poor.This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...HaHa!!!! Forget ridiculous campaign promises to the dupes. Go after ridiculous hospital and doctor costs, tort reform, make the exchanges nationwide and the competition more healthy, and stop the GOP from sabotaging ACA. FIX IT. We'll be doing that forever. It was never O-Care anyway. HE wasn't for the mandate...
How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.
Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.
Remind me again why Obama, Reid, Pelosi and a Democratic majority didn't do that when they passed Obama's signature bill. They wrote it. They passed it. The Republicans were not included. So why didn't the great and wonderful ACA fix all of those issues? You do realize that when you piss and moan about all of those problems, you are blaming the Obama administration don't you?
I get mine with the 60%ersYou dont even have insurance through the ACA. putz. You have zero idea what you are talking about, just a big mouthWell it's simple, one must pay out of pocket until the deductible is met and only then does the insurance kick in. before obummerfail, I paid 6k, 3k me and 3k my wife. now it is 9k and it is going to go up again.I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.
Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.
If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts
What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.
Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.
Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.
It already is a human right in all modern countries BUT here.Take your religious beliefs to the religion section.It comes from the same source as 50% of our healthcare dollars, government and thus taxpayers. That percentage will continue to rise in the 21st century for several reasons.where did the money come from for the subsidies?Obamacare favored the poor and low income workers. Trumpcare favors the the wealthy and higher income workers.And apparently the AARP.
Though Trumpcare seems an excellent attempt to get rid of the AARP's members.
Only when the nation agrees that access to healthcare should not be determined by one's wealth will the fight end. It's going to happen eventually. It's just a question of when.
First, the value of human life is increasing, some say exponentially. For example, thousands of US soldiers died in in a single battle in WWII and it was reported on page 2 of most major newspapers. In Iraq, 3 soldiers die in an isolated attack and it in the headlines for days, the subject of discussion for weeks on TV, cable and Internet. Two years ago a child died of measles and it was reported nationwide and became a hot button issue for increasing awareness of the need for inoculations. A little less than hundred years ago, 500,000 Americans died in the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 and the primary reporting was done in the obituaries. Today a single preventable death of a child raises alarm throughout the nation. A hundred years, it was of little concern outside of the family.
Secondly, the cost of healthcare in the 21st century is going to continue to rise particular those life saving miracles of medical science.
The increasing value being placed on human life and increasing cost of saving lives will continue to increase the demand for universal healthcare. I believe before the end of this century, healthcare will be considered a universal human right.
Your faith has no place in a policy discussion.
Being able to pay for it is not universal here...It already is a human right in all modern countries BUT here.Take your religious beliefs to the religion section.It comes from the same source as 50% of our healthcare dollars, government and thus taxpayers. That percentage will continue to rise in the 21st century for several reasons.where did the money come from for the subsidies?Obamacare favored the poor and low income workers. Trumpcare favors the the wealthy and higher income workers.
Only when the nation agrees that access to healthcare should not be determined by one's wealth will the fight end. It's going to happen eventually. It's just a question of when.
First, the value of human life is increasing, some say exponentially. For example, thousands of US soldiers died in in a single battle in WWII and it was reported on page 2 of most major newspapers. In Iraq, 3 soldiers die in an isolated attack and it in the headlines for days, the subject of discussion for weeks on TV, cable and Internet. Two years ago a child died of measles and it was reported nationwide and became a hot button issue for increasing awareness of the need for inoculations. A little less than hundred years ago, 500,000 Americans died in the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 and the primary reporting was done in the obituaries. Today a single preventable death of a child raises alarm throughout the nation. A hundred years, it was of little concern outside of the family.
Secondly, the cost of healthcare in the 21st century is going to continue to rise particular those life saving miracles of medical science.
The increasing value being placed on human life and increasing cost of saving lives will continue to increase the demand for universal healthcare. I believe before the end of this century, healthcare will be considered a universal human right.
Your faith has no place in a policy discussion.
Access to healthcare is universal here, to have it payed for it what they have across the pond, with a loss of access.
You talk about increasing competition will help healthcare, I completely agree, but how does severely limiting consumer choices in healthcare foster competition?? That's some bass awkwards logic. And yes universal or single payer does severely limit consumer choice which is the main driver of competition.
And this bill will do the same thing because those limitations on customer choice will still be there because without democrat votes, republicans can't change that.It already is a human right in all modern countries BUT here.Take your religious beliefs to the religion section.It comes from the same source as 50% of our healthcare dollars, government and thus taxpayers. That percentage will continue to rise in the 21st century for several reasons.where did the money come from for the subsidies?Obamacare favored the poor and low income workers. Trumpcare favors the the wealthy and higher income workers.
Only when the nation agrees that access to healthcare should not be determined by one's wealth will the fight end. It's going to happen eventually. It's just a question of when.
First, the value of human life is increasing, some say exponentially. For example, thousands of US soldiers died in in a single battle in WWII and it was reported on page 2 of most major newspapers. In Iraq, 3 soldiers die in an isolated attack and it in the headlines for days, the subject of discussion for weeks on TV, cable and Internet. Two years ago a child died of measles and it was reported nationwide and became a hot button issue for increasing awareness of the need for inoculations. A little less than hundred years ago, 500,000 Americans died in the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 and the primary reporting was done in the obituaries. Today a single preventable death of a child raises alarm throughout the nation. A hundred years, it was of little concern outside of the family.
Secondly, the cost of healthcare in the 21st century is going to continue to rise particular those life saving miracles of medical science.
The increasing value being placed on human life and increasing cost of saving lives will continue to increase the demand for universal healthcare. I believe before the end of this century, healthcare will be considered a universal human right.
Your faith has no place in a policy discussion.
Access to healthcare is universal here, to have it payed for it what they have across the pond, with a loss of access.
You talk about increasing competition will help healthcare, I completely agree, but how does severely limiting consumer choices in healthcare foster competition?? That's some bass awkwards logic. And yes universal or single payer does severely limit consumer choice which is the main driver of competition.
I think we have long passed the point where competition is going cut cost. Almost 60% of healthcare in the country is paid for by the government. Health insurance is one of the most regulated business by both state and the federal government. Almost a third of the business is nonprofit and with or without this new bill, profits of health insurance companies are capped by law.It already is a human right in all modern countries BUT here.Take your religious beliefs to the religion section.It comes from the same source as 50% of our healthcare dollars, government and thus taxpayers. That percentage will continue to rise in the 21st century for several reasons.where did the money come from for the subsidies?Obamacare favored the poor and low income workers. Trumpcare favors the the wealthy and higher income workers.
Only when the nation agrees that access to healthcare should not be determined by one's wealth will the fight end. It's going to happen eventually. It's just a question of when.
First, the value of human life is increasing, some say exponentially. For example, thousands of US soldiers died in in a single battle in WWII and it was reported on page 2 of most major newspapers. In Iraq, 3 soldiers die in an isolated attack and it in the headlines for days, the subject of discussion for weeks on TV, cable and Internet. Two years ago a child died of measles and it was reported nationwide and became a hot button issue for increasing awareness of the need for inoculations. A little less than hundred years ago, 500,000 Americans died in the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 and the primary reporting was done in the obituaries. Today a single preventable death of a child raises alarm throughout the nation. A hundred years, it was of little concern outside of the family.
Secondly, the cost of healthcare in the 21st century is going to continue to rise particular those life saving miracles of medical science.
The increasing value being placed on human life and increasing cost of saving lives will continue to increase the demand for universal healthcare. I believe before the end of this century, healthcare will be considered a universal human right.
Your faith has no place in a policy discussion.
Access to healthcare is universal here, to have it payed for it what they have across the pond, with a loss of access.
You talk about increasing competition will help healthcare, I completely agree, but how does severely limiting consumer choices in healthcare foster competition?? That's some bass awkwards logic. And yes universal or single payer does severely limit consumer choice which is the main driver of competition.
GOP will be a laughing stock if they dont repeal Obamacare!
Don't worry about, the new Republican Healthcare reforms have got you covered.
You already were BEFORE ACA. This way just makes sense.You progressives if you want to pay for everyone else's shit, go right ahead just don't expect any One else to...
