...but wait! I thought if I liked my plan I could keep my plan?!

[Eaglewings]

I want us to be able to pay our own way, but I want it to be fair unlike how the medical fucks made it before Obamacare.

So many died because they lost their insurance from not being able to work, and then they lost their homes and life savings after a short amount of treatment, and left for dead......Why you ask?

Because the insurance and medical high ups were getting rich off of the backs of the people.

The huge campaign to run down Obamacare is lying just like we see how the big money can lie in politics to keep the corruption going..They want it gone, and the dumb ass corruptions like McConnell are getting paid by the big fucks to make it gone.

Obamacare may have big flaws but it is a start to help those dicked around with preExisting conditions.

It was all hush hush before that , and no one cared..

It is usually hidden, but look at the jackass who bought the life saving drug company and overnight he jacked the prices up over $5000.00 a pill , which were $1.75 a pill...
Why don't we see you complain about that Kaz..?


.

The system was completely fucked before Obamacare, But it was because of governmnet and their stupid rules.

The best run insurance companies before Obamacare made a 4-5% profit on revenue. That's actually pretty low. Now it's lower. What should they have made? How much more could they have possibly paid for in benefits without jacking up prices like they are going up now?

The Big Pharma and insurance companies are richer than ever... They are the ones behind the lies about Obamacare and people believe it..They need their annual marks ups to pay for their yaughts.

We need a complete overhaul to end the corruption, but that will never happen.

Obamacare may not be perfect , but it is a start to help the people.

Well, there is a wealth in health, the 18 Richest People In Medicine
18 Richest Health Care Billionaires In America: Medical moguls 2014 » CEOWORLD Magazine
.

There is no "complete overhaul" that is going to change this outcome.

Regulations inherently, by their very nature, benefit the rich. Doesn't matter what regulations you put in place, the rich will benefit from them.

If the administration put in place a regulation that actually harmed the rich, the rich would close down their companies, and leave. If that happened, and millions of people were left without insurance, because all the insurance companies closed, that would both be terrible for everyone, cause havoc in the economy, but it would also destroy the politicians who pushed the regulation.

So they will never do that.

Thus any regulation passed, no matter what that regulation is, or who came up with it, or for what purpose.... it will never harm the super rich. It won't ever happen.

However, they will pass regulations that cost companies tons of money to meet. That action inherently benefits the rich, no matter what the intention is.

Here's how. Me and you, run insurance companies. You have a small started up company, with a few hundred clients, and you pull down $150,000 a year. I have a major insurance company covering a hundred cities, with a million clients, and I make a billion dollars a year.

The government passes a new massive regulation, that will cost us both a million dollars to implement, and get approval.

Which of us is able to spend the money needed to meet those regulations? I can easily. Billion dollars a year, I can implement those regulations no problem. You on the other hand, that may bankrupt your little company. Instead you are likely to show up at my front door, and ask if I'd like to buy you out. Which of course I do. Now even with the expensive regulations, because I have more customers and less competition, I make hundreds of billions more money.

This is the flaw in your thinking, that I've seen hundreds of times.

You, or those like you, push for massive regulations over whatever. Then after those massive regulations are passed, you see that the big wealthy companies are making massive more profits. Thus you assume that since the regulations didn't prevent the profits, that there must be some sort of corruption involved.

In realty, there is rarely corruption, but rather it is simply the normal result of government legislation.

Why do you think McDonald's CEO said he supported a $15/hour minimum wage? Do you really think such a regulation would harm McDonald's that the CEO would support it?

It's because McDonald's executives know that they have the money and capital, to replace workers with Kiosks and automation.

You know who can't replace their employees with kiosks? All of their competition. The small mom&pop shops. The tiny store chains.

So those people will go out of business, and McDonald's will gain an ever increasing share of the market, making hundreds of billions more, than they are now.

Regulations by their very nature...... inherently benefit the rich.

Doctors are bound by and signed a law and ethics agreement to only go by what the FDA approves.

The FDA is Fucking us.

Buying from other countries is illegal...and that is fucked up too. Why do you think this is ok?

We need regulations that will help the people not the BIG Pharma and FDA. of coarse Congress is helping them for $$$$.

-- Gleevec (a cancer treatment): $6,214 (per month/per customer) in the United States, compared to $1,141 in Canada and $2,697 in England.
-- Humira (for rheumatoid arthritis): $2,246 in the United States, compared to $881 in Switzerland and $1,102 in England.
-- Cymbalta (for depression): $194 in the United States, compared to $46 in England and $52 in the Netherlands. In fact, there is also a generic version of Cymbalta so these prices reflect having a cheaper alternative.

Pharmaceuticals cheaper abroad because of regulation - CNN.com

Mom and Pop stores have been going down for years... It is the giants of health insurance who have been kicking them to the side many years before Obamacare.

BTW: I live in the most expensive place in America to live. $15.00 an hour is chicken feed, minimum wage people are leaving and the mega-rich are taking over the whole bay area.. They are finding there is no one to teach their children, clean their toilets, make their hamburgers..

OK, so ignoring the wealth envy, and let's assume if you stop paying people they will work anyway. So, mathematically, how much more healthcare do you think taking their earnings is going to give you across the customer base?

Kaz~ Shut the fuck up about my enviousness of rich people... I am rich asshole

Some wealthy people see the corruption too.

.

Now that was funny. Do you not see how funny what you just said was?

"Doctors are bound by and signed a law and ethics agreement to only go by what the FDA approves.
The FDA is Fucking us."​

Regulations causing problems.

"Buying from other countries is illegal...and that is fucked up too. Why do you think this is ok?"​

Regulations causing problems.

"We need regulations that will help the people not the BIG Pharma and FDA. of coarse Congress is helping them for $$$$."​

Did you not read your own post? You just pointed to two examples of regulations that caused problems, and then immediately said "We need regulations!"

The regulations are the causes of the problems you just mentioned. We don't need regulations. We need less regulations.

And again, you didn't grasp the entire point of my post. You can't make regulations that "help the people, not big Pharma and the FDA". Regulations INHERENTLY will benefit big pharma and the wealth. Inherently. By it's very nature, it will help the big companies.

Mom and Pop stores have been going down for years... It is the giants of health insurance who have been kicking them to the side many years before Obamacare.

How many of those years have the regulations been going down? How many of them have the regulations been going up?

That's my point.

Yeah, the closing of small shops in favor of the major companies didn't start with ObamaCare. Because regulations and ever expanding controls over business, didn't start with ObamaCare either. It's just the latest example.

Delusional Andy.....Of coarse we need some regulations in place for the safety of the drugs approved..but at the same time the Big fucking Pharma can get their hands in and pay $$$$$ for the voting in their favor to keep things corrupt.

If we didn't have any regulations any Tom, Dick or Harry could make a magic drug ..

Because of the voting influence the regulations are helping the Big Pharma not the American people.

If you can not acknowledge that the politicians are in bed with the FDA, drug makers, medical costs, procedures and making huge amounts of money on the backs of the American people. Then I am done with this conversation. And you can stay in your little dream world.

.



Exposing Big Pharma's Influence on Politicians | ENCOGNITIVE.COM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/opinion/scare-tactics-over-foreign-drugs.html

 

[Andylusion]

The system was completely fucked before Obamacare, But it was because of governmnet and their stupid rules.

The best run insurance companies before Obamacare made a 4-5% profit on revenue. That's actually pretty low. Now it's lower. What should they have made? How much more could they have possibly paid for in benefits without jacking up prices like they are going up now?

The Big Pharma and insurance companies are richer than ever... They are the ones behind the lies about Obamacare and people believe it..They need their annual marks ups to pay for their yaughts.

We need a complete overhaul to end the corruption, but that will never happen.

Obamacare may not be perfect , but it is a start to help the people.

Well, there is a wealth in health, the 18 Richest People In Medicine
18 Richest Health Care Billionaires In America: Medical moguls 2014 » CEOWORLD Magazine
.

There is no "complete overhaul" that is going to change this outcome.

Regulations inherently, by their very nature, benefit the rich. Doesn't matter what regulations you put in place, the rich will benefit from them.

If the administration put in place a regulation that actually harmed the rich, the rich would close down their companies, and leave. If that happened, and millions of people were left without insurance, because all the insurance companies closed, that would both be terrible for everyone, cause havoc in the economy, but it would also destroy the politicians who pushed the regulation.

So they will never do that.

Thus any regulation passed, no matter what that regulation is, or who came up with it, or for what purpose.... it will never harm the super rich. It won't ever happen.

However, they will pass regulations that cost companies tons of money to meet. That action inherently benefits the rich, no matter what the intention is.

Here's how. Me and you, run insurance companies. You have a small started up company, with a few hundred clients, and you pull down $150,000 a year. I have a major insurance company covering a hundred cities, with a million clients, and I make a billion dollars a year.

The government passes a new massive regulation, that will cost us both a million dollars to implement, and get approval.

Which of us is able to spend the money needed to meet those regulations? I can easily. Billion dollars a year, I can implement those regulations no problem. You on the other hand, that may bankrupt your little company. Instead you are likely to show up at my front door, and ask if I'd like to buy you out. Which of course I do. Now even with the expensive regulations, because I have more customers and less competition, I make hundreds of billions more money.

This is the flaw in your thinking, that I've seen hundreds of times.

You, or those like you, push for massive regulations over whatever. Then after those massive regulations are passed, you see that the big wealthy companies are making massive more profits. Thus you assume that since the regulations didn't prevent the profits, that there must be some sort of corruption involved.

In realty, there is rarely corruption, but rather it is simply the normal result of government legislation.

Why do you think McDonald's CEO said he supported a $15/hour minimum wage? Do you really think such a regulation would harm McDonald's that the CEO would support it?

It's because McDonald's executives know that they have the money and capital, to replace workers with Kiosks and automation.

You know who can't replace their employees with kiosks? All of their competition. The small mom&pop shops. The tiny store chains.

So those people will go out of business, and McDonald's will gain an ever increasing share of the market, making hundreds of billions more, than they are now.

Regulations by their very nature...... inherently benefit the rich.

Doctors are bound by and signed a law and ethics agreement to only go by what the FDA approves.

The FDA is Fucking us.

Buying from other countries is illegal...and that is fucked up too. Why do you think this is ok?

We need regulations that will help the people not the BIG Pharma and FDA. of coarse Congress is helping them for $$$$.

-- Gleevec (a cancer treatment): $6,214 (per month/per customer) in the United States, compared to $1,141 in Canada and $2,697 in England.
-- Humira (for rheumatoid arthritis): $2,246 in the United States, compared to $881 in Switzerland and $1,102 in England.
-- Cymbalta (for depression): $194 in the United States, compared to $46 in England and $52 in the Netherlands. In fact, there is also a generic version of Cymbalta so these prices reflect having a cheaper alternative.

Pharmaceuticals cheaper abroad because of regulation - CNN.com

Mom and Pop stores have been going down for years... It is the giants of health insurance who have been kicking them to the side many years before Obamacare.

BTW: I live in the most expensive place in America to live. $15.00 an hour is chicken feed, minimum wage people are leaving and the mega-rich are taking over the whole bay area.. They are finding there is no one to teach their children, clean their toilets, make their hamburgers..

OK, so ignoring the wealth envy, and let's assume if you stop paying people they will work anyway. So, mathematically, how much more healthcare do you think taking their earnings is going to give you across the customer base?

Kaz~ Shut the fuck up about my enviousness of rich people... I am rich asshole

Some wealthy people see the corruption too.

.

Now that was funny. Do you not see how funny what you just said was?

"Doctors are bound by and signed a law and ethics agreement to only go by what the FDA approves.
The FDA is Fucking us."​

Regulations causing problems.

"Buying from other countries is illegal...and that is fucked up too. Why do you think this is ok?"​

Regulations causing problems.

"We need regulations that will help the people not the BIG Pharma and FDA. of coarse Congress is helping them for $$$$."​

Did you not read your own post? You just pointed to two examples of regulations that caused problems, and then immediately said "We need regulations!"

The regulations are the causes of the problems you just mentioned. We don't need regulations. We need less regulations.

And again, you didn't grasp the entire point of my post. You can't make regulations that "help the people, not big Pharma and the FDA". Regulations INHERENTLY will benefit big pharma and the wealth. Inherently. By it's very nature, it will help the big companies.

Mom and Pop stores have been going down for years... It is the giants of health insurance who have been kicking them to the side many years before Obamacare.

How many of those years have the regulations been going down? How many of them have the regulations been going up?

That's my point.

Yeah, the closing of small shops in favor of the major companies didn't start with ObamaCare. Because regulations and ever expanding controls over business, didn't start with ObamaCare either. It's just the latest example.

Delusional Andy.....Of coarse we need some regulations in place for the safety of the drugs approved..but at the same time the Big fucking Pharma can get their hands in and pay $$$$$ for the voting in their favor to keep things corrupt.

If we didn't have any regulations any Tom, Dick or Harry could make a magic drug ..

Because of the voting influence the regulations are helping the Big Pharma not the American people.

If you can not acknowledge that the politicians are in bed with the FDA, drug makers, medical costs, procedures and making huge amounts of money on the backs of the American people. Then I am done with this conversation. And you can stay in your little dream world.
.

Exposing Big Pharma's Influence on Politicians | ENCOGNITIVE.COM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/opinion/scare-tactics-over-foreign-drugs.html

How much do you think the drug companies would spend lobbying congress, if there were no drug regulations to influence?

The whole reason it's worth it to spend millions lobbying the FDA, is specifically because they can influence how the FDA controls the drug market. If there was no FDA to control the drug market..... there would be no reason to spend millions lobbying the FDA.

Yeah, any Tom Dick and Harry could create drugs. That's true. What would that do to the market? Think about it.

If any company could produce a knock off drug like Sovaldi, would the drug company be able to charge $1,000 per pill? No. They would not. I want any Tom, Dick or Harry being able to make drugs. I think that would be great. The price of drugs would drop like a rock with unrestrained competition.

Any company that produced a bad drug, would be black listed, and eliminated from the market, like any other company that produced a bad product. You do realize that I could brew some whine, bottle it, and kill a dozen people before the police showed up. Anyone could. This is idea that government is your ultimate savior from bad people is ridiculous. The thing that prevents bad stuff from happening, is what happens to the criminal when they are caught. Not some FDA inspector.

When Walmart started selling roasted chicken, the executives wanted to make sure the chicken was cooked safely. In their own report, the FDA inspectors only showed up 3 or 4 times, over several hundred stores. Walmart decided to implement their own food safety system, because they knew if there was a problem the FDA would never catch it.

Politicians are out for themselves. Politicians are there to give favors for money. Politicians LOVE regulations, because every single regulation, is another chance to milk companies for cash. Of course the policians are in bed with the corporations.

It's like the mafia and the Unions. It's like Al Capone and the police department. Like trial lawyers and ambulances.

The politicians want you to support them regulating, and taxing, everything they can get you to support. That way, the companies have to come lobby them, and give them money and support, to get those regulations you wanted, to bend in their favor, or at least not harm their business.

Microsoft is a perfect example. Before the government started legislating against Microsoft, they never spent a dime lobbying government. They were non-political. They didn't influence, they didn't lobby, they ignored the government and worked on their own business.

After the government dragged them to court, on fabricated charges.... suddenly Microsoft got the message. They started spending millions in Washington, and lobbied everyone. To this day, Microsoft keeps the money flowing to government, 'for protection'.

Every time you say "I want government to regulate X for the benefit of the people!", what you are in fact doing, is giving politicians one more tool to force companies to lobby them, and fund their campaigns, and get favors with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the popular public option had been passed, this wouldn't be a problem.

I guess you have only the democrats to blame for that, right? Or maybe when the SCOTUS was rewriting Obamacare to make it constitutional they should have just added that option.

English please.

I don't think I can dumb it down any further but let me try.

Obamacare was passed by all Democrats in the still of the night.

You are bitching about something that should have been in Obamacare.

Thus, you are bitching about something that the democrats should have done.

I typed slowly, I hope that helped.

Democrats don't vote as a block any more than Republicans do.

The public option had overwhelming support from the public and its omission accounts in large part for the weakness in public support for the final bill.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The public option had overwhelming support from the public and its omission accounts in large part for the weakness in public support for the final bill', which occurred because the few remaining conservative democrats who were needed held out until it was dropped.

They should have been told in no uncertain fashion and resistance was futile, money would be withheld in their next primaries, and someone else would be representing their districts in the next term.

 

[Mac1958]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

 

[Arianrhod]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

 

[Mac1958]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

 

[Arianrhod]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

 

[Mac1958]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.

A Google search yielded this from 538, you can start here: 33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance

.

 

[Arianrhod]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

 

[Mac1958]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

Why so pissy? I realize you're ideologically obligated to defend the ACA (I know how partisans are), but gee whiz.

I provided a link above with an estimate. But something tells me that won't be "good enough". Right? Here: 33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance

And let's play your dishonest game: Let's say there is no demand for indigent care, which is absurd. Does this mean you're happy with the other six?

Since you're clearly a partisan ideologue (in your case, left wing), I'm not expecting straightforward, honest answers.
.

 

[Centinel]

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".
.

I'm not a right winger, but I would advocate:

1) Elimination of government control of doctors/hospitals/medical schools/medicine production. Stay out of ALL medical business.

2) Elimination of government control of all health insurance.

3) Oh, and eliminate all government subsidies for health care/health insurance, such as medicaid and medicare.

 

[Mac1958]

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

Why so pissy? I realize you're ideologically obligated to defend the ACA (I know how partisans are), but gee whiz.

I provided a link above with an estimate. But something tells me that won't be "good enough". Right? Here: 33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance

And let's play your dishonest game: Let's say there is no demand for indigent care, which is absurd. Does this mean you're happy with the other six?

Since you're clearly a partisan ideologue (in your case, left wing), I'm not expecting straightforward, honest answers.
.

And lookie, here's more! From the article I linked:

3.8 million in the Medicaid gap

Set aside the 7 million noncitizen immigrants, most of whom were never meant to be covered by the ACA, and 26 million uninsured remain. Of those, nearly 4 million were meant to qualify for insurance under the federal law but were later blocked from coverage. They fell into what’s known as the “Medicaid gap,” with incomes that were too high for Medicaid eligibility and too low to receive subsidies on the new health care exchanges.4

When the Affordable Care Act was written, it expanded the existing Medicaid program to cover everyone living below the poverty line, including childless adults who had previously been mostly excluded from the program. It also offered subsidies to people earning 100 percent to 400 percent of the poverty line (but not less) to buy private insurance on the exchanges. A Supreme Court decision left Medicaid expansion up to individual states, and about half chose not to expand the program. That left millions of low-income people ineligible for Medicaid but, counterintuitively, unable to qualify for subsidies on the insurance marketplaces because they earned too little.

This 3.8 million was a very poor group overall, but nearly half, 1.7 million people, lived in families whose incomes were less than 50 percent of the poverty line. Because Medicaid historically tended to cover just families with children, the bulk of those falling into the gap were working-age adults without children; nonetheless, about 800,000 parents with children living at home fell into the gap.


Spin away!

.

 

[Andylusion]

If the popular public option had been passed, this wouldn't be a problem.

I guess you have only the democrats to blame for that, right? Or maybe when the SCOTUS was rewriting Obamacare to make it constitutional they should have just added that option.

English please.

I don't think I can dumb it down any further but let me try.

Obamacare was passed by all Democrats in the still of the night.

You are bitching about something that should have been in Obamacare.

Thus, you are bitching about something that the democrats should have done.

I typed slowly, I hope that helped.

Democrats don't vote as a block any more than Republicans do.

The public option had overwhelming support from the public and its omission accounts in large part for the weakness in public support for the final bill.

The public option had overwhelming support? I don't think so.

2010, 95% of the public in a poll, were happy with their health insurance, and were not in favor of government take over.

Most agree with decision to drop single payer, poll shows | VTDigger

They attempted to pass a single payer health insurance scheme in Vermont, and the public opposed it 64% to 25%.

The only time people support single-payer is when they are living in the myth that it won't cost anything. The moment they find out Medicare-for-All will cost tons in new taxes, support for the idea drops like a rock.

Barely 25% of those polled, supported single-payer if it was openly stated that their taxes would go up by $5,000 a year or more. And $5,000 a year, is being 'conservative' in the estimate of how much taxes would need to increase.

And even those polls are usually bonkers. New York Times is famous for polling and finding large support for universal health care, and then in the fine print you find they polled 39% Democrats, and 30% Independents, and only 23% were Republican. The screw with the sampling as much as they need to, to get the answers they want.

 

[Mac1958]

I love it when people who don't know shit about a topic go on the attack.

 

[Andylusion]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

I think he's talking about SSI?

 

[Mac1958]

And after all this, we still have seven (7) separate delivery/payment systems that don't communicate directly with each other:

1. ACA/Individual
   
2. Group
3. VA
4. Medicare
5. Medicaid
6. Worker's Comp
7. Indigent

Very impressive, both parties should be so proud.
.

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

I think he's talking about SSI?

He's just playing partisan politics.

I was very specific, above. He hasn't been.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".
.

I'm not a right winger, but I would advocate:

1) Elimination of government control of doctors/hospitals/medical schools/medicine production. Stay out of ALL medical business.

2) Elimination of government control of all health insurance.

3) Oh, and eliminate all government subsidies for health care/health insurance, such as medicaid and medicare.

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?
.

 

[Centinel]

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?

They will have access to plentiful, affordable, and competitive health care.

You think socialism is better than the free market? You've got to be kidding.

 

[Mac1958]

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?

They will have access to plentiful, affordable, and competitive health care.

You think socialism is better than the free market? You've got to be kidding.

Okay, how will they have access to plentiful, affordable, and competitive health care?

Go ahead and get specific, I know the industry pretty well, both insurance and provider sides.
.