Simple, honest question on the ACA

[Sun Devil 92]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

Well, since such benefits are not readily apparent (I don't call the removal of inexpensive catastrophic insurance a benefit), let's wee what you are talking about.

 

[Edgetho]

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

"......and FOX news will be back after these short commercials....."

You ask for honesty and close your mind to anything other than your predisposed, prejudiced opinion.

dimocraps had the right idea. And don't say Republicans didn't have a counter-proposal, they had many.

dimocraps talked like they were going to offer a system similar to the Swiss. You should study it. It works well. But, being dimocraps -- They screwed it up. They bargained their way into a worthless program.

For their system to work, there MUST be mandatory participation. It's just got to be that way. Unfortunately, the Federal government doesn't have the power to force people to buy Insurance.

But they CAN fine them if they don't. And that's where it all went wrong.
The fine should have been an unbearable burden for those who sought to avoid the responsibility of paying their way. Closer to $5,000 PER PERSON, including family.

There should not have been a minimum yearly income to qualify. This was the Lying Cocksucker's way to get the States to share the burden.

And that's why the States sued the moron and the moron lost in SCOTUS.

And it all went to shit.

There's just no working with dimocraps. There really isn't.

Long story but, I'm telling you -- dimocraps are just too stupid to make anything work. Their one asset is bitching. It's all they got.

If they'd get Republicans on board, it could get done

 

[nat4900]

Were republicans firmly to stand up to HC insurance companies, hospital associations, and drug companies (remember that these latter folks lobby to NOT have Medicare negotiate for lower drug costs).....and enact either single payer and/or Medicare for all, they would have my FULL support and praise.

 

[Crixus]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

Because it don't work.

 

[nat4900]

dimocraps had the right idea. And don't say Republicans didn't have a counter-proposal, they had many.

Is that WHY they're still scrambling for the "replace" part after repealing the ACA?
After all, how many years have republicans been in charge of Congress......and challenged Obama to veto honest and better proposals to the ACA?

 

[nat4900]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

 

[leftwinger]

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

This where you lose me. 15mil were added on to Medicaid (they could have already been added previously? why were they sitting out?). All states did not offer? I don't get it?

Now young workers are FORCED (above $16K?) to buy costly100% coverage (but subsidized)? If the employer does not offer insurance (small business less than 50 employees) you must buy off ACA? At some income level you pay for it all, no subsidizes for higher incomes.


One thing that might be helpful is a low-cost CATASTROPHIC ONLY plan? But then the Insurance Company cry "not enough revenue"? Very complicated?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

It needs to be aborted with a dirty coat hanger

 

[Edgetho]

Were republicans firmly to stand up to HC insurance companies, hospital associations, and drug companies (remember that these latter folks lobby to NOT have Medicare negotiate for lower drug costs).....and enact either single payer and/or Medicare for all, they would have my FULL support and praise.

That's just stupid rhetoric. Beyond stupid.

The entire Health Insurance Industry is losing their asses on the ACA.

This is what I mean -- You can't have an intelligent discussion with dimocraps.

It's not even worth trying. Every time you get to a crossroads, they start playing the 'evil capitalist' card and crying like little bitches that got pushed down on the playground.

 

[Edgetho]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

95% of those didn't get on the ACA, they got on Medicaid and MOST of the other 5% were people who lost their jobs OR lost their Health Insurance at work BECAUSE of obamacare

FACT

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Simple honest question. Why is acknowledging Barack Obama's signature legislation by putting his name on it, derisive?

Simple answer.........Medicare is NOT called JohnsonCare. Placing Obama's name to the ACA is an attempt to link him (and all the prejudices that right wingers feel against Obama) with a law that was always controversial. We also do not label the Revenue Act (which introduced the paying of federal income taxes,) as LincolnCare.

Did any Republicans get any input or vote for Obamacare? No. That is why it wears that badge of shame.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So much for the "honest" question. I guess we couldn't expect any more from the usual liberal losers.

Keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare is like painting the superstructure of the Titanic as the deck slips under the waves.

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

The scheme would never work, for the straightforward reason that the liberals ran out of "Other People's Money" in record time for this program. It was so expensive that the liberals had to impose huge deductibles on the people they were trying to bribe, thus showing them just how worthless the program was and convincing them to vote against liberals.

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

"......and FOX news will be back after these short commercials....."

Can't handle the truth, huh?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because at some point we need to stop all the partisan obstruction. It does not serve the best interest of our citizens. There is not doubt that it is a more difficult position to be in the minority party, but the response should be to work harder, not demonize your opposition in hopes to win back the majority during the next election.

I actually agree..............If, in enacting the needed improvements, republicans keep the ACA's mandate, parental insurance until 26 years, subsidized drug costs, etc., will the law STILL be labeled Obama Care?

Nope. Obamacare will be known for ever as the abortion it was, and the abortions it also covered for men!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

dimocraps had the right idea. And don't say Republicans didn't have a counter-proposal, they had many.

Is that WHY they're still scrambling for the "replace" part after repealing the ACA?
After all, how many years have republicans been in charge of Congress......and challenged Obama to veto honest and better proposals to the ACA?

Uh, the Republicans could not get anything past Dinghy Harry Reid and his obstructionist Dims in the Senate.

Have you been asleep for 8 years?

 

[Edgetho]

Millions of workers are forced to go to the ACA because Employers just don't want to fuck with it themselves.

My wife's been interviewing for jobs and most of them tell her they'll give her 'X' amount of dollars toward her Health Insurance but she'll have to get it herself..... Through the ACA.

Millions of other workers had their Group Plans cancelled because they didn't meet ACA 'standards'

At which point employers just said 'Fuck it, get yer own. Here's 20 bucks'

The ACA is an abortion. Not because of the principle, because dimocrap scum did it.

dimocraps are simply stupid

 

[owebo]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

Obama and democrats called it Obamacare....so...

To answer your question, democrats can fuck off for all I care....we are going back to free market....

 

[leftwinger]

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

Until Medicare at age 65, all USA now has to buy ACA? This could cost $3-5K/year.

Are ACA subsidies somehow "weighted" to the cost of living? NYC vs. Little Rock?

You could live very small..........$16K/year and get big subsidy? But not live in NYC or Silicon Valley? Did the genius factor in all of this?

 

[Edgetho]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

That's a lie and you are a liar. But..... You're a dimocrap. Goes with territory

70 Changes That Make Obamacare A Very Different Law Than Congress Passed

 

[leftwinger]

I did test case. HSA compatible dropped it to three plans for ease of view. ~same cost.

Shocker. >$1K/mo ACA Bronze cost in CA for married joint at $80K Gross income level.