Republicans introduce new health care bill This Week!

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that isn't my point. I'm not making a case for demanding that people have insurance. I'm making the case that people get HEALTHCARE. Do you see the difference here?

No, I don't. In this country, you need insurance in order to get any major healthcare unless it's an emergency situation. The two are directly related.

The UK NHS costs half the US system. The US federal govt actually spends about the same on healthcare as the UK govt does. And yet for that money the UK gets a comprehensive system that will treat and UK resident. The US gets what? A system that will leave millions to rot and die. How come?

The US is the innovator of new medical technology. You can't get much of that in Socialist care countries. Sure, after we come out with new procedures, new medication, new technologies, they can come along and steal it, but they can't create it.

Canada spends a billion dollars a year to pay for the care of their citizens that come here because they can't get treated there. As a truck driver up north, I get to discuss this subject with many Canadian drivers. The younger men boast about their healthcare system. The older ones? They told me to keep what we have if we can.

I'ma patient at the world renown Cleveland Clinic, and let me tell you, when you go to the Clinic, you are the one that feels like the foreigner. Doctors and patients alike are all from other countries--yes, those social healthcare countries. It's like walking into the UN.

We have the best care in the world. Because we pay our doctors so well, we have the best doctors in the world. So having the best care is not the issue; we have the best care. The problem we have is that the best care costs a lot of money.

US citizens pay 7% their healthcare insurance money just on the insurance company, so it can employ people to do an unnecessary job (the job hardly exists in the UK) and for the profits for a company that doesn't need to exist, and doesn't act in the interests of the patients, but in the interests of the hospitals who take a percentage of that money, the pharma companies who charge way too much because they can get away with it in the US, and the doctors taking a cut through corruption etc etc etc etc.

How anyone can be happy to be pay something like 40%-50% of their insurance money for NOTHING USEFUL I will never know.

Then let me ask, why do you have car insurance? Why do you have renters or house insurance?

Up until Commie Care came along, insurance companies would take your premium money, invest it to offset the claim costs, and provide a service to you. Insurance companies are not the problem. The problem is government, regulations, and educational costs. Unions of past played a huge role in educational costs because kids out of school didn't want to invests tens of thousands of dollars only to make as much as an assembly line worker at GM, or a UPS driver, or a steel worker.

If the government is so efficient with our money, why does it cost us billions in fraud every year for government programs? If the government was so efficient with our healthcare money, why did they hire private insurance to handle government claims and pay their bills?

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republican plan that was passed without a single Republican vote? Yeah, you guys keep trying to peddle that myth, but everyone knows who owns this piece of shit, hence the name, ObamaCare.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Obamacare - ProCon.org It came directly from the Heritage Foundation in 1989.

The Heritage Foundation is a foundation--they are lot legislatures nor do they have any authority in our country. That straw man doesn't hold up in the wind.

Yes, but you do concede that it is a conservative think tank, yes?

Yes, I do. So does that mean if Mother Jones came out with a liberal idea that the Republicans adopted into law, and turned out to be a failure, it was the Democrats fault because Mother Jones first suggested it?

Who cares? I believe some on the right would lay blame on the left in such a scenario because people are generally pretty dumb. However I don't see the relevance of your deflection. This plan was a Republican-conceived idea. Now that the Democrats ran with it, you calling it a 'piece of shit', a 'myth' and a 'strawman' seems a bit disingenuous, IMO.

You are dense. The Heritage Foundation are not representatives. It was not a "Republican Idea" it was one Republican writing about "his" idea. A Republican idea comes from Republican representatives--not organizations or magazines. The new bill being introduced IS a Republican idea because it is created by Republican representatives.

If Commie Care wasn't such an utter failure, you would have never know about the Heritage Foundation. But since Every Republican Voted Against Commie Care, the left are looking for somebody else to blame since they can't blame Republicans in the Congress and won't admit their own faults.

It's called Obama Care for a reason.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Obamacare - ProCon.org It came directly from the Heritage Foundation in 1989.

The Heritage Foundation is a foundation--they are lot legislatures nor do they have any authority in our country. That straw man doesn't hold up in the wind.

Yes, but you do concede that it is a conservative think tank, yes?

Yes, I do. So does that mean if Mother Jones came out with a liberal idea that the Republicans adopted into law, and turned out to be a failure, it was the Democrats fault because Mother Jones first suggested it?

Who cares? I believe some on the right would lay blame on the left in such a scenario because people are generally pretty dumb. However I don't see the relevance of your deflection. This plan was a Republican-conceived idea. Now that the Democrats ran with it, you calling it a 'piece of shit', a 'myth' and a 'strawman' seems a bit disingenuous, IMO.

You are dense. The Heritage Foundation are not representatives. It was not a "Republican Idea" it was one Republican writing about "his" idea. A Republican idea comes from Republican representatives--not organizations or magazines. The new bill being introduced IS a Republican idea because it is created by Republican representatives.

If Commie Care wasn't such an utter failure, you would have never know about the Heritage Foundation. But since Every Republican Voted Against Commie Care, the left are looking for somebody else to blame since they can't blame Republicans in the Congress and won't admit their own faults.

It's called Obama Care for a reason.

So, It's not a 'Republican idea', yet it was conceived by Republicans who used to support it (RomneyCare anyone?). But now you completely discount this as fact because it wasn't introduced by Republican 'representatives'? Holy cow, are you un/misinformed. And you have chutzpah to call me dense...

Two bills, including individual mandates, were introduced in 1993 by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). Look it up, genius. I've known about the Heritage Foundation long before the ACA was even a 'thing' for the partisan rubes in this country to dissect with their armchair detective skills.

The ACA is a fucking disaster for the working class. All the right seems to want to do to 'fix' this is simply get rid of the mandate. Brilliant! More partisan hackery.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that isn't my point. I'm not making a case for demanding that people have insurance. I'm making the case that people get HEALTHCARE. Do you see the difference here?

No, I don't. In this country, you need insurance in order to get any major healthcare unless it's an emergency situation. The two are directly related.

The UK NHS costs half the US system. The US federal govt actually spends about the same on healthcare as the UK govt does. And yet for that money the UK gets a comprehensive system that will treat and UK resident. The US gets what? A system that will leave millions to rot and die. How come?

The US is the innovator of new medical technology. You can't get much of that in Socialist care countries. Sure, after we come out with new procedures, new medication, new technologies, they can come along and steal it, but they can't create it.

Canada spends a billion dollars a year to pay for the care of their citizens that come here because they can't get treated there. As a truck driver up north, I get to discuss this subject with many Canadian drivers. The younger men boast about their healthcare system. The older ones? They told me to keep what we have if we can.

I'ma patient at the world renown Cleveland Clinic, and let me tell you, when you go to the Clinic, you are the one that feels like the foreigner. Doctors and patients alike are all from other countries--yes, those social healthcare countries. It's like walking into the UN.

We have the best care in the world. Because we pay our doctors so well, we have the best doctors in the world. So having the best care is not the issue; we have the best care. The problem we have is that the best care costs a lot of money.

US citizens pay 7% their healthcare insurance money just on the insurance company, so it can employ people to do an unnecessary job (the job hardly exists in the UK) and for the profits for a company that doesn't need to exist, and doesn't act in the interests of the patients, but in the interests of the hospitals who take a percentage of that money, the pharma companies who charge way too much because they can get away with it in the US, and the doctors taking a cut through corruption etc etc etc etc.

How anyone can be happy to be pay something like 40%-50% of their insurance money for NOTHING USEFUL I will never know.

Then let me ask, why do you have car insurance? Why do you have renters or house insurance?

Up until Commie Care came along, insurance companies would take your premium money, invest it to offset the claim costs, and provide a service to you. Insurance companies are not the problem. The problem is government, regulations, and educational costs. Unions of past played a huge role in educational costs because kids out of school didn't want to invests tens of thousands of dollars only to make as much as an assembly line worker at GM, or a UPS driver, or a steel worker.

If the government is so efficient with our money, why does it cost us billions in fraud every year for government programs? If the government was so efficient with our healthcare money, why did they hire private insurance to handle government claims and pay their bills?

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

No, it didn't fly over my head, I just don't agree with you.

The insurance companies provide for money in the even that you need it. Yes, but the NHS in the UK also does this.

The difference though is massive.

In the US if you lose your insurance coverage and then find out you have cancer three days later, you're fucked.
In the UK you get cancer care no matter what you circumstances.

In the US you pay 7% for the insurance companies.
In the UK you pay 0% for the insurance companies.

In the US the insurance companies paying out will lead to hospitals over charging, doctors on the take, doctors prescribing drugs that are not needed, pharma companies charging the highest prices etc.

In the UK you don't have this.

Insurance companies don't just pay the bills, they are a part of the problems. Firstly because they leech 7% of healthcare spending for something completely unnecessary, but also because there's no desire to reduce costs in the healthcare industry. The people want their value for money from their insurance money and don't see that this will make premiums RISE in the future. So, they want more drugs, more time in hospital, the best drugs, the most expensive thing they can get from their insurance.

But yes, there are many, many other problems in the privatized system other than insurance companies, and nothing ever gets done about any of it, why? Because it benefits the rich.

Yes, drugs cost a lot because of regulation. I mean, you want the drugs to be PROVEN to work, don't you? If you don't, go to China, I'm sure you can pay much less for something that may kill you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Heritage Foundation is a foundation--they are lot legislatures nor do they have any authority in our country. That straw man doesn't hold up in the wind.

Yes, but you do concede that it is a conservative think tank, yes?

Yes, I do. So does that mean if Mother Jones came out with a liberal idea that the Republicans adopted into law, and turned out to be a failure, it was the Democrats fault because Mother Jones first suggested it?

Who cares? I believe some on the right would lay blame on the left in such a scenario because people are generally pretty dumb. However I don't see the relevance of your deflection. This plan was a Republican-conceived idea. Now that the Democrats ran with it, you calling it a 'piece of shit', a 'myth' and a 'strawman' seems a bit disingenuous, IMO.

You are dense. The Heritage Foundation are not representatives. It was not a "Republican Idea" it was one Republican writing about "his" idea. A Republican idea comes from Republican representatives--not organizations or magazines. The new bill being introduced IS a Republican idea because it is created by Republican representatives.

If Commie Care wasn't such an utter failure, you would have never know about the Heritage Foundation. But since Every Republican Voted Against Commie Care, the left are looking for somebody else to blame since they can't blame Republicans in the Congress and won't admit their own faults.

It's called Obama Care for a reason.

So, It's not a 'Republican idea', yet it was conceived by Republicans who used to support it (RomneyCare anyone?). But now you completely discount this as fact because it wasn't introduced by Republican 'representatives'? Holy cow, are you un/misinformed. And you have chutzpah to call me dense...

Two bills, including individual mandates, were introduced in 1993 by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). Look it up, genius. I've known about the Heritage Foundation long before the ACA was even a 'thing' for the partisan rubes in this country to dissect with their armchair detective skills.

The ACA is a fucking disaster for the working class. All the right seems to want to do to 'fix' this is simply get rid of the mandate. Brilliant! More partisan hackery.

Yes, you are dense because not everything every single Republican thinks of makes it a Republican idea. A Republican idea is when a group of Republicans come out with a policy, law, or attempted law. If I as a Republican say we should expand abortion to the day of birth, that doesn't make it a Republican idea--that makes it my idea. The Republicans (as in the Republican Party) have nothing to do with what I say or think. When the Republican party comes out with something, then it's a Republican idea and not until then.

If the Republicans really wanted anything near Commie Care, they would have introduced it when we had control over all three branches of government and could have easily got it passed. But they didn't, it wasn't even thought of yet alone our idea. As for individual representatives, it was no more of a Republican idea than the Bridge to Nowhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that isn't my point. I'm not making a case for demanding that people have insurance. I'm making the case that people get HEALTHCARE. Do you see the difference here?

No, I don't. In this country, you need insurance in order to get any major healthcare unless it's an emergency situation. The two are directly related.

The UK NHS costs half the US system. The US federal govt actually spends about the same on healthcare as the UK govt does. And yet for that money the UK gets a comprehensive system that will treat and UK resident. The US gets what? A system that will leave millions to rot and die. How come?

The US is the innovator of new medical technology. You can't get much of that in Socialist care countries. Sure, after we come out with new procedures, new medication, new technologies, they can come along and steal it, but they can't create it.

Canada spends a billion dollars a year to pay for the care of their citizens that come here because they can't get treated there. As a truck driver up north, I get to discuss this subject with many Canadian drivers. The younger men boast about their healthcare system. The older ones? They told me to keep what we have if we can.

I'ma patient at the world renown Cleveland Clinic, and let me tell you, when you go to the Clinic, you are the one that feels like the foreigner. Doctors and patients alike are all from other countries--yes, those social healthcare countries. It's like walking into the UN.

We have the best care in the world. Because we pay our doctors so well, we have the best doctors in the world. So having the best care is not the issue; we have the best care. The problem we have is that the best care costs a lot of money.

US citizens pay 7% their healthcare insurance money just on the insurance company, so it can employ people to do an unnecessary job (the job hardly exists in the UK) and for the profits for a company that doesn't need to exist, and doesn't act in the interests of the patients, but in the interests of the hospitals who take a percentage of that money, the pharma companies who charge way too much because they can get away with it in the US, and the doctors taking a cut through corruption etc etc etc etc.

How anyone can be happy to be pay something like 40%-50% of their insurance money for NOTHING USEFUL I will never know.

Then let me ask, why do you have car insurance? Why do you have renters or house insurance?

Up until Commie Care came along, insurance companies would take your premium money, invest it to offset the claim costs, and provide a service to you. Insurance companies are not the problem. The problem is government, regulations, and educational costs. Unions of past played a huge role in educational costs because kids out of school didn't want to invests tens of thousands of dollars only to make as much as an assembly line worker at GM, or a UPS driver, or a steel worker.

If the government is so efficient with our money, why does it cost us billions in fraud every year for government programs? If the government was so efficient with our healthcare money, why did they hire private insurance to handle government claims and pay their bills?

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

No, it didn't fly over my head, I just don't agree with you.

The insurance companies provide for money in the even that you need it. Yes, but the NHS in the UK also does this.

The difference though is massive.

In the US if you lose your insurance coverage and then find out you have cancer three days later, you're fucked.
In the UK you get cancer care no matter what you circumstances.

In the US you pay 7% for the insurance companies.
In the UK you pay 0% for the insurance companies.

In the US the insurance companies paying out will lead to hospitals over charging, doctors on the take, doctors prescribing drugs that are not needed, pharma companies charging the highest prices etc.

In the UK you don't have this.

Insurance companies don't just pay the bills, they are a part of the problems. Firstly because they leech 7% of healthcare spending for something completely unnecessary, but also because there's no desire to reduce costs in the healthcare industry. The people want their value for money from their insurance money and don't see that this will make premiums RISE in the future. So, they want more drugs, more time in hospital, the best drugs, the most expensive thing they can get from their insurance.

But yes, there are many, many other problems in the privatized system other than insurance companies, and nothing ever gets done about any of it, why? Because it benefits the rich.

Yes, drugs cost a lot because of regulation. I mean, you want the drugs to be PROVEN to work, don't you? If you don't, go to China, I'm sure you can pay much less for something that may kill you.

Totally opposite.

Let me ask, why do you think many companies drug test their employees? Why do you think that cities and states require smoke detectors in a home to sell a house? Why do you think the feds forced states to lower their Blood Alcohol Level to .08 to be considered DUI?

Insurance companies payoff politicians to make laws thus keeping their claims lower. They will do anything in their power to payout less.

Certainly no one can easily defend the health insurance industry policies of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage for individuals once they get sick. But Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, has noted that, according to data from Yahoo business, the health insurance industry, with an average profit margin of 3.3 percent, is the 86th most profitable industry.

As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, that's a lower margin of profit than many other players in health care, such as the pharmaceutical industry (16.5 percent), "health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), medical instruments and supplies (6.8 percent), biotech firms (6.7 percent), and generic drug manufacturers (6.6 percent)."

So once again, if you're going to bark up a tree, make sure you are barking up the right tree.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that isn't my point. I'm not making a case for demanding that people have insurance. I'm making the case that people get HEALTHCARE. Do you see the difference here?

No, I don't. In this country, you need insurance in order to get any major healthcare unless it's an emergency situation. The two are directly related.

The UK NHS costs half the US system. The US federal govt actually spends about the same on healthcare as the UK govt does. And yet for that money the UK gets a comprehensive system that will treat and UK resident. The US gets what? A system that will leave millions to rot and die. How come?

The US is the innovator of new medical technology. You can't get much of that in Socialist care countries. Sure, after we come out with new procedures, new medication, new technologies, they can come along and steal it, but they can't create it.

Canada spends a billion dollars a year to pay for the care of their citizens that come here because they can't get treated there. As a truck driver up north, I get to discuss this subject with many Canadian drivers. The younger men boast about their healthcare system. The older ones? They told me to keep what we have if we can.

I'ma patient at the world renown Cleveland Clinic, and let me tell you, when you go to the Clinic, you are the one that feels like the foreigner. Doctors and patients alike are all from other countries--yes, those social healthcare countries. It's like walking into the UN.

We have the best care in the world. Because we pay our doctors so well, we have the best doctors in the world. So having the best care is not the issue; we have the best care. The problem we have is that the best care costs a lot of money.

US citizens pay 7% their healthcare insurance money just on the insurance company, so it can employ people to do an unnecessary job (the job hardly exists in the UK) and for the profits for a company that doesn't need to exist, and doesn't act in the interests of the patients, but in the interests of the hospitals who take a percentage of that money, the pharma companies who charge way too much because they can get away with it in the US, and the doctors taking a cut through corruption etc etc etc etc.

How anyone can be happy to be pay something like 40%-50% of their insurance money for NOTHING USEFUL I will never know.

Then let me ask, why do you have car insurance? Why do you have renters or house insurance?

Up until Commie Care came along, insurance companies would take your premium money, invest it to offset the claim costs, and provide a service to you. Insurance companies are not the problem. The problem is government, regulations, and educational costs. Unions of past played a huge role in educational costs because kids out of school didn't want to invests tens of thousands of dollars only to make as much as an assembly line worker at GM, or a UPS driver, or a steel worker.

If the government is so efficient with our money, why does it cost us billions in fraud every year for government programs? If the government was so efficient with our healthcare money, why did they hire private insurance to handle government claims and pay their bills?

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

No, it didn't fly over my head, I just don't agree with you.

The insurance companies provide for money in the even that you need it. Yes, but the NHS in the UK also does this.

The difference though is massive.

In the US if you lose your insurance coverage and then find out you have cancer three days later, you're fucked.
In the UK you get cancer care no matter what you circumstances.

In the US you pay 7% for the insurance companies.
In the UK you pay 0% for the insurance companies.

In the US the insurance companies paying out will lead to hospitals over charging, doctors on the take, doctors prescribing drugs that are not needed, pharma companies charging the highest prices etc.

In the UK you don't have this.

Insurance companies don't just pay the bills, they are a part of the problems. Firstly because they leech 7% of healthcare spending for something completely unnecessary, but also because there's no desire to reduce costs in the healthcare industry. The people want their value for money from their insurance money and don't see that this will make premiums RISE in the future. So, they want more drugs, more time in hospital, the best drugs, the most expensive thing they can get from their insurance.

But yes, there are many, many other problems in the privatized system other than insurance companies, and nothing ever gets done about any of it, why? Because it benefits the rich.

Yes, drugs cost a lot because of regulation. I mean, you want the drugs to be PROVEN to work, don't you? If you don't, go to China, I'm sure you can pay much less for something that may kill you.

Totally opposite.

Let me ask, why do you think many companies drug test their employees? Why do you think that cities and states require smoke detectors in a home to sell a house? Why do you think the feds forced states to lower their Blood Alcohol Level to .08 to be considered DUI?

Insurance companies payoff politicians to make laws thus keeping their claims lower. They will do anything in their power to payout less.

Certainly no one can easily defend the health insurance industry policies of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage for individuals once they get sick. But Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, has noted that, according to data from Yahoo business, the health insurance industry, with an average profit margin of 3.3 percent, is the 86th most profitable industry.

As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, that's a lower margin of profit than many other players in health care, such as the pharmaceutical industry (16.5 percent), "health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), medical instruments and supplies (6.8 percent), biotech firms (6.7 percent), and generic drug manufacturers (6.6 percent)."

So once again, if you're going to bark up a tree, make sure you are barking up the right tree.

You're not wrong. However there are two different things we're talking about.

The first is the ability of insurance companies having to pay out. The second is one where because there are insurance companies, people don't feel like they are paying, and the hospitals, the doctors know this, and know that people want to get the most out of their money.

I'm not saying insurance companies want to pay for the more expensive drugs. I'm saying because insurance companies are paying, the people want the more expensive thing, the doctors will give it to them because they're on the take, and no one asks the questions that would be asked if the people paying (USA insurance companies paying hospitals, UK govt paying the govt). The govt in the UK pays itself. They have no reason to try and get as much out of it as possible. But in the US it's not like this.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Yes, but you do concede that it is a conservative think tank, yes?

Yes, I do. So does that mean if Mother Jones came out with a liberal idea that the Republicans adopted into law, and turned out to be a failure, it was the Democrats fault because Mother Jones first suggested it?

Who cares? I believe some on the right would lay blame on the left in such a scenario because people are generally pretty dumb. However I don't see the relevance of your deflection. This plan was a Republican-conceived idea. Now that the Democrats ran with it, you calling it a 'piece of shit', a 'myth' and a 'strawman' seems a bit disingenuous, IMO.

You are dense. The Heritage Foundation are not representatives. It was not a "Republican Idea" it was one Republican writing about "his" idea. A Republican idea comes from Republican representatives--not organizations or magazines. The new bill being introduced IS a Republican idea because it is created by Republican representatives.

If Commie Care wasn't such an utter failure, you would have never know about the Heritage Foundation. But since Every Republican Voted Against Commie Care, the left are looking for somebody else to blame since they can't blame Republicans in the Congress and won't admit their own faults.

It's called Obama Care for a reason.

So, It's not a 'Republican idea', yet it was conceived by Republicans who used to support it (RomneyCare anyone?). But now you completely discount this as fact because it wasn't introduced by Republican 'representatives'? Holy cow, are you un/misinformed. And you have chutzpah to call me dense...

Two bills, including individual mandates, were introduced in 1993 by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). Look it up, genius. I've known about the Heritage Foundation long before the ACA was even a 'thing' for the partisan rubes in this country to dissect with their armchair detective skills.

The ACA is a fucking disaster for the working class. All the right seems to want to do to 'fix' this is simply get rid of the mandate. Brilliant! More partisan hackery.

Yes, you are dense because not everything every single Republican thinks of makes it a Republican idea. A Republican idea is when a group of Republicans come out with a policy, law, or attempted law. If I as a Republican say we should expand abortion to the day of birth, that doesn't make it a Republican idea--that makes it my idea. The Republicans (as in the Republican Party) have nothing to do with what I say or think. When the Republican party comes out with something, then it's a Republican idea and not until then.

Your personal mental gymnastics or cognitive dissonance doesn't detract from the ACA being an idea that initially came from Republicans. You are not a Senator or Representative, so of course your opinion doesn't hold any sway with the public at large.

If the Republicans really wanted anything near Commie Care, they would have introduced it when we had control over all three branches of government and could have easily got it passed. But they didn't, it wasn't even thought of yet alone our idea. As for individual representatives, it was no more of a Republican idea than the Bridge to Nowhere.

Republicans definitely could have, but didn't. Gah, you're hopelessly blinded by your partisan hackery.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your personal mental gymnastics or cognitive dissonance doesn't detract from the ACA being an idea that initially came from Republicans. You are not a Senator or Representative, so of course your opinion doesn't hold any sway with the public at large.

Wow, it's slowly sinking in.........slowly, but getting there.

Correct, I am not a Senator or representative. That's what I've been trying to explain to you! I'm not a representative, and neither is anybody at the Heritage foundation. Some authors view at the Heritage Foundation is no more of a Republican idea than mine is.

Republicans definitely could have, but didn't. Gah, you're hopelessly blinded by your partisan hackery.

And you are blinded by brainwashing. Democrats say--you believe. Don't question it, don't sit there and figure it out, just believe whatever it is they tell you to believe regardless if common sense prevails or not. Then repeat over and over what you were instructed to say.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't. In this country, you need insurance in order to get any major healthcare unless it's an emergency situation. The two are directly related.

The US is the innovator of new medical technology. You can't get much of that in Socialist care countries. Sure, after we come out with new procedures, new medication, new technologies, they can come along and steal it, but they can't create it.

Canada spends a billion dollars a year to pay for the care of their citizens that come here because they can't get treated there. As a truck driver up north, I get to discuss this subject with many Canadian drivers. The younger men boast about their healthcare system. The older ones? They told me to keep what we have if we can.

I'ma patient at the world renown Cleveland Clinic, and let me tell you, when you go to the Clinic, you are the one that feels like the foreigner. Doctors and patients alike are all from other countries--yes, those social healthcare countries. It's like walking into the UN.

We have the best care in the world. Because we pay our doctors so well, we have the best doctors in the world. So having the best care is not the issue; we have the best care. The problem we have is that the best care costs a lot of money.

Then let me ask, why do you have car insurance? Why do you have renters or house insurance?

Up until Commie Care came along, insurance companies would take your premium money, invest it to offset the claim costs, and provide a service to you. Insurance companies are not the problem. The problem is government, regulations, and educational costs. Unions of past played a huge role in educational costs because kids out of school didn't want to invests tens of thousands of dollars only to make as much as an assembly line worker at GM, or a UPS driver, or a steel worker.

If the government is so efficient with our money, why does it cost us billions in fraud every year for government programs? If the government was so efficient with our healthcare money, why did they hire private insurance to handle government claims and pay their bills?

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

No, it didn't fly over my head, I just don't agree with you.

The insurance companies provide for money in the even that you need it. Yes, but the NHS in the UK also does this.

The difference though is massive.

In the US if you lose your insurance coverage and then find out you have cancer three days later, you're fucked.
In the UK you get cancer care no matter what you circumstances.

In the US you pay 7% for the insurance companies.
In the UK you pay 0% for the insurance companies.

In the US the insurance companies paying out will lead to hospitals over charging, doctors on the take, doctors prescribing drugs that are not needed, pharma companies charging the highest prices etc.

In the UK you don't have this.

Insurance companies don't just pay the bills, they are a part of the problems. Firstly because they leech 7% of healthcare spending for something completely unnecessary, but also because there's no desire to reduce costs in the healthcare industry. The people want their value for money from their insurance money and don't see that this will make premiums RISE in the future. So, they want more drugs, more time in hospital, the best drugs, the most expensive thing they can get from their insurance.

But yes, there are many, many other problems in the privatized system other than insurance companies, and nothing ever gets done about any of it, why? Because it benefits the rich.

Yes, drugs cost a lot because of regulation. I mean, you want the drugs to be PROVEN to work, don't you? If you don't, go to China, I'm sure you can pay much less for something that may kill you.

Totally opposite.

Let me ask, why do you think many companies drug test their employees? Why do you think that cities and states require smoke detectors in a home to sell a house? Why do you think the feds forced states to lower their Blood Alcohol Level to .08 to be considered DUI?

Insurance companies payoff politicians to make laws thus keeping their claims lower. They will do anything in their power to payout less.

Certainly no one can easily defend the health insurance industry policies of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage for individuals once they get sick. But Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, has noted that, according to data from Yahoo business, the health insurance industry, with an average profit margin of 3.3 percent, is the 86th most profitable industry.

As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, that's a lower margin of profit than many other players in health care, such as the pharmaceutical industry (16.5 percent), "health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), medical instruments and supplies (6.8 percent), biotech firms (6.7 percent), and generic drug manufacturers (6.6 percent)."

So once again, if you're going to bark up a tree, make sure you are barking up the right tree.

You're not wrong. However there are two different things we're talking about.

The first is the ability of insurance companies having to pay out. The second is one where because there are insurance companies, people don't feel like they are paying, and the hospitals, the doctors know this, and know that people want to get the most out of their money.

I'm not saying insurance companies want to pay for the more expensive drugs. I'm saying because insurance companies are paying, the people want the more expensive thing, the doctors will give it to them because they're on the take, and no one asks the questions that would be asked if the people paying (USA insurance companies paying hospitals, UK govt paying the govt). The govt in the UK pays itself. They have no reason to try and get as much out of it as possible. But in the US it's not like this.

Nobody watches their money more than insurance companies. Do you think government actually does? Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off by the billions every single year. The Obama Care website cost nearly 2 billion dollars alone. Do you think any private insurance company would allow that???

When I was in the business, government setup their programs to be ripped off. It wasn't until Reagan got in where he started to put a stop to it.

We would buy an aluminum quad cane for about $40.00. We would then rent it to a patient through Medicare or Medicaid for about $15.00 a month. The patient kept it sometimes for their entire life, and we would keep raking in the profits. After three months, the cane was paid for, but Medicare and Medicaid would continue to rent it for months and years.

This went on with every piece of equipment we carried: oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, hospital beds, portable commodes, aluminum walkers, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions believe it or not. And it all worked the same way.

We were not ripping off the government, it was their insistence that we do it that way. And why should they care? It was not their money--it's tax money. We couldn't sell a patient one piece of equipment if we wanted to. The government wouldn't buy it for them until after Reagan was in office for a year or two.

Private insurance companies didn't work that way. If a patient was going to use a piece of equipment for X amount of time, they outright bought it for the patient and saved their other customers millions of dollars compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just because in the US you need health insurance (unless you're rich enough to pay for it yourself) doesn't mean it has to be this way. This is the way they have set it up. And the government has set it up for the benefit of themselves and the rich people, and not the benefit of the people they're supposed to represent.

The two are directly related. However people don't want health insurance, they want health care. If someone didn't have to have health insurance to get health care, then they would do without it.

Yes, the US is big in the pharma industry. However some big companies are also European companies.

Top 25 Pharma Companies by Global Revenue - Top Pharma List - PMLiVE

Number 1 is Swiss
Number 2 American
Number 3 Swiss
Number 4 French
Number 5 American

So, two out of the top 5 are Americans.

The whole "Canadians come to the US to get healthcare" isn't necessarily true. There are some, but not many. I've seen the story, it's mostly fake.

Yes, the US has some of the best healthcare in the world, IF YOU AFFORD IT. A lot of people don't get the share in this. Other countries have better rates when it comes to different diseases, for what the US pays, twice as much, the healthcare isn't twice as good, in many cases inferior, and for the poor, it's shit.

I don't have car insurance, I don't have a car.

But there's a massive difference between your health and your car, or your home.

I didn't say the govt was so efficient, but neither is businesses. The Health care industry is not efficient, except at screwing you out of money.

The point (which flew over your head) is that insurance companies provide a service in the event of a loss. They all work the same way. They take money from people that need coverage of some kind, invest the money to offset claims, and pay the bills when they come in to the customer.

Our problem is not insurance companies, our problem is the cost of medical care which stem from many different areas such as very expensive education, government regulations, underpayment to providers for our government patients, red tape and bill processing, Lawsuits and malpractice insurance, just a number of things. The insurance companies simply pay the bills and make a living that way.

I didn't bring up pharmaceuticals, but since you did, you can blame much of our expense on the government. The FDA puts new drugs on hold for up to a decade which costs our drug manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are books and books of paperwork, years and years of testing, then IF they allow a new drug to go on the market, the manufacturer has to have legal protection since somebody somewhere is going to sue them for a reaction they had to the drug.

Other countries just sit back and watch us spend our money. When they see enough testing, they produce the drug themselves, and do so at a fraction of the US cost.

Okay, so what happens when they spend these millions of dollars and they don't get the FDA approval to sell the drug? The company increases their prices on their successful drugs already on the market.

No, it didn't fly over my head, I just don't agree with you.

The insurance companies provide for money in the even that you need it. Yes, but the NHS in the UK also does this.

The difference though is massive.

In the US if you lose your insurance coverage and then find out you have cancer three days later, you're fucked.
In the UK you get cancer care no matter what you circumstances.

In the US you pay 7% for the insurance companies.
In the UK you pay 0% for the insurance companies.

In the US the insurance companies paying out will lead to hospitals over charging, doctors on the take, doctors prescribing drugs that are not needed, pharma companies charging the highest prices etc.

In the UK you don't have this.

Insurance companies don't just pay the bills, they are a part of the problems. Firstly because they leech 7% of healthcare spending for something completely unnecessary, but also because there's no desire to reduce costs in the healthcare industry. The people want their value for money from their insurance money and don't see that this will make premiums RISE in the future. So, they want more drugs, more time in hospital, the best drugs, the most expensive thing they can get from their insurance.

But yes, there are many, many other problems in the privatized system other than insurance companies, and nothing ever gets done about any of it, why? Because it benefits the rich.

Yes, drugs cost a lot because of regulation. I mean, you want the drugs to be PROVEN to work, don't you? If you don't, go to China, I'm sure you can pay much less for something that may kill you.

Totally opposite.

Let me ask, why do you think many companies drug test their employees? Why do you think that cities and states require smoke detectors in a home to sell a house? Why do you think the feds forced states to lower their Blood Alcohol Level to .08 to be considered DUI?

Insurance companies payoff politicians to make laws thus keeping their claims lower. They will do anything in their power to payout less.

Certainly no one can easily defend the health insurance industry policies of denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage for individuals once they get sick. But Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, has noted that, according to data from Yahoo business, the health insurance industry, with an average profit margin of 3.3 percent, is the 86th most profitable industry.

As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, that's a lower margin of profit than many other players in health care, such as the pharmaceutical industry (16.5 percent), "health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), medical instruments and supplies (6.8 percent), biotech firms (6.7 percent), and generic drug manufacturers (6.6 percent)."

So once again, if you're going to bark up a tree, make sure you are barking up the right tree.

You're not wrong. However there are two different things we're talking about.

The first is the ability of insurance companies having to pay out. The second is one where because there are insurance companies, people don't feel like they are paying, and the hospitals, the doctors know this, and know that people want to get the most out of their money.

I'm not saying insurance companies want to pay for the more expensive drugs. I'm saying because insurance companies are paying, the people want the more expensive thing, the doctors will give it to them because they're on the take, and no one asks the questions that would be asked if the people paying (USA insurance companies paying hospitals, UK govt paying the govt). The govt in the UK pays itself. They have no reason to try and get as much out of it as possible. But in the US it's not like this.

Nobody watches their money more than insurance companies. Do you think government actually does? Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off by the billions every single year. The Obama Care website cost nearly 2 billion dollars alone. Do you think any private insurance company would allow that???

When I was in the business, government setup their programs to be ripped off. It wasn't until Reagan got in where he started to put a stop to it.

We would buy an aluminum quad cane for about $40.00. We would then rent it to a patient through Medicare or Medicaid for about $15.00 a month. The patient kept it sometimes for their entire life, and we would keep raking in the profits. After three months, the cane was paid for, but Medicare and Medicaid would continue to rent it for months and years.

This went on with every piece of equipment we carried: oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, hospital beds, portable commodes, aluminum walkers, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions believe it or not. And it all worked the same way.

We were not ripping off the government, it was their insistence that we do it that way. And why should they care? It was not their money--it's tax money. We couldn't sell a patient one piece of equipment if we wanted to. The government wouldn't buy it for them until after Reagan was in office for a year or two.

Private insurance companies didn't work that way. If a patient was going to use a piece of equipment for X amount of time, they outright bought it for the patient and saved their other customers millions of dollars compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

So how is it then, that with private healthcare, healthcare costs TWICE as much as other countries? You seem to be saying it should be cheap, but it's the most expensive in the world. Somewhere in your logic, something is very wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Ultimately, both parties are to blame for Obamacare 1.0 and 2.0, only in different ways.

Which one is more to blame, I don't give a crap.

Maybe you should. I have more respect for the party that tried to do something to fix the problem, than the one that obstructed a plan that they previously supported because the Black Guy wanted it.

The fact you can't see the difference is telling.

The biggest mistake the Democrats made with ObamaCare was thinking that if they threw a few bones to private enterprise, they could get the Republicans to sign on for the good of the country.

So what you have is a bunch of White Trash who have suddenly figured out that the "Affordable Care Act" is the same thing as ObamaCare, and they are about to get their insurance cancelled, but they just can't STAND the thought of Obama having a legacy.

 

[Mac1958]

Ultimately, both parties are to blame for Obamacare 1.0 and 2.0, only in different ways.

Which one is more to blame, I don't give a crap.

Maybe you should. I have more respect for the party that tried to do something to fix the problem, than the one that obstructed a plan that they previously supported because the Black Guy wanted it.

The fact you can't see the difference is telling.

The biggest mistake the Democrats made with ObamaCare was thinking that if they threw a few bones to private enterprise, they could get the Republicans to sign on for the good of the country.

So what you have is a bunch of White Trash who have suddenly figured out that the "Affordable Care Act" is the same thing as ObamaCare, and they are about to get their insurance cancelled, but they just can't STAND the thought of Obama having a legacy.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody watches their money more than insurance companies. Do you think government actually does? Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off by the billions every single year. The Obama Care website cost nearly 2 billion dollars alone. Do you think any private insurance company would allow that???

Cigna Paid Ed Hanaway nearly 100 Million dollars to not come to work anymore. You don't think that's a waste of money?

 

[gipper]

Ultimately, both parties are to blame for Obamacare 1.0 and 2.0, only in different ways.

Which one is more to blame, I don't give a crap.

Maybe you should. I have more respect for the party that tried to do something to fix the problem, than the one that obstructed a plan that they previously supported because the Black Guy wanted it.

The fact you can't see the difference is telling.

The biggest mistake the Democrats made with ObamaCare was thinking that if they threw a few bones to private enterprise, they could get the Republicans to sign on for the good of the country.

So what you have is a bunch of White Trash who have suddenly figured out that the "Affordable Care Act" is the same thing as ObamaCare, and they are about to get their insurance cancelled, but they just can't STAND the thought of Obama having a legacy.

.

Partisans like Joey are really amazing. How does one get so screwed up?

 

[JoeB131]

Welcome to this country Joe, but this is not my idea. This is what happens with every legislation including Commie Care. No backpedalling, just a basic understanding of how laws are created in this country.

Guy, you were saying, "wow, when this ObamaCare replacement comes out, it's going to be awesome" And now it's out, and basically dead on arrival. The far right is against it becuase poor people might get insurance, and moderates area against it because they know their constituents are going to lose coverage and vote their sorry asses out.

Again, 7 years of whining about how you were going to replace this, you'd think you'd have a plan ready to go...

You know, a plan other than "We don't like this plan because the Black Guy Did It."

 

[Desperado]

More like Paul Ryan introduced a health care bill not the Republicans.
Initial reviews call it ObamaCare Lite

 

[JoeB131]

They both screwed me, but it was the black guy that led the charge.

Don't blame the dynamite, blame the person that lit it's fuse.

Well, I thought your boss was the most wonderful guy in the world..

Or maybe you are figuring out that you got rid of the black guy,and your life still sucks because you live in Cleveland.

 

[JoeB131]

I have no idea WTF you're talking about. Only a few uninformed liberal voters thought that the ACA was different from Commie Care.

Americans don’t know the difference between Obamacare and ACA

“So, you don’t like anything Obama does and you prefer the Affordable Care Act?” Kimmel’s reporter asked the woman.

“Absolutely,” she answered.

One man confirmed that if he was a senator, he’d keep the Affordable Care Act, but repeal Obamacare.

Another man admitted his confusion upfront.

“My girlfriend supports Trump,” he said after revealing he “wasn’t sure” why he supported the ACA over Obamacare.

“I go with whatever she says,” he added.

 

[JoeB131]

More like Paul Ryan introduced a health care bill not the Republicans.
Initial reviews call it ObamaCare Lite

Hey, you guys are screwed. You can't yank health care from 20 million people and then expect them to thank you.