somebodys wrong ...

[Indeependent]

the White House or The CBO ?

WH analysis of ObamaCare replacement projects bigger coverage gap than CBO: report

CBO?...nuff said.

 

[Fenton Lum]

It increased the number of people insured. It decreased providers delivering service to uninsured and costing it to others.

Your objection to Obamacare is ideological, and not based upon results. I'd have preferred direct tax credits to uninsured, but that wasn't the way it went. But anyway you look at the gops proposal is cuts people getting services and cuts taxes on the wealthiest 2%. If that's your ideology, fine.

It increased the number of people insured because it was mandated, that's not freedom and that is wrong. And it also increased the number because it gave away free healthcare to the poor, that is also wrong because others were forced to pay for it. Any way you look at Obamacare it is a failure.

I would have preferred that Obamacare get repealed and not replaced. I don't like this RINOcare any more than Obamacare.

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

Healthcare costs have been rising forever love, not just once HeritageFoundationCare was implemented nationally as opposed to only in MA.

Exhibit 1
Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted.



Exhibit 2
Total Health Expenditure per Capita and GDP per Capita, US and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates.



Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

 

[Fenton Lum]

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

And more government control is going to fix it? God you're stupid motherfucker if you think that… LOL

Who do you think controls your govt hon? Your govt was bought up by the same clowns that bought up your media machine. Concentrated corporate wealth/power IS your govt. Goldman Sachs all up in the white house regardless of who "wins" any election.

The Federal government is all About hypocrisy...

But of course, as was stated, concentrated corporate wealth/power IS your govt.

Free market and personal responsibility are the opposite of socialism/globalism...

Sure pard, sure, rinse, repeat.

 

[PredFan]

Obamacare was far from a positive step. It was a step that was designed to fail from the get go. It was supposed to lead us to socialized medicine and that is a step in the wrong direction.

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

MMS: Error

Health outcomes report cards, by country

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia

US health outcomes far worse than other comparable nations, report finds

Hey! We're in the top 10! Considering how skewed the WHO survey is, that's surprising.

I'm not surprised you couldn't make your way through the material.

Seen it all before. As I said, the numbers are skewed purposely by the WHO. I'm surprised we were that high. Last time they had us at something like #30.

I would expect nothing other than this from you, the post was for other eyes, you just don't deal with anything outside your rigid belief system reverend.

My rigid belief system is based on facts. Yeah, I refuse to deal with anything but facts.

 

[Fenton Lum]

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

MMS: Error

Health outcomes report cards, by country

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia

US health outcomes far worse than other comparable nations, report finds

Hey! We're in the top 10! Considering how skewed the WHO survey is, that's surprising.

I'm not surprised you couldn't make your way through the material.

Seen it all before. As I said, the numbers are skewed purposely by the WHO. I'm surprised we were that high. Last time they had us at something like #30.

I would expect nothing other than this from you, the post was for other eyes, you just don't deal with anything outside your rigid belief system reverend.

My rigid belief system is based on facts. Yeah, I refuse to deal with anything but facts.

Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008




Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

 

[PredFan]

Repeal the ACA and replace Paul Ryan.

Who pays the hospital costs for the uninsured? No one dares answer that question

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

Irrelevant.

Let me help you out here.

The discussion was about how HOSPITALS and MEDICAL PRACTICES survived before Obama came along.

 

[PredFan]

It's the absolute truth.

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

The only "entitlements" americans don't like are the ones going to the working and underclass in american society.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire "capitaism" for the masses

That's your system. It is an authoritarian system and by definition, authoritarian systems are always on shaky ground. This economic colonialism has a half life, no people will be subjugated like this forever.

Irrelevant but thanks.

 

[PredFan]

When you start with a plan vomited up by the Heritage Foundation, and then allow the insurance and big pharma industries to lobby at the discussion table and sodomize the public with "draft" legislation, "the people" simply do not matter.

Insurance companies and big Pharma love Obamacare/single payer… Fact
Normal every day citizens cannot survive under Obama care/single payer...

Exactly! Imagine if YOU owned a business and the government said: "Hey Rustic! We want to pass a law that requires every single American to buy your product. Will you get on board with that?"

hell no, I'd rather poor bastards go without insurance so I could bitch about them being a burden on the country, and me having to pay their way.

Who asked you for your irrelevant nonsense?

Well you have actually, by example, for the entire thread.

How childish. You can do better.

 

[PredFan]

It increased the number of people insured because it was mandated, that's not freedom and that is wrong. And it also increased the number because it gave away free healthcare to the poor, that is also wrong because others were forced to pay for it. Any way you look at Obamacare it is a failure.

I would have preferred that Obamacare get repealed and not replaced. I don't like this RINOcare any more than Obamacare.

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

Healthcare costs have been rising forever love, not just once HeritageFoundationCare was implemented nationally as opposed to only in MA.

Exhibit 1
Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted.



Exhibit 2
Total Health Expenditure per Capita and GDP per Capita, US and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates.



Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

Um, that does nothing to dispute my claim that Obamacare is a failure. Please try to stay relevant.

 

[Indeependent]

Hey! We're in the top 10! Considering how skewed the WHO survey is, that's surprising.

I'm not surprised you couldn't make your way through the material.

Seen it all before. As I said, the numbers are skewed purposely by the WHO. I'm surprised we were that high. Last time they had us at something like #30.

I would expect nothing other than this from you, the post was for other eyes, you just don't deal with anything outside your rigid belief system reverend.

My rigid belief system is based on facts. Yeah, I refuse to deal with anything but facts.

Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008




Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

Health Care Insurance costs skyrocketed under GW and Obama.

 

[Indeependent]

Insurance companies and big Pharma love Obamacare/single payer… Fact
Normal every day citizens cannot survive under Obama care/single payer...

Exactly! Imagine if YOU owned a business and the government said: "Hey Rustic! We want to pass a law that requires every single American to buy your product. Will you get on board with that?"

hell no, I'd rather poor bastards go without insurance so I could bitch about them being a burden on the country, and me having to pay their way.

Who asked you for your irrelevant nonsense?

Well you have actually, by example, for the entire thread.

How childish. You can do better.

No he can't.

 

[PredFan]

Hey! We're in the top 10! Considering how skewed the WHO survey is, that's surprising.

I'm not surprised you couldn't make your way through the material.

Seen it all before. As I said, the numbers are skewed purposely by the WHO. I'm surprised we were that high. Last time they had us at something like #30.

I would expect nothing other than this from you, the post was for other eyes, you just don't deal with anything outside your rigid belief system reverend.

My rigid belief system is based on facts. Yeah, I refuse to deal with anything but facts.

Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008




Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

You realize again that your post does nothing to despite my claim?

 

[PredFan]

Exactly! Imagine if YOU owned a business and the government said: "Hey Rustic! We want to pass a law that requires every single American to buy your product. Will you get on board with that?"

hell no, I'd rather poor bastards go without insurance so I could bitch about them being a burden on the country, and me having to pay their way.

Who asked you for your irrelevant nonsense?

Well you have actually, by example, for the entire thread.

How childish. You can do better.

No he can't.

Oh, he was doing better earlier, but like all leftists, when they get cornered, they go to Full Infant Mode.

 

[Indeependent]

hell no, I'd rather poor bastards go without insurance so I could bitch about them being a burden on the country, and me having to pay their way.

Who asked you for your irrelevant nonsense?

Well you have actually, by example, for the entire thread.

How childish. You can do better.

No he can't.

Oh, he was doing better earlier, but like all leftists, when they get cornered, they go to Full Infant Mode.

Fentum is one pissed off poster.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

Our system's been fucked up ever since it went for profit, other nations have figured out how to deal with healthcare on a national level that works much better than ours for less cost. Our predatory "capitalist" elites have decided we will do what wrings more profit out of the system for them rather than embrace what works in a globally competitive society for all. It's just who we are.

Well, you progressives keep your socialized medicine to yourself leave the rest of us out of it. Our participation is not needed...

Your participation is used to cover Emergency room costs for the uninsured whether you like it or not. Don't even try to lobby for cutting that off like I know you are tempted to do. It just isn't going to happen so lets keep this conversation in the realm of reality.

Responsible people pay for their own shit, fucked up socialists expect other people to pay for their shit...

The majority of people in this country are responsible people who pay for their own shit and willingly pay more to fund our government to defend our nation and work on programs to better the lives of our citizens. Only a small fraction of extremists like you really think that no taxes and no government would lead to a better society. Anarchy sounds fun but would never work for a Nation of our size. Grow up and get real

 

[Rustic]

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

Our system's been fucked up ever since it went for profit, other nations have figured out how to deal with healthcare on a national level that works much better than ours for less cost. Our predatory "capitalist" elites have decided we will do what wrings more profit out of the system for them rather than embrace what works in a globally competitive society for all. It's just who we are.

Well, you progressives keep your socialized medicine to yourself leave the rest of us out of it. Our participation is not needed...

Your participation is used to cover Emergency room costs for the uninsured whether you like it or not. Don't even try to lobby for cutting that off like I know you are tempted to do. It just isn't going to happen so lets keep this conversation in the realm of reality.

Responsible people pay for their own shit, fucked up socialists expect other people to pay for their shit...

The majority of people in this country are responsible people who pay for their own shit and willingly pay more to fund our government to defend our nation and work on programs to better the lives of our citizens. Only a small fraction of extremists like you really think that no taxes and no government would lead to a better society. Anarchy sounds fun but would never work for a Nation of our size. Grow up and get real

Socialist entitlement programs do not make the country better… It weakens the country

 

[Slade3200]

Thats another talking point that is not true... While Obama may have originally wanted single payer it is ridiculous to think the ACA was written to fail. Through the ACA millions of people received healthcare. Lives were saved. That is a fact.

Costs did go up and options went down which are problems that need work.

It's the absolute truth.

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

Yeah thats one way to look at it... or perhaps they feel the weight of responsibility that is now on their shoulders and are trying their best to deal with the oxymoron of helping our sick citizens with less funding, resources and guidance.

It may be fine for you to allow the irresponsible and poor people in our nation to die or suffer without healthcare, but for most, that just doesn't sit well with them...

 

[bendog]

It's the absolute truth.

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

Yeah thats one way to look at it... or perhaps they feel the weight of responsibility that is now on their shoulders and are trying their best to deal with the oxymoron of helping our sick citizens with less funding, resources and guidance.

It may be fine for you to allow the irresponsible and poor people in our nation to die or suffer without healthcare, but for most, that just doesn't sit well with them...

The gop has not, and never will, win an election with a platform of cutting people's access to healthcare simply because that's ideologically what they want to do.

The facts that Obamacare does not make premiums/deductables always affordable, or even that fewer people enrolled in the exchanges than the CBO predicted have nothing to do with the gop's decision to cover fewer people with fewer dollars.

IF the gop set forth a plan that arguably would reduce costs, that would be another thing. But they don't have the votes to totally repeal Obamacare, end employer sponsonered tax gimmes for employers, and "give" people tax credits instead, and require providers and insurers to disclose true costs and outcomes. So the gop's plan is neither an improvement to Obamacare nor a true alternative to make sure all of us have access to care.

 

[Slade3200]

It increased the number of people insured. It decreased providers delivering service to uninsured and costing it to others.

Your objection to Obamacare is ideological, and not based upon results. I'd have preferred direct tax credits to uninsured, but that wasn't the way it went. But anyway you look at the gops proposal is cuts people getting services and cuts taxes on the wealthiest 2%. If that's your ideology, fine.

It increased the number of people insured because it was mandated, that's not freedom and that is wrong. And it also increased the number because it gave away free healthcare to the poor, that is also wrong because others were forced to pay for it. Any way you look at Obamacare it is a failure.

I would have preferred that Obamacare get repealed and not replaced. I don't like this RINOcare any more than Obamacare.

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

How did your friends daughter fight them?

 

[Slade3200]

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

Healthcare costs have been rising forever love, not just once HeritageFoundationCare was implemented nationally as opposed to only in MA.

Exhibit 1
Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted.



Exhibit 2
Total Health Expenditure per Capita and GDP per Capita, US and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates.



Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

Um, that does nothing to dispute my claim that Obamacare is a failure. Please try to stay relevant.

Here is proof that it has not failed... sorry if your wallet is hurting, maybe we can focus on making it more affordable instead of spreading lies:
A new website shares the powerful stories of lives saved by the Affordable Care Act.