Simple, honest question on the ACA

[TheGreatGatsby]

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)???

How come something new "NEEDS" improvements? It was a SCAM. If Democrats want to expose themselves by holding to it, then good luck with that, guy.

There is no possibility of changing something as large and complex as how all Americans pay for health care without there being a need for changes along the way.

Every other system we have that is anywhere NEAR as large or complex gets changes pretty much every year.

The US, health care issues, public opinion, etc. are all in a constant state of change. It will never be the case that we have a system that won't need change.

That's all a bunch of rubbish. Health care is not ever meant to be that complicated. The system was absolutely hijacked. Everyone knows this.

Polls of Americans show that the features of the ACA are WILDLY liked by Americans across the country.

And, yes, it took some more regulation to accomplish that.

All your floury speech didn't work; so, now you're just presenting the biggest LIE you can think of.

 

[WillReadmore]

Of course, we all have to wonder WHY that after SIX years of right wing republicans arguing that the ACA should be repealed and REPLACED, we still don't have from these same republicans any decent proposal and they are asking voters to give them additional years to come up with a viable alternative to the ACA.

One wonders if "cursing the darkness" is a hell of a lot easier than figuring out how to light a candle.

What they will probably do first is repeal the thing and put something in there temporarily. Then they will work on a more concrete alternative after they go through all the numbers and debates.

I seriously doubt that.

Remember the chaos of switching to the ACA?

That same kind of thrashing will take place in ANY significant change to how we pay for health care in America. Every corporation, insurance company and provider will have significant factors to consider in designing plans, figuring out what those plans will cost, figuring out who they will offer them to, etc. Plus, the public will have to be informed - which takes time and effort.

The ACA had the problem of their web site, but that was not the major issue in the transition. Corporations required an extended time period of many months longer than insurance companies required, for example.

So, the first thing the GOP does better be pretty darn close to the final solution or we're in for major trouble.

We'll see, we have two more weeks of suffering to go before Trump seats office. Afterwards is when we will know what the real deal is. Me? I'm just speculating one of the many avenues they might take. It may be something totally opposite of what I think.

Whatever it is, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Since Commie Care started, I was forced to submit personal medical bills every year to these lowlifes that were hired to run the thing. I don't want to do that again this year, so at the very least, I hope they get rid of the mandate and penalties immediately.

There are three agencies that "run this thing" - Medicare (for those on Medicare), insurance companies and VA.

NONE of them are going to give you money just on your word.

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they will probably do first is repeal the thing and put something in there temporarily. Then they will work on a more concrete alternative after they go through all the numbers and debates.

I seriously doubt that.

Remember the chaos of switching to the ACA?

That same kind of thrashing will take place in ANY significant change to how we pay for health care in America. Every corporation, insurance company and provider will have significant factors to consider in designing plans, figuring out what those plans will cost, figuring out who they will offer them to, etc. Plus, the public will have to be informed - which takes time and effort.

The ACA had the problem of their web site, but that was not the major issue in the transition. Corporations required an extended time period of many months longer than insurance companies required, for example.

So, the first thing the GOP does better be pretty darn close to the final solution or we're in for major trouble.

We'll see, we have two more weeks of suffering to go before Trump seats office. Afterwards is when we will know what the real deal is. Me? I'm just speculating one of the many avenues they might take. It may be something totally opposite of what I think.

Whatever it is, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Since Commie Care started, I was forced to submit personal medical bills every year to these lowlifes that were hired to run the thing. I don't want to do that again this year, so at the very least, I hope they get rid of the mandate and penalties immediately.

There are three agencies that "run this thing" - Medicare (for those on Medicare), insurance companies and VA.

NONE of them are going to give you money just on your word.

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

 

[WillReadmore]

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)???

How come something new "NEEDS" improvements? It was a SCAM. If Democrats want to expose themselves by holding to it, then good luck with that, guy.

There is no possibility of changing something as large and complex as how all Americans pay for health care without there being a need for changes along the way.

Every other system we have that is anywhere NEAR as large or complex gets changes pretty much every year.

The US, health care issues, public opinion, etc. are all in a constant state of change. It will never be the case that we have a system that won't need change.

That's all a bunch of rubbish. Health care is not ever meant to be that complicated. The system was absolutely hijacked. Everyone knows this.

Polls of Americans show that the features of the ACA are WILDLY liked by Americans across the country.

And, yes, it took some more regulation to accomplish that.

All your floury speech didn't work; so, now you're just presenting the biggest LIE you can think of.

No, I've posted data on this topic.

For example, see Table 2 in
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: November 2016

Note that Republicans are highly in favor of ALL 9 of the key ACA features.

Note that only about 1/4 of Americans want the ACA killed.

In fact, more people want the ACA EXPANDED than want it killed.

 

[WillReadmore]

I seriously doubt that.

Remember the chaos of switching to the ACA?

That same kind of thrashing will take place in ANY significant change to how we pay for health care in America. Every corporation, insurance company and provider will have significant factors to consider in designing plans, figuring out what those plans will cost, figuring out who they will offer them to, etc. Plus, the public will have to be informed - which takes time and effort.

The ACA had the problem of their web site, but that was not the major issue in the transition. Corporations required an extended time period of many months longer than insurance companies required, for example.

So, the first thing the GOP does better be pretty darn close to the final solution or we're in for major trouble.

We'll see, we have two more weeks of suffering to go before Trump seats office. Afterwards is when we will know what the real deal is. Me? I'm just speculating one of the many avenues they might take. It may be something totally opposite of what I think.

Whatever it is, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Since Commie Care started, I was forced to submit personal medical bills every year to these lowlifes that were hired to run the thing. I don't want to do that again this year, so at the very least, I hope they get rid of the mandate and penalties immediately.

There are three agencies that "run this thing" - Medicare (for those on Medicare), insurance companies and VA.

NONE of them are going to give you money just on your word.

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We'll see, we have two more weeks of suffering to go before Trump seats office. Afterwards is when we will know what the real deal is. Me? I'm just speculating one of the many avenues they might take. It may be something totally opposite of what I think.

Whatever it is, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Since Commie Care started, I was forced to submit personal medical bills every year to these lowlifes that were hired to run the thing. I don't want to do that again this year, so at the very least, I hope they get rid of the mandate and penalties immediately.

There are three agencies that "run this thing" - Medicare (for those on Medicare), insurance companies and VA.

NONE of them are going to give you money just on your word.

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

It's all politics.

Commie Care was designed to give things to likely Democrat voters at the expense of likely Republican voters. If they repeal it without anything to replace it, they won't lose many votes because the people that are advantaged by Commie Care don't vote Republican anyways.

It's just like what Obama did when he attacked the banks and credit card industry. He created regulations that stopped them from increasing interest rates and charging them outrageous late fees. The banks relied on that money, so they had to make it up somewhere. That somewhere was on their responsible customers with transfer fees which most of us with great credit ratings never had to worry about before DumBama.

The bottom line is that irresponsible people generally vote Democrat and responsible people generally vote Republican. So what he did was make credit cards better for his voters at the expense of his opponents voters.

Like I said, all politics.

 

[WillReadmore]

There are three agencies that "run this thing" - Medicare (for those on Medicare), insurance companies and VA.

NONE of them are going to give you money just on your word.

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

It's all politics.

Commie Care was designed to give things to likely Democrat voters at the expense of likely Republican voters. If they repeal it without anything to replace it, they won't lose many votes because the people that are advantaged by Commie Care don't vote Republican anyways.

It's just like what Obama did when he attacked the banks and credit card industry. He created regulations that stopped them from increasing interest rates and charging them outrageous late fees. The banks relied on that money, so they had to make it up somewhere. That somewhere was on their responsible customers with transfer fees which most of us with great credit ratings never had to worry about before DumBama.

The bottom line is that irresponsible people generally vote Democrat and responsible people generally vote Republican. So what he did was make credit cards better for his voters at the expense of his opponents voters.

Like I said, all politics.

I don't agree at all.

Republicans are highly in favor of the features of the ACA. A significant portion of Americans want to improve or extend the ACA - not kill it. Families need the features the ACA provides.

And, there isn't anything we could do today in congress more irresponsible than to kill our health care regulations without even having a replacement.

So, your partisan claims of acting responsibly are just ridiculous.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Give me money for what? I'm talking about having to submit my bills and payments to the idiots so I don't get penalized.

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

It's all politics.

Commie Care was designed to give things to likely Democrat voters at the expense of likely Republican voters. If they repeal it without anything to replace it, they won't lose many votes because the people that are advantaged by Commie Care don't vote Republican anyways.

It's just like what Obama did when he attacked the banks and credit card industry. He created regulations that stopped them from increasing interest rates and charging them outrageous late fees. The banks relied on that money, so they had to make it up somewhere. That somewhere was on their responsible customers with transfer fees which most of us with great credit ratings never had to worry about before DumBama.

The bottom line is that irresponsible people generally vote Democrat and responsible people generally vote Republican. So what he did was make credit cards better for his voters at the expense of his opponents voters.

Like I said, all politics.

I don't agree at all.

Republicans are highly in favor of the features of the ACA. A significant portion of Americans want to improve or extend the ACA - not kill it. Families need the features the ACA provides.

And, there isn't anything we could do today in congress more irresponsible than to kill our health care regulations without even having a replacement.

So, your partisan claims of acting responsibly are just ridiculous.

I don't doubt you disagree, but the truth is the truth. How many responsible people needed Commie Care in the first place?

It kind of reminds me of when this disaster started. I was having a text discussion with one of my tenants and told her what a problem this created for me. She wrote back how much she loves DumBama because she now has a healthcare plan.

She worked fast food and restaurants her young life because she and her boyfriend smoke pot, and they keep those low paying jobs to avoid being drug tested. I lost my healthcare plan so people like her can get covered. How do you think she voted?

It was all in the design. Create as many new government dependents as possible. The Democrats predicted that over 80% of people with employer sponsored plans would lose them. This can be found in the federal registry (need a link, just ask) because responsible people losing their coverage was their plan all along.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

How come something new "NEEDS" improvements? It was a SCAM. If Democrats want to expose themselves by holding to it, then good luck with that, guy.

There is no possibility of changing something as large and complex as how all Americans pay for health care without there being a need for changes along the way.

Every other system we have that is anywhere NEAR as large or complex gets changes pretty much every year.

The US, health care issues, public opinion, etc. are all in a constant state of change. It will never be the case that we have a system that won't need change.

That's all a bunch of rubbish. Health care is not ever meant to be that complicated. The system was absolutely hijacked. Everyone knows this.

Polls of Americans show that the features of the ACA are WILDLY liked by Americans across the country.

And, yes, it took some more regulation to accomplish that.

All your floury speech didn't work; so, now you're just presenting the biggest LIE you can think of.

No, I've posted data on this topic.

For example, see Table 2 in
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: November 2016

Note that Republicans are highly in favor of ALL 9 of the key ACA features.

Note that only about 1/4 of Americans want the ACA killed.

In fact, more people want the ACA EXPANDED than want it killed.

I note it's a SCAM. We can go from there. I don't care about your hot air though.

 

[WillReadmore]

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

It's all politics.

Commie Care was designed to give things to likely Democrat voters at the expense of likely Republican voters. If they repeal it without anything to replace it, they won't lose many votes because the people that are advantaged by Commie Care don't vote Republican anyways.

It's just like what Obama did when he attacked the banks and credit card industry. He created regulations that stopped them from increasing interest rates and charging them outrageous late fees. The banks relied on that money, so they had to make it up somewhere. That somewhere was on their responsible customers with transfer fees which most of us with great credit ratings never had to worry about before DumBama.

The bottom line is that irresponsible people generally vote Democrat and responsible people generally vote Republican. So what he did was make credit cards better for his voters at the expense of his opponents voters.

Like I said, all politics.

I don't agree at all.

Republicans are highly in favor of the features of the ACA. A significant portion of Americans want to improve or extend the ACA - not kill it. Families need the features the ACA provides.

And, there isn't anything we could do today in congress more irresponsible than to kill our health care regulations without even having a replacement.

So, your partisan claims of acting responsibly are just ridiculous.

I don't doubt you disagree, but the truth is the truth. How many responsible people needed Commie Care in the first place?

It kind of reminds me of when this disaster started. I was having a text discussion with one of my tenants and told her what a problem this created for me. She wrote back how much she loves DumBama because she now has a healthcare plan.

She worked fast food and restaurants her young life because she and her boyfriend smoke pot, and they keep those low paying jobs to avoid being drug tested. I lost my healthcare plan so people like her can get covered. How do you think she voted?

It was all in the design. Create as many new government dependents as possible. The Democrats predicted that over 80% of people with employer sponsored plans would lose them. This can be found in the federal registry (need a link, just ask) because responsible people losing their coverage was their plan all along.

 

[WillReadmore]

You are referring to the "mandate"? Yes - I hire someone to do my taxes and I don't know what's required to prove you have insurance.

I thought you meant bills from providers, as even those with coverage can end up with bills from providers that they have to submit for reimbursement.

No, in order to avoid the penalty, you have to show proof you are paying medical bills. In order to do that, they demand evidence, so you have to send your personal bills and payments to them before they will give you an exemption number.

Interesting - I had no idea that option even existed!

Just to fill space, I'm going to say once again that I think the ACA has problems.

My main concern here is that we have a plan (an actual, concrete plan as represented by written regulation, scorable by analysts and the CBO) before we kill the ACA.

We didn't kill the system that existed before the ACA except for by the passage of the ACA. Creating a gap would have been totally irresponsible then and it is totally irresponsible now.

It's all politics.

Commie Care was designed to give things to likely Democrat voters at the expense of likely Republican voters. If they repeal it without anything to replace it, they won't lose many votes because the people that are advantaged by Commie Care don't vote Republican anyways.

It's just like what Obama did when he attacked the banks and credit card industry. He created regulations that stopped them from increasing interest rates and charging them outrageous late fees. The banks relied on that money, so they had to make it up somewhere. That somewhere was on their responsible customers with transfer fees which most of us with great credit ratings never had to worry about before DumBama.

The bottom line is that irresponsible people generally vote Democrat and responsible people generally vote Republican. So what he did was make credit cards better for his voters at the expense of his opponents voters.

Like I said, all politics.

I don't agree at all.

Republicans are highly in favor of the features of the ACA. A significant portion of Americans want to improve or extend the ACA - not kill it. Families need the features the ACA provides.

And, there isn't anything we could do today in congress more irresponsible than to kill our health care regulations without even having a replacement.

So, your partisan claims of acting responsibly are just ridiculous.

I don't doubt you disagree, but the truth is the truth. How many responsible people needed Commie Care in the first place?

It kind of reminds me of when this disaster started. I was having a text discussion with one of my tenants and told her what a problem this created for me. She wrote back how much she loves DumBama because she now has a healthcare plan.

She worked fast food and restaurants her young life because she and her boyfriend smoke pot, and they keep those low paying jobs to avoid being drug tested. I lost my healthcare plan so people like her can get covered. How do you think she voted?

It was all in the design. Create as many new government dependents as possible. The Democrats predicted that over 80% of people with employer sponsored plans would lose them. This can be found in the federal registry (need a link, just ask) because responsible people losing their coverage was their plan all along.

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

 

[WillReadmore]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

So do tell, how are we now better off with healthcare insurance we can't afford unless you're poor or close to it?

You said it yourself, people are less likely to get healthcare insurance. Okay, if that's the case, then what was Commie Care about? It was sold to us under the concept that not only would everybody have coverage, but cheaper coverage and better plans. None of it true.

No, it's not a plot against me, it's a plot against likely Republican voters. Make us pay dearly to give likely Democrat voters something in return for their vote. It's not plots or conspiracy, it's knowing how the Democrat party works.

Obama got in and one of the first things he did was double the foods stamp role--20 million more new government dependents.

Then he got Commie Care passed--another 20 million more new government dependents.

Between these two programs alone, that's over 40 million new government dependents, and you say that wasn't the goal? It wasn't planned that way? To think otherwise is a conspiracy or imagined plot?

 

[WillReadmore]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

So do tell, how are we now better off with healthcare insurance we can't afford unless you're poor or close to it?

You said it yourself, people are less likely to get healthcare insurance. Okay, if that's the case, then what was Commie Care about? It was sold to us under the concept that not only would everybody have coverage, but cheaper coverage and better plans. None of it true.

No, it's not a plot against me, it's a plot against likely Republican voters. Make us pay dearly to give likely Democrat voters something in return for their vote. It's not plots or conspiracy, it's knowing how the Democrat party works.

Obama got in and one of the first things he did was double the foods stamp role--20 million more new government dependents.

Then he got Commie Care passed--another 20 million more new government dependents.

Between these two programs alone, that's over 40 million new government dependents, and you say that wasn't the goal? It wasn't planned that way? To think otherwise is a conspiracy or imagined plot?

People are still less likely to be covered than those in other countries, because 100% of people in other first world countries have health care coverage.

The ACA improved our situation by a few tens of millions of people. But, it hasn't reached 100%.

Again, I'm OK with changing our system, but making it so that FEWER people are covered is not OK.

I'd point out that I posted a poll showing that REPUBLICANS are in favor of the features of the ACA. Also, only half of Republicans want the ACA killed - even when you call it "Obamacare" and campaign against it for YEARS.

The poll shows that only about 26% of Americans want our system killed.

The problem Ryan faces is that if he kills the ACA, he will be on the hook for doing something that Republicans have failed to do for DECADES.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

So do tell, how are we now better off with healthcare insurance we can't afford unless you're poor or close to it?

You said it yourself, people are less likely to get healthcare insurance. Okay, if that's the case, then what was Commie Care about? It was sold to us under the concept that not only would everybody have coverage, but cheaper coverage and better plans. None of it true.

No, it's not a plot against me, it's a plot against likely Republican voters. Make us pay dearly to give likely Democrat voters something in return for their vote. It's not plots or conspiracy, it's knowing how the Democrat party works.

Obama got in and one of the first things he did was double the foods stamp role--20 million more new government dependents.

Then he got Commie Care passed--another 20 million more new government dependents.

Between these two programs alone, that's over 40 million new government dependents, and you say that wasn't the goal? It wasn't planned that way? To think otherwise is a conspiracy or imagined plot?

People are still less likely to be covered than those in other countries, because 100% of people in other first world countries have health care coverage.

The ACA improved our situation by a few tens of millions of people. But, it hasn't reached 100%.

Again, I'm OK with changing our system, but making it so that FEWER people are covered is not OK.

I'd point out that I posted a poll showing that REPUBLICANS are in favor of the features of the ACA. Also, only half of Republicans want the ACA killed - even when you call it "Obamacare" and campaign against it for YEARS.

The poll shows that only about 26% of Americans want our system killed.

The problem Ryan faces is that if he kills the ACA, he will be on the hook for doing something that Republicans have failed to do for DECADES.

Nobody said that all of Commie Care is bad, just most of it.

Yes, it did improve the situation for some people at the cost to others. I don't call that an accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Slade3200]

Anything that helps people can be called "create as many new government dependents as possible". And, casting help for US citizens in that manner isn't acceptable to me.

I'd rather talk about health care than conspiracy theories.

If you have a way to cause more people to have health care (or to have health care more efficiently, or any other improvement in getting Americans the health care they need), I'm ready to listen.

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

So do tell, how are we now better off with healthcare insurance we can't afford unless you're poor or close to it?

You said it yourself, people are less likely to get healthcare insurance. Okay, if that's the case, then what was Commie Care about? It was sold to us under the concept that not only would everybody have coverage, but cheaper coverage and better plans. None of it true.

No, it's not a plot against me, it's a plot against likely Republican voters. Make us pay dearly to give likely Democrat voters something in return for their vote. It's not plots or conspiracy, it's knowing how the Democrat party works.

Obama got in and one of the first things he did was double the foods stamp role--20 million more new government dependents.

Then he got Commie Care passed--another 20 million more new government dependents.

Between these two programs alone, that's over 40 million new government dependents, and you say that wasn't the goal? It wasn't planned that way? To think otherwise is a conspiracy or imagined plot?

People are still less likely to be covered than those in other countries, because 100% of people in other first world countries have health care coverage.

The ACA improved our situation by a few tens of millions of people. But, it hasn't reached 100%.

Again, I'm OK with changing our system, but making it so that FEWER people are covered is not OK.

I'd point out that I posted a poll showing that REPUBLICANS are in favor of the features of the ACA. Also, only half of Republicans want the ACA killed - even when you call it "Obamacare" and campaign against it for YEARS.

The poll shows that only about 26% of Americans want our system killed.

The problem Ryan faces is that if he kills the ACA, he will be on the hook for doing something that Republicans have failed to do for DECADES.

Nobody said that all of Commie Care is bad, just most of it.

Yes, it did improve the situation for some people at the cost to others. I don't call that an accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination.

The whole "repeal and replace" slogan is political BS... why not work together to fix the problem areas and keep what's good? It's a bunch of BS because neither side wants the other to get credit for a successful policy accomplishment

 

[WillReadmore]

It's far from a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest democrat groups are government dependents and victims. The Democrats are constantly trying to create more victims and government dependents. What other reason than votes would they be trying to do that?

Even with the advent of the ACA, American citizens are LESS likely to get health care. Plus, we pay MORE for health care than any other country.

Those interested in health care actually care about both these factors.

Seriously, you seem to think this is all a plot against YOU. It's not. It's a matter of thinking that US citizens should be at least as well off as those in EVERY other first world nation.

Plus, we work better when we're healthy - and we need more people working, not fewer.

So do tell, how are we now better off with healthcare insurance we can't afford unless you're poor or close to it?

You said it yourself, people are less likely to get healthcare insurance. Okay, if that's the case, then what was Commie Care about? It was sold to us under the concept that not only would everybody have coverage, but cheaper coverage and better plans. None of it true.

No, it's not a plot against me, it's a plot against likely Republican voters. Make us pay dearly to give likely Democrat voters something in return for their vote. It's not plots or conspiracy, it's knowing how the Democrat party works.

Obama got in and one of the first things he did was double the foods stamp role--20 million more new government dependents.

Then he got Commie Care passed--another 20 million more new government dependents.

Between these two programs alone, that's over 40 million new government dependents, and you say that wasn't the goal? It wasn't planned that way? To think otherwise is a conspiracy or imagined plot?

People are still less likely to be covered than those in other countries, because 100% of people in other first world countries have health care coverage.

The ACA improved our situation by a few tens of millions of people. But, it hasn't reached 100%.

Again, I'm OK with changing our system, but making it so that FEWER people are covered is not OK.

I'd point out that I posted a poll showing that REPUBLICANS are in favor of the features of the ACA. Also, only half of Republicans want the ACA killed - even when you call it "Obamacare" and campaign against it for YEARS.

The poll shows that only about 26% of Americans want our system killed.

The problem Ryan faces is that if he kills the ACA, he will be on the hook for doing something that Republicans have failed to do for DECADES.

Nobody said that all of Commie Care is bad, just most of it.

Yes, it did improve the situation for some people at the cost to others. I don't call that an accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination.

The whole "repeal and replace" slogan is political BS... why not work together to fix the problem areas and keep what's good? It's a bunch of BS because neither side wants the other to get credit for a successful policy accomplishment

"Repeal and replace" is BS for only one reason:

Killing every policy held by Americans today is a fabulously irresponsible act when we don't have a replacement.

But, yes, rather than having a bunch of whiny babies in congress it would be good if we had some focus on solving the actual problem.