Dems still own Obamacare. Good for midterms

[Rustic]

Obamacare is too fucked up to fix... fact

 

[Flopper]

run early and often on Obamacare!

The people are supporting Obamacare more and more as the GOP butchers their Repeal/Replace plan. Throwing in the towel for repeal only isn't going to help things. Just displays that they don't know what to do.

You can't honestly be implying the Republicans should run with an anti Obamacare message during the midterms after haveing two years with a majority to fix or replace!!! That makes no sense

Actually people are not, just let the fucker fall apart.
Legislation means less freedoms for people… fact

What freedom did people with pre-existing conditions have to get healthcare when they were getting dropped and denied? What were their options before the ACA that were taken away?

Why didn't the fuck ups In Washington make Obama care An "opt in"? Anyone can see Obama care/single payer only works for progressives it's not in the best interest of the rest of the country.
You can keep your cancer that is socialism to yourselves…

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This op is PATHETIC.

The middle class will continue to be CRUSHED by this bill as it folds in on itself but who gives a damn if it helps elect another freeloading politician for one of the two parties???

 

[Slade3200]

So what, that has nothing to do with what I just said. Stop with the word games. Here i'll restate the last line for your dumb ass.

"You distort the role our government plays by calling it socialism. It is dishonest and a cheap way to critique social programs that exists in our capitalistic REPUBLIC. FACT"

We are not all in this together, it does not take a village. People need to pay for their own shit… LOL

Wonderful, thanks for sharing.

The collective never works for the good of the individual... fact

Sure it does. For example, the fact that my neighborhood has an HOA that works as a collective effort to keep certain standards and fund amenities and events in our housing community has raised the property value of my house by a good 15% over the neighborhood next door that does not operate with an HOA. The same principles apply to governments that use the voice of the collective to benefit each individual. Of course there can be over reach and there will always be selfish people like yourself that think they are getting screwed... but for good hearted community minded individuals that value providing service for others, I'd say the function of the "collective" provides plenty of benefits.

A forced collective is evil in every way… fact

Nothing is forced and communities never have 100% consensus. Like I said there will always be a few selfish people like yourself looking out for ol number one. But we've had centuries of elections and evolution of our government run by leaders who were elected by the people. Our "collective" reflects the will of our people as our constitution dictates. That good ol republic you were talking about earlier.

 

[Rustic]

We are not all in this together, it does not take a village. People need to pay for their own shit… LOL

Wonderful, thanks for sharing.

The collective never works for the good of the individual... fact

Sure it does. For example, the fact that my neighborhood has an HOA that works as a collective effort to keep certain standards and fund amenities and events in our housing community has raised the property value of my house by a good 15% over the neighborhood next door that does not operate with an HOA. The same principles apply to governments that use the voice of the collective to benefit each individual. Of course there can be over reach and there will always be selfish people like yourself that think they are getting screwed... but for good hearted community minded individuals that value providing service for others, I'd say the function of the "collective" provides plenty of benefits.

A forced collective is evil in every way… fact

Nothing is forced and communities never have 100% consensus. Like I said there will always be a few selfish people like yourself looking out for ol number one. But we've had centuries of elections and evolution of our government run by leaders who were elected by the people. Our "collective" reflects the will of our people as our constitution dictates. That good ol republic you were talking about earlier.

The Federal government has no idea what's best for the people.
The career politicians do not work for us at all, have not for many, many decades… Fact

 

[Slade3200]

The people are supporting Obamacare more and more as the GOP butchers their Repeal/Replace plan. Throwing in the towel for repeal only isn't going to help things. Just displays that they don't know what to do.

You can't honestly be implying the Republicans should run with an anti Obamacare message during the midterms after haveing two years with a majority to fix or replace!!! That makes no sense

Actually people are not, just let the fucker fall apart.
Legislation means less freedoms for people… fact

What freedom did people with pre-existing conditions have to get healthcare when they were getting dropped and denied? What were their options before the ACA that were taken away?

Why didn't the fuck ups In Washington make Obama care An "opt in"? Anyone can see Obama care/single payer only works for progressives it's not in the best interest of the rest of the country.
You can keep your cancer that is socialism to yourselves…

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

So are you thinking of adding preexisting conditions to Medicaid? Or just subsidize insurance companies?

I dont understand how the gov can subsidize lost revenue from drop out of the mandate is lifted. How would that be measured and why would you want to spend tax payer dollars on that?

 

[Slade3200]

Wonderful, thanks for sharing.

The collective never works for the good of the individual... fact

Sure it does. For example, the fact that my neighborhood has an HOA that works as a collective effort to keep certain standards and fund amenities and events in our housing community has raised the property value of my house by a good 15% over the neighborhood next door that does not operate with an HOA. The same principles apply to governments that use the voice of the collective to benefit each individual. Of course there can be over reach and there will always be selfish people like yourself that think they are getting screwed... but for good hearted community minded individuals that value providing service for others, I'd say the function of the "collective" provides plenty of benefits.

A forced collective is evil in every way… fact

Nothing is forced and communities never have 100% consensus. Like I said there will always be a few selfish people like yourself looking out for ol number one. But we've had centuries of elections and evolution of our government run by leaders who were elected by the people. Our "collective" reflects the will of our people as our constitution dictates. That good ol republic you were talking about earlier.

The Federal government has no idea what's best for the people.
The career politicians do not work for us at all, have not for many, many decades… Fact

Then elect new ones! If they keep winning elections then they represent the will of their voters

 

[Flopper]

This is not a game, the worst thing that happened to the affordable care act was calling it Obama care, it should have been judged on its own merits then worked on by all congress people not just liked because you are from the party that put it forward, or hated because it's not from your party. thats school yard stuff.

Yes, school yard stuff is exactly what it is. The nerds sit on the front row. The the wise guys in back. The jocks party together and the in the crowd hangs together. The other side is always wrong and your guys are always right. Sometimes the only difference between kids and adults is their size. However there's big a different; most kids grow out of such behavior. Politicians never do.

 

[Rustic]

The collective never works for the good of the individual... fact

Sure it does. For example, the fact that my neighborhood has an HOA that works as a collective effort to keep certain standards and fund amenities and events in our housing community has raised the property value of my house by a good 15% over the neighborhood next door that does not operate with an HOA. The same principles apply to governments that use the voice of the collective to benefit each individual. Of course there can be over reach and there will always be selfish people like yourself that think they are getting screwed... but for good hearted community minded individuals that value providing service for others, I'd say the function of the "collective" provides plenty of benefits.

A forced collective is evil in every way… fact

Nothing is forced and communities never have 100% consensus. Like I said there will always be a few selfish people like yourself looking out for ol number one. But we've had centuries of elections and evolution of our government run by leaders who were elected by the people. Our "collective" reflects the will of our people as our constitution dictates. That good ol republic you were talking about earlier.

The Federal government has no idea what's best for the people.
The career politicians do not work for us at all, have not for many, many decades… Fact

Then elect new ones! If they keep winning elections then they represent the will of their voters

 

[Rustic]

This is not a game, the worst thing that happened to the affordable care act was calling it Obama care, it should have been judged on its own merits then worked on by all congress people not just liked because you are from the party that put it forward, or hated because it's not from your party. thats school yard stuff.

Yes, school yard stuff is exactly what it is. The nerds sit on the front row. The the wise guys in back. The jocks party together and the in the crowd hangs together. The other side is always wrong and your guys are always right. Sometimes the only difference between kids and adults is their size. However there's big a different; most kids grow out of such behavior. Politicians never do.

True, all career politicians are the same…

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

run early and often on Obamacare!

Fuck that. Republicans should do their fucking jobs.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure it does. For example, the fact that my neighborhood has an HOA that works as a collective effort to keep certain standards and fund amenities and events in our housing community has raised the property value of my house by a good 15% over the neighborhood next door that does not operate with an HOA. The same principles apply to governments that use the voice of the collective to benefit each individual. Of course there can be over reach and there will always be selfish people like yourself that think they are getting screwed... but for good hearted community minded individuals that value providing service for others, I'd say the function of the "collective" provides plenty of benefits.

A forced collective is evil in every way… fact

Nothing is forced and communities never have 100% consensus. Like I said there will always be a few selfish people like yourself looking out for ol number one. But we've had centuries of elections and evolution of our government run by leaders who were elected by the people. Our "collective" reflects the will of our people as our constitution dictates. That good ol republic you were talking about earlier.

The Federal government has no idea what's best for the people.
The career politicians do not work for us at all, have not for many, many decades… Fact

Then elect new ones! If they keep winning elections then they represent the will of their voters

You know your done when you got nothing left to say but emojis. Goodnight

 

[charwin95]

I don't know why otherwise semi intelligent people are not able to figure out how Trump works.

But the people who voted for him sure get it, and we love him.

LIKE FAILURE ------ to repeal and replace Obamacare, Lied who pay for the wall, support Putin against his own intelligence, Kissing Putin, Russian connections, Buy American Hire American ----- business motto at he same time his products are made overseas and hire foreign workers --- Hypocrite president, make us the laughing stock all over the planet, historical lowest ratings here and overseas, discombobulated administration.

So please tell us almighty how an intelligent person able to love an unpresidential like Trump.


Like I heard today---- He will let Obamacare collapse by itself. What is going to happen to poor Americans that depends on ACA? Is he talking to North Koreans or Americans? Maybe he forgot that he is the president. Who in the right mind will utter that kind of garbage? TRUMP.
This is NOT ----- Making America Great.

 

[Flopper]

Actually people are not, just let the fucker fall apart.
Legislation means less freedoms for people… fact

What freedom did people with pre-existing conditions have to get healthcare when they were getting dropped and denied? What were their options before the ACA that were taken away?

Why didn't the fuck ups In Washington make Obama care An "opt in"? Anyone can see Obama care/single payer only works for progressives it's not in the best interest of the rest of the country.
You can keep your cancer that is socialism to yourselves…

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

So are you thinking of adding preexisting conditions to Medicaid? Or just subsidize insurance companies?

I dont understand how the gov can subsidize lost revenue from drop out of the mandate is lifted. How would that be measured and why would you want to spend tax payer dollars on that?

It might be hard. We could drop the mandate and see how many dropped out.

However, my main point is government should pay the cost of carrying people with prexisting conditions. Government is forcing insurance companies to carry people with prexisting conditions because we are concerned with the effect of being seriously ill without insurance on the individual, families, and society. So it seems to me that government should bear the cost of doing this, not other policy holders. The policy holders didn't decide people with prexisting should be covered. In fact, they didn't even make the decision to carry a policy. The government did. Since government made this decision for benefit all society then it's only fair that government pay the cost, not the other policy holders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Dems still own Obamacare. Good for midterms

You're delusional. The Republicans have demonstrated they are completely useless.

Dems have lost 1000 legislative seats since Obama took office.

Obama isn't in office anymore and the way the Republicans are failing the Democrats are going to win some of those back next year

 

[Slade3200]

What freedom did people with pre-existing conditions have to get healthcare when they were getting dropped and denied? What were their options before the ACA that were taken away?

Why didn't the fuck ups In Washington make Obama care An "opt in"? Anyone can see Obama care/single payer only works for progressives it's not in the best interest of the rest of the country.
You can keep your cancer that is socialism to yourselves…

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

So are you thinking of adding preexisting conditions to Medicaid? Or just subsidize insurance companies?

I dont understand how the gov can subsidize lost revenue from drop out of the mandate is lifted. How would that be measured and why would you want to spend tax payer dollars on that?

It might be hard. We could drop the mandate and see how many dropped out.

However, my main point is government should pay the cost of carrying people with prexisting conditions. Government is forcing insurance companies to carry people with prexisting conditions because we are concerned with the effect of being seriously ill without insurance on the individual, families, and society. So it seems to me that government should bear the cost of doing this, not other policy holders. The policy holders didn't decide people with prexisting should be covered. In fact, they didn't even make the decision to carry a policy. The government did. Since government made this decision for benefit all society then it's only fair that government pay the cost, not the other policy holders.

That's where it gets sticky. When you say government should pay instead of policy holders it is kind of the same thing... government budgets its funds via taxation so in the end, Americans are paying for it. This is why many people are talking about single payer. This way the "funds" that support the care costs come from the largest pool in America, the tax payers. The opposers are the ones that don't trust government to execute in a productive or efficient manner... they have a point

 

[J.E.D]

Dems still own Obamacare

Republicans control both houses of congress and the whitehouse. They promised for 8 years that if they gained control they'd repeal the ACA. The president promised that he'd get it repealed. Now they're all running away from it like it's a bomb. They're not leaders; they're cowards. And they own it now.

 

[Flopper]

Why didn't the fuck ups In Washington make Obama care An "opt in"? Anyone can see Obama care/single payer only works for progressives it's not in the best interest of the rest of the country.
You can keep your cancer that is socialism to yourselves…

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

So are you thinking of adding preexisting conditions to Medicaid? Or just subsidize insurance companies?

I dont understand how the gov can subsidize lost revenue from drop out of the mandate is lifted. How would that be measured and why would you want to spend tax payer dollars on that?

It might be hard. We could drop the mandate and see how many dropped out.

However, my main point is government should pay the cost of carrying people with prexisting conditions. Government is forcing insurance companies to carry people with prexisting conditions because we are concerned with the effect of being seriously ill without insurance on the individual, families, and society. So it seems to me that government should bear the cost of doing this, not other policy holders. The policy holders didn't decide people with prexisting should be covered. In fact, they didn't even make the decision to carry a policy. The government did. Since government made this decision for benefit all society then it's only fair that government pay the cost, not the other policy holders.

That's where it gets sticky. When you say government should pay instead of policy holders it is kind of the same thing... government budgets its funds via taxation so in the end, Americans are paying for it. This is why many people are talking about single payer. This way the "funds" that support the care costs come from the largest pool in America, the tax payers. The opposers are the ones that don't trust government to execute in a productive or efficient manner... they have a point

No, it's not the same thing. Why should policy holders of individual insurance have to pay exorbitant rates so the uninsurable can be insured? Abolishing pre-existing conditions supposedly is a benefit to all so why does the additional cost have to be born by so few. Aside from being unfair, it drives the premiums of individual insurance thru the roof making the Affordable Care Act unaffordable for millions of people.

The biggest mistake the creators of Obamacare made was not having government absorb the cost of insuring those with pre-existing conditions. Although it had little effect on group insurance, it a had a huge effect on individual insurance, eventually driving the cost well beyond what many could afford. For those that opposed Obamacare, this failure in the individual market was sold to the public as a failure of law although only about 14% of the population used individual insurance.

 

[bendog]

Dems still own Obamacare

Republicans control both houses of congress and the whitehouse. They promised for 8 years that if they gained control they'd repeal the ACA. The president promised that he'd get it repealed. Now they're all running away from it like it's a bomb. They're not leaders; they're cowards. And they own it now.

Actually Ryan and Trump seem to be trying to throw McConnell under the bus

 

[Slade3200]

Before the ACA there was a "Market system" for the most part. The business model for insurance companies benefits when they are covering as many healthy people as possible and minimize the sick people they have to pay for. As a result people with pre-existing conditions were getting dropped, priced out, or denied coverage. Can we agree that was happening?

The ACA forced health insurers to cover people with PreCons, in doing so they were forced to add many more "sick" people to their programs which drove up costs. The only way to offset these costs is to add more healthy people to the program, which is why the mandate was put in place. In addition to the mandate the government also added subsidies to help people pay for the care. This system was successful in some areas and not in other areas. It had and still has many flaws that need to be improved.

Am I wasting my time explaining all this to you? Do you have an open mind at all to acknowledge the complexities of what is going on and have a rational discussion about it?

Trump in his campaign mentioned, the government could pay the additional premium to cover prexisting conditions. This is the only intelligent statement about healthcare I have ever heard from him.

In the individual market place, people that are healthy with little need of healthcare services are paying a huge premium to cover seriously ill people. I think it is much fairer for government to cover the cost than other policy holders because government is making the decision to force insurance companies to carry them. If we did this, the individual healthcare market premiums would fall dramatically. Likewise, if Congress decides to drop the individual mandate, then goverment should pick up the cost of these lost premiums.

So are you thinking of adding preexisting conditions to Medicaid? Or just subsidize insurance companies?

I dont understand how the gov can subsidize lost revenue from drop out of the mandate is lifted. How would that be measured and why would you want to spend tax payer dollars on that?

It might be hard. We could drop the mandate and see how many dropped out.

However, my main point is government should pay the cost of carrying people with prexisting conditions. Government is forcing insurance companies to carry people with prexisting conditions because we are concerned with the effect of being seriously ill without insurance on the individual, families, and society. So it seems to me that government should bear the cost of doing this, not other policy holders. The policy holders didn't decide people with prexisting should be covered. In fact, they didn't even make the decision to carry a policy. The government did. Since government made this decision for benefit all society then it's only fair that government pay the cost, not the other policy holders.

That's where it gets sticky. When you say government should pay instead of policy holders it is kind of the same thing... government budgets its funds via taxation so in the end, Americans are paying for it. This is why many people are talking about single payer. This way the "funds" that support the care costs come from the largest pool in America, the tax payers. The opposers are the ones that don't trust government to execute in a productive or efficient manner... they have a point

No, it's not the same thing. Why should policy holders of individual insurance have to pay exorbitant rates so the uninsurable can be insured? Abolishing pre-existing conditions supposedly is a benefit to all so why does the additional cost have to be born by so few. Aside from being unfair, it drives the premiums of individual insurance thru the roof making the Affordable Care Act unaffordable for millions of people.

The biggest mistake the creators of Obamacare made was not having government absorb the cost of insuring those with pre-existing conditions. Although it had little effect on group insurance, it a had a huge effect on individual insurance, eventually driving the cost well beyond what many could afford. For those that opposed Obamacare, this failure in the individual market was sold to the public as a failure of law although only about 14% of the population used individual insurance.

Sure, I understand what you are saying. My point is that when you say that the government is going to pay for pre-existing conditions, that means that we, the tax payers, are paying for it. I'm not saying its a bad way to do it, I'm just pointing out that that costs will be covered somehow.

I actually think along the same lines... I think there should be single payer for catastrophic coverage and pre-existing conditions. That why everybody has basic coverage. Then insurance companies can sell supplemental plans for specific needs/services as desired by the public.