Fake Senate ACA Replacement Already Blocked!

[OKTexas]

Citizens United decided a speech issue, where only certain corporations were banned form political speech 30 or 60 days before an election. As usual it has been mischaracterized by regressives. And you folks claim to be for free speech. LMAO

The Citizens United decision's chief argument was that money doesn't give the appearance of corruption...which we can all admit is completely absurd, right?

Feel free to quote the decision on that. It didn't change a thing about financial donation limits.


.

 

[Iceweasel]

Citizens United decided a speech issue, where only certain corporations were banned form political speech 30 or 60 days before an election. As usual it has been mischaracterized by regressives. And you folks claim to be for free speech. LMAO

The Citizens United decision's chief argument was that money doesn't give the appearance of corruption...which we can all admit is completely absurd, right?

Mmmm OK, so the dems were the FAR more corrupt ones in Georgia and the general presidential election, right?

 

[task0778]

Easily done my ass. ObamaCare was a POS from day one and is getting worse. It never had a hope in hell of working out, and most people were against it from the getgo.

Must be why millions have signed up for it. Lets be honest, you don't know the first thing about the ACA

Obviously more than you do. Millions signed up for it because they had pre-existing conditions or the gov't was paying some if not all of their medical costs. Millions more went on Medicaid and can't find a doctor, do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA? I heard 70% this morning and it's getting worse. Have you seen the rise on premiums over the past few years since ObamaCare went into effect? And how much more the insurance companies are asking to raise premiums next year? Hells bells, most people can't afford to use the insurance they have, the co-pays and deductibles are too high.

Maybe you need to blame the insurance industry and not the ACA

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

Geez Hutch, the ACA isn't a gov't program? You gotta be kidding me.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Insurance companies are very profitable. And the ACA was a gift to the insurance companies. In fact they wrote it. Did you know that? That's why the mandate everyone has had to buy their product. And why they were given years to jack up the price before the cost savings kicked in.

The oil companies made a great profit too when gas was $4 a gallon. Do you want to go back to that too?

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

Major insurance companies are enjoying record profits but claim they are losing money under the Affordable Care Act

No, but they are losing money in some places, which is why they'e pulling out of those places. Considering how many places around the country are down to only one insurance company or NONE, it sorta tells you how profitable the ACA is for them.

It has nothing to do with the ACA. The market can't sustain an individual plan market whether the ACA existed or not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Must be why millions have signed up for it. Lets be honest, you don't know the first thing about the ACA

Obviously more than you do. Millions signed up for it because they had pre-existing conditions or the gov't was paying some if not all of their medical costs. Millions more went on Medicaid and can't find a doctor, do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA? I heard 70% this morning and it's getting worse. Have you seen the rise on premiums over the past few years since ObamaCare went into effect? And how much more the insurance companies are asking to raise premiums next year? Hells bells, most people can't afford to use the insurance they have, the co-pays and deductibles are too high.

Maybe you need to blame the insurance industry and not the ACA

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

Geez Hutch, the ACA isn't a gov't program? You gotta be kidding me.

Outline it for us slick. The only govt part was the Medicaid expansion and the tax credits.

 

[task0778]

Obviously more than you do. Millions signed up for it because they had pre-existing conditions or the gov't was paying some if not all of their medical costs. Millions more went on Medicaid and can't find a doctor, do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA? I heard 70% this morning and it's getting worse. Have you seen the rise on premiums over the past few years since ObamaCare went into effect? And how much more the insurance companies are asking to raise premiums next year? Hells bells, most people can't afford to use the insurance they have, the co-pays and deductibles are too high.

Maybe you need to blame the insurance industry and not the ACA

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

Geez Hutch, the ACA isn't a gov't program? You gotta be kidding me.

Outline it for us slick. The only govt part was the Medicaid expansion and the tax credits.

The mandate?

The exchanges?

The taxes?

You're an idiot.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

and this is what i agree will be the hardest to overcome.
can we "reel in" insurance?
can we now tell doctors who spend $$$ to get their degrees how much they can now make?
we are so far from this type of a system getting to anything else is going to be difficult, at best and require a lot of people give up making the $$$ they have traditionally made in these fields.

Well, I don't think that doctors are told how much they can make in a single-payer system. What they're told in such a system is how much they will get reimbursed for the care they provide. In a single-payer system, that puts the onus on providers to improve outcomes because that's how they retain patients. A single payer levels the playing field for providers who aren't having insurers compete with one another for their contract, but are instead competing with other providers for patients since it's just one entity doing the reimbursement, everyone is reimbursed at the same rate, theoretically. There's always going to be a demand for medical care, and there's always going to be a demand for good doctors. The problem is the system right now doesn't allow the patients choice when it comes to the provider. The patient must first buy insurance and then they can select a provider from those in the insurance network. That's not really patient choice when it comes to health care because you are bound to see whatever doctors that are in your network. If everyone was on the same network, that would mean patients would have more choices for providers, and providers would have to improve outcomes in order to attract patients.

It's nice to see someone who understands HC. You must have been or are in the industry.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Maybe you need to blame the insurance industry and not the ACA

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

Geez Hutch, the ACA isn't a gov't program? You gotta be kidding me.

Outline it for us slick. The only govt part was the Medicaid expansion and the tax credits.

The mandate?

The exchanges?

The taxes?

You're an idiot.

The exchanges were all private insurers, slick.
The mandate was meant to keep the risk pool balanced so as to better control cost.

 

[rightwinger]

Some people have more vote than others also

No they don't. One person, one vote.

Not the way our electoral college works

Someone in Wyoming, with a population of 590,000 gets counted for 3 electoral vote. One EV for every 196,000 voters
Someone in California with a population of 40 million gets counted for 55 electoral votes. One EV for every 727,000 votes

A Wyoming residents vote counts 3.7 times what a resident of California's counts



A Senator in Wyoming represents 300,000 people while a Senator in California represents 20 million people

 

[task0778]

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

Geez Hutch, the ACA isn't a gov't program? You gotta be kidding me.

Outline it for us slick. The only govt part was the Medicaid expansion and the tax credits.

The mandate?

The exchanges?

The taxes?

You're an idiot.

The exchanges were all private insurers, slick.
The mandate was meant to keep the risk pool balanced so as to better control cost.

Run by the gov't, dumbass. Which makes it a gov't program. Oh, and what about the taxes? Are the private insurers doing that too?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

It's a result of no profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings across the board.

 

[Thinker101]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

It's a result of no profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings across the board.

No profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings...Medicare!!?? Spoken like someone that truly has no fricken clue.

 

[PredFan]

Can't win without votes! Three GOP or more vote, "Nyet(?)" or however that is said(?)!

Enough GOP senators to block Obamacare replacement will announce opposition: NBC News, citing source

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(At GOP, the "Nyet" votes have it. . . .speaking of Lands of Many Nations!)

Left wing ignorance knows no boundaries. You should learn something for once. But then again, if you learned, you'd be a republican.

 

[dblack]

Some people have more vote than others also

No they don't. One person, one vote.

Not the way our electoral college works

Someone in Wyoming, with a population of 590,000 gets counted for 3 electoral vote. One EV for every 196,000 voters
Someone in California with a population of 40 million gets counted for 55 electoral votes. One EV for every 727,000 votes

A Wyoming residents vote counts 3.7 times what a resident of California's counts



A Senator in Wyoming represents 300,000 people while a Senator in California represents 20 million people

That's by design. The founders wanted to counter the possibility that the densely populated urban areas would control government and ignore the concerns of the rural states. So they made it possible for the rural states to push back even if they didn't have a pure majority. It worked!

 

[debbiedowner]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Duh? Which is why "Medicare for All" is simply "Welfare for All".

Not if one is paying for it.

Just exactly how is one "paying for it"? Are you going to raise the FICA to cover the increased costs?

Will they pay the same premiums as retirees?

What happens when doctors refuse to accept them as Medicare patients?

Can you read? I think not because that was in my post. Really pisses you off that you get in a debate about something you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[JQPublic1]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

FAIL? Obamacare had better not fail on the Republican's watch . If they want to stay in power they had better do all they can to preserve Obamacare.

 

[rightwinger]

Some people have more vote than others also

No they don't. One person, one vote.

Not the way our electoral college works

Someone in Wyoming, with a population of 590,000 gets counted for 3 electoral vote. One EV for every 196,000 voters
Someone in California with a population of 40 million gets counted for 55 electoral votes. One EV for every 727,000 votes

A Wyoming residents vote counts 3.7 times what a resident of California's counts



A Senator in Wyoming represents 300,000 people while a Senator in California represents 20 million people

That's by design. The founders wanted to counter the possibility that the densely populated urban areas would control government and ignore the concerns of the rural states. So they made it possible for the rural states to push back even if they didn't have a pure majority. It worked!

I didn't say it wasn't by design

I said it wasn't one man one vote

 

[OKTexas]

Some people have more vote than others also

No they don't. One person, one vote.

Not the way our electoral college works

Someone in Wyoming, with a population of 590,000 gets counted for 3 electoral vote. One EV for every 196,000 voters
Someone in California with a population of 40 million gets counted for 55 electoral votes. One EV for every 727,000 votes

A Wyoming residents vote counts 3.7 times what a resident of California's counts



A Senator in Wyoming represents 300,000 people while a Senator in California represents 20 million people

And that is more unfair than commiecrat super delegates HOW? How many people do they represent?

BTW senators represent the whole state.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

It's a result of no profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings across the board.

No profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings...Medicare!!?? Spoken like someone that truly has no fricken clue.

Medicare is the most efficient payer in the HC world. It's the gold standard.

Explain why that's not the case.

 

[Thinker101]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

It's a result of no profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings across the board.

No profit motive and efficiencies and cost savings...Medicare!!?? Spoken like someone that truly has no fricken clue.

Medicare is the most efficient payer in the HC world. It's the gold standard.

Explain why that's not the case.

Issue was not whether Medicare is an efficient payer, you sated there were no profit motives, there were efficiencies and cost savings. Hopefully you realize Medicare is probably the most widely hacked system in the U.S., if not, look it up. As far as cost savings, you evidently don't know how Medicare works...how about looking that up too.