ACA: Repeal and Delay?

[rightwinger]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

 

[Coyote]

If the establishment would just deregulate the medical market, lot of poor folk could afford medical care.

The rich could use "licensed practitioners" and the poor could use those who are alternatively trained.

This is the damned information age. However, government regulation make the market artificially rigid in price structure, both in those who deliver services, for extending the patent on drugs, devices and procedure unnecessarily. If they loosened up the free market, these things would take care of themselves.


But the medical establishment, the schools, education, the professional class, etc. have such a vested interested in making health prohibitively expensive, that folks pay way more to stay healthy, and heal than is necessary.

That could be highly dangerous and a regressive move.

 

[rightwinger]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

Things were a lot easier when Republicans didn't have to actually DO anything

Sitting on the sidelines harping about the Obamacare Trainwreck made for good media

Now they get stuck with the consequences when they try to dismantle it

lol, it was easier for the RW'ers on USMB too, as their ever increasing volume of floundering posts is making clear.

As I said last week it's going to be fun watching the RWnuts around here try to play defense.

Responsible Americans want no social safety net, it cost too much.
I know it's old fashion at all, why can't people just pay for their own shit and move on with their lives? Progressives have made this country weak... fact

Even the most responsible people can suffer a catastrophic event and illness that they have no control over and be financially wiped out.

Shit happens of course, that does not mean that you should expect the federal government to bail you out of the shit your in.
I rather die than to depend on the nanny state. Depending on the nanny state is no way to live… Fact

What is wrong with a nanny state preventing you from dying?

 

[Rustic]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

 

[Rustic]

Things were a lot easier when Republicans didn't have to actually DO anything

Sitting on the sidelines harping about the Obamacare Trainwreck made for good media

Now they get stuck with the consequences when they try to dismantle it

lol, it was easier for the RW'ers on USMB too, as their ever increasing volume of floundering posts is making clear.

As I said last week it's going to be fun watching the RWnuts around here try to play defense.

Responsible Americans want no social safety net, it cost too much.
I know it's old fashion at all, why can't people just pay for their own shit and move on with their lives? Progressives have made this country weak... fact

Even the most responsible people can suffer a catastrophic event and illness that they have no control over and be financially wiped out.

Shit happens of course, that does not mean that you should expect the federal government to bail you out of the shit your in.
I rather die than to depend on the nanny state. Depending on the nanny state is no way to live… Fact

What is wrong with a nanny state preventing you from dying?

 

[Kondor3]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Then again, that "lot of Americans" who rely upon such would never vote Republican anyway...

 

[Coyote]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

I think the mandate to get Health insurance is the most important part of the bill. Otherwise people who don't own anything use the Emergency room as their doctors office. IOW--The taxpayers end up paying for it anyway.

The problem with Obamacare is the COST. It's outrageous. This comes from Pharmaceuticals that have sky-rocketed--it's ridiculous. My daughter is a NP working out of an allergy clinic. One shot that used to cost $40 is now $600.00. You know you're getting ripped off when that happens. Obamacare has also been very hard on smaller doctor's offices, many have already closed.

There is very little competition between insurers in many states. I think PA comes in at the highest in the nation, as it only has one insurance provider for the entire state. So they can charge anything they want to and get away with it. It's really no wonder that Hillary Clinton lost there,those people are very upset about the cost of their health insurance under Obamacare.

But even Hillary Clinton admitted it was too expensive and she offered up an old Republican plan to let insurers cross states lines to compete to drive the costs down.

The easiest solution is to FIX Obamacare, instead of repealing the whole thing. In that they could get Democrats on board, and there wouldn't be this huge, long drawn out battle forthcoming.. If they don't they will have to repeal and replace with something else that is going to take 2 years to get done, and they'll probably screw something up in the bill they come up with that will drive costs up again.

The thing with the crossing the state lines idea is - I don't think it would work. I've brought it up before but never had a real response.. Insurance companies base their rates on actuarials. So a state that has an aging population can be expected to have more expensive medical problems than a state with a younger population, or a state who's main occupation is construction, mining, timbering can be expected to have a higher then normal amount of occupational related injuries and illness than a state where the main occupations are white collar. All of these things go into determining rates. If people from anywhere can by insurance in any state it seems to me that insurance companies will either raise rates for everyone or offer insurance to out of staters at a differing rate.

 

[Coyote]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Then again, that "lot of Americans" who rely upon such would never vote Republican anyway...

But apparently many did.

 

[Rustic]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

I think the mandate to get Health insurance is the most important part of the bill. Otherwise people who don't own anything use the Emergency room as their doctors office. IOW--The taxpayers end up paying for it anyway.

The problem with Obamacare is the COST. It's outrageous. This comes from Pharmaceuticals that have sky-rocketed--it's ridiculous. My daughter is a NP working out of an allergy clinic. One shot that used to cost $40 is now $600.00. You know you're getting ripped off when that happens. Obamacare has also been very hard on smaller doctor's offices, many have already closed.

There is very little competition between insurers in many states. I think PA comes in at the highest in the nation, as it only has one insurance provider for the entire state. So they can charge anything they want to and get away with it. It's really no wonder that Hillary Clinton lost there,those people are very upset about the cost of their health insurance under Obamacare.

But even Hillary Clinton admitted it was too expensive and she offered up an old Republican plan to let insurers cross states lines to compete to drive the costs down.

The easiest solution is to FIX Obamacare, instead of repealing the whole thing. In that they could get Democrats on board, and there wouldn't be this huge, long drawn out battle forthcoming.. If they don't they will have to repeal and replace with something else that is going to take 2 years to get done, and they'll probably screw something up in the bill they come up with that will drive costs up again.

The thing with the crossing the state lines idea is - I don't think it would work. I've brought it up before but never had a real response.. Insurance companies base their rates on actuarials. So a state that has an aging population can be expected to have more expensive medical problems than a state with a younger population, or a state who's main occupation is construction, mining, timbering can be expected to have a higher then normal amount of occupational related injuries and illness than a state where the main occupations are white collar. All of these things go into determining rates. If people from anywhere can by insurance in any state it seems to me that insurance companies will either raise rates for everyone or offer insurance to out of staters at a differing rate.

That's why we can't expect the nanny state to be the countrys Savior...

 

[kaz]

So giving healthcare to everyone rather than just people is how you don't support poor people having babies?



Let me explain what I mean by that

You don't get it do you? When you make special offers to people just with babies, and not everyone, you just encourage people that can't afford to care for those babies to have them in order to get a meal ticket for their own benefits. What's worse? Helping support one poor person? Or helping to support a person with a baby until that kid turns 18?

So you believe that poor people are looking at other people and what they get before deciding whether to have babies on welfare or not when they are getting free shit either way. You actually believe that.

Well, I'll not have babies because everyone else is getting free healthcare too ...

Yeah, that's what they think ...

I live in Kentucky and I've seen it. Before Medicaid expansion to the states, I KNOW people that had kids just so they could get health insurance for themselves. I've also seen people that brag about how much in SNAP benefits they get because of the kids they have... I've seen people plan to have more kids just to get more benefits. It happens all across the country. If you don't think it happens, you are walking around with your eyes closed.

Anecdotal stories make a terrible argument, and for good reason.

It does happen, but you have the wrong reason. The correct reason is in your story, re-read it after I explain it to you. No one doesn't work because other people do or don't get benefits. They don't work because they get more benefits for not working.

What we absolutely need to do is make sure that no one ever gets more money for not working than working. Welfare should phase out in a way that you always get more total money if you work. The problem is that we have cutoffs for welfare. I had one guy who worked for my business who every period end counted his hours to make sure he didn't exceed the cutoffs. That is flat out stupid.

Now re-read what you wrote. That is what you in your own story pointed out. They did not decide to work because of what anyone else gets, they decided to not work because they got less than if they worked. That is a rational decision, frankly. Democrats know that too, it's how they enslave the poor to vote for them. The last thing a Democrat wants is a poor person to succeed

No, you are talking about something different than what I am. If you give benefits to the poor people without children as incentives to go back to work, instead of only helping and giving benefits to those with kids, you create an environment where people who can't afford to have children do so. Plain and simple.

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

 

[Coyote]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

Not a fact.

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness. Otherwise there was no way the insurance companies would accept pre-existing conditions.

It's nothing to do with control freaks and not handling disagreement - jeez you guys are a one-trick pony. It's economics.

 

[sealybobo]

A post like this one Rustic makes me feel like you are a paid poster, it is also a post of someone without any idea of history and why it was put in place 80 years ago.

The only paid posters on this website are progressive ones… fact

You are already paying for the extreme high costs of medical tests and medication out of your taxes, only thing is you don't get anything back without ACA

Don't you think that we are paying too much money for the top dogs that are scratching the back of those who Do Not have your best interest
They are are not helping you.

The thing is I don't want any help, I want to pay my own way and not told what to pay for - shit that I will never even use, ever. I have never bought insurance of my life, I'm not about to either.
I own 3S corps and have been self-employed and debt free for 20+ years… I don't need the nanny state obviously.

You don't need insurance? What happens when you get cancer?

Well, you can have all the insurance in the world it won't stop cancer on its own. Dip shit

So you would just pay the $100K a month it would cost you out of pocket? Fucking liar. You probably would declare bankruptsy or you probably already hide your money and you'd go to the emergency room and pretend you don't have any money. I bet you get Obamacare and you are shitting your pants the GOP are going to repeal it. That pre existing condition of yours. You know the one where when a hot guy walks by you you get a boner?

 

[Coyote]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

I think the mandate to get Health insurance is the most important part of the bill. Otherwise people who don't own anything use the Emergency room as their doctors office. IOW--The taxpayers end up paying for it anyway.

The problem with Obamacare is the COST. It's outrageous. This comes from Pharmaceuticals that have sky-rocketed--it's ridiculous. My daughter is a NP working out of an allergy clinic. One shot that used to cost $40 is now $600.00. You know you're getting ripped off when that happens. Obamacare has also been very hard on smaller doctor's offices, many have already closed.

There is very little competition between insurers in many states. I think PA comes in at the highest in the nation, as it only has one insurance provider for the entire state. So they can charge anything they want to and get away with it. It's really no wonder that Hillary Clinton lost there,those people are very upset about the cost of their health insurance under Obamacare.

But even Hillary Clinton admitted it was too expensive and she offered up an old Republican plan to let insurers cross states lines to compete to drive the costs down.

The easiest solution is to FIX Obamacare, instead of repealing the whole thing. In that they could get Democrats on board, and there wouldn't be this huge, long drawn out battle forthcoming.. If they don't they will have to repeal and replace with something else that is going to take 2 years to get done, and they'll probably screw something up in the bill they come up with that will drive costs up again.

The thing with the crossing the state lines idea is - I don't think it would work. I've brought it up before but never had a real response.. Insurance companies base their rates on actuarials. So a state that has an aging population can be expected to have more expensive medical problems than a state with a younger population, or a state who's main occupation is construction, mining, timbering can be expected to have a higher then normal amount of occupational related injuries and illness than a state where the main occupations are white collar. All of these things go into determining rates. If people from anywhere can by insurance in any state it seems to me that insurance companies will either raise rates for everyone or offer insurance to out of staters at a differing rate.

That's why we can't expect the nanny state to be the countrys Savior...

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[sealybobo]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

Things were a lot easier when Republicans didn't have to actually DO anything

Sitting on the sidelines harping about the Obamacare Trainwreck made for good media

Now they get stuck with the consequences when they try to dismantle it

lol, it was easier for the RW'ers on USMB too, as their ever increasing volume of floundering posts is making clear.

As I said last week it's going to be fun watching the RWnuts around here try to play defense.

Responsible Americans want no social safety net, it cost too much.
I know it's old fashion at all, why can't people just pay for their own shit and move on with their lives? Progressives have made this country weak... fact

Even the most responsible people can suffer a catastrophic event and illness that they have no control over and be financially wiped out.

Not him. In fact he hasn't paid for car insurance in 20 years. He thinks the rest of us are suckers. Of course who's he going to hit working on his S Corp.

 

[Rustic]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

Not a fact.

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness. Otherwise there was no way the insurance companies would accept pre-existing conditions.

It's nothing to do with control freaks and not handling disagreement - jeez you guys are a one-trick pony. It's economics.

See that's the problem of the whole concept of paying into a pool… Deadbeats only benefit from it by abusing it.
I will never pay into a pool for anything it's a rotten concept made to fail… Fact

 

[sealybobo]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

Sorry, this is just the first time the GOP are going to let you down. You didn't realize their rhetoric was all bullshit but maybe now you'll start to see their talk doesn't match reality. They aren't going to kick out illegals or build a wall, repeal Obamacare, bring jobs back home, raise wages for middle class people or pay down the debt

Doctor’s Orders: Don’t Repeal Obamacare Until You Have A Plan To Replace It | The Huffington Post

 

[Lewdog]

You don't get it do you? When you make special offers to people just with babies, and not everyone, you just encourage people that can't afford to care for those babies to have them in order to get a meal ticket for their own benefits. What's worse? Helping support one poor person? Or helping to support a person with a baby until that kid turns 18?

So you believe that poor people are looking at other people and what they get before deciding whether to have babies on welfare or not when they are getting free shit either way. You actually believe that.

Well, I'll not have babies because everyone else is getting free healthcare too ...

Yeah, that's what they think ...

I live in Kentucky and I've seen it. Before Medicaid expansion to the states, I KNOW people that had kids just so they could get health insurance for themselves. I've also seen people that brag about how much in SNAP benefits they get because of the kids they have... I've seen people plan to have more kids just to get more benefits. It happens all across the country. If you don't think it happens, you are walking around with your eyes closed.

Anecdotal stories make a terrible argument, and for good reason.

It does happen, but you have the wrong reason. The correct reason is in your story, re-read it after I explain it to you. No one doesn't work because other people do or don't get benefits. They don't work because they get more benefits for not working.

What we absolutely need to do is make sure that no one ever gets more money for not working than working. Welfare should phase out in a way that you always get more total money if you work. The problem is that we have cutoffs for welfare. I had one guy who worked for my business who every period end counted his hours to make sure he didn't exceed the cutoffs. That is flat out stupid.

Now re-read what you wrote. That is what you in your own story pointed out. They did not decide to work because of what anyone else gets, they decided to not work because they got less than if they worked. That is a rational decision, frankly. Democrats know that too, it's how they enslave the poor to vote for them. The last thing a Democrat wants is a poor person to succeed

No, you are talking about something different than what I am. If you give benefits to the poor people without children as incentives to go back to work, instead of only helping and giving benefits to those with kids, you create an environment where people who can't afford to have children do so. Plain and simple.

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

 

[Rustic]

The only paid posters on this website are progressive ones… fact

You are already paying for the extreme high costs of medical tests and medication out of your taxes, only thing is you don't get anything back without ACA

Don't you think that we are paying too much money for the top dogs that are scratching the back of those who Do Not have your best interest
They are are not helping you.

The thing is I don't want any help, I want to pay my own way and not told what to pay for - shit that I will never even use, ever. I have never bought insurance of my life, I'm not about to either.
I own 3S corps and have been self-employed and debt free for 20+ years… I don't need the nanny state obviously.

You don't need insurance? What happens when you get cancer?

Well, you can have all the insurance in the world it won't stop cancer on its own. Dip shit

So you would just pay the $100K a month it would cost you out of pocket? Fucking liar. You probably would declare bankruptsy or you probably already hide your money and you'd go to the emergency room and pretend you don't have any money. I bet you get Obamacare and you are shitting your pants the GOP are going to repeal it. That pre existing condition of yours. You know the one where when a hot guy walks by you you get a boner?

I'm not a socialist… Sorry to disappoint

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

Obamacare has always been a choice

You could shop for an Obamacare policy or see if you can find a better one on the open market

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP has nothing to replace it with. I've even heard they might delay any of the repeal taking effect until after 2020.

The thing is, they have no idea how complicated it really is. Best analogy I heard was - the GOP is like a dog that chased a car and finally got it...now what do they do with it?

It is easy to point and scream Trainwreck...Trainwreck

But for some reason, Republicans have yet to come up with something better

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

Not a fact.

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness. Otherwise there was no way the insurance companies would accept pre-existing conditions.

It's nothing to do with control freaks and not handling disagreement - jeez you guys are a one-trick pony. It's economics.

See that's the problem of the whole concept of paying into a pool… Deadbeats only benefit from it by abusing it.
I will never pay into a pool for anything it's a rotten concept made to fail… Fact

If you are in an insurance pool....

Do you really want to be the one with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills?