Will GOP Blow Its Current Advantage In January?

[Redfish]

"what you described is exactly what is happening under ACA. the healthy young people are not signing up, the ones signing up are the old, the sick, and those who want a free ride under medicaid."

Those who complain about "free rides" are the ones who grew up in America, attended and were served by all the public functions of America, and then want to deny the same to others.

The overwhelming majority of Medicaid patients are children.

And the elderly and the sick would be the first to sign up, wouldn't they? It will ease out, mate. Just chill.

Why would a healthy young person sign up to pay a monthly premium of $400-500 when he/she could just pay the $95 penalty? The whole ACA thing is a ponzi scheme that will fail before it even gets going. . . . and we are suffering from the consequences of 08 and 12 right now.

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

for the record, the tea party is the most pro-american of all current political groups.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"And you act as if bringing gas to a fire will some how put the fire out" is an excellent description if the TeaPs try to shut down the govt and default the debt aain.

 

[Redfish]

"And you act as if bringing gas to a fire will some how put the fire out" is an excellent description if the TeaPs try to shut down the govt and default the debt aain.

Obama shut down 15% of the government, not the minority TP members of the house.

NO ONE in the TP or the GOP ever even suggested defaulting on our debt, NO ONE---you are a bold faced liar

 

[Redfish]

Why would a healthy young person sign up to pay a monthly premium of $400-500 when he/she could just pay the $95 penalty? The whole ACA thing is a ponzi scheme that will fail before it even gets going. . . . and we are suffering from the consequences of 08 and 12 right now.

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

try to engage your brain, jake. for just a few minutes.

lets say you are a single 28 year old male, you have a job making 50K. Ok so far? your employer is a small business and does not offer insurance. You have a choice of paying 400/month--4800/year to buy insurance or a $95 penalty when you file your taxes. got it?

also, if you get sick you can go buy a policy---remember pre-existing conditions do not keep you from buying a policy.

Now, whould you pay $4800/year or $95/year? you have 15 seconds to decide.

where did you go jake? waiting for your answer.

 

[Seawytch]

They could, but the fix would require scrapping 90% of it. The good parts of it could be handled in a 2 page bill. The things that are needed but not in it could be handled in two more pages.

Good things in ACA
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

Things that need to be added
1. tort reform, limits on malpractice awards

Where has Tort Reform been enacted that it lowered healthcare costs? I'll give you a hint...nowhere. Not one state with strict Tort Reform laws (i.e. Texas or Ohio) has seen a decrease in healthcare costs as a result.

Why is it that ya'll are just peachy with regulating what people can get in damages but don't want to regulate the fucking insurance companies in any way shape or form?



Tell me, have you researched this at all or are you just parroting some tic tac brain like Hannity? For one thing, the ACA does allow for the sale of policies across state lines, but here are some reasons it doesn't happen...

Meme-busting: Selling insurance across state lines will lower costs



Sounds great. Do you believe for a second that such a bill would pass Congress with the amount of money pharmaceutical companies hand out to them? Even better would be the ability to negotiate drug prices like other countries (and our own VA) have. Same money stopping that from happening.


A 3.8% sales tax on real estate in the health care law? This chain email's LIE just won't die

there is no reason why a healthcare bill should be 2000 pages

You're right when it could have simply been a single page that says "Medicare for All".

tort reform----if malpractice awards were limited and the loser had to pay, then malpractice insurance rates would go down, Doctors are leaving medicine rather than pay 200K/year for malpractice insurance

Insurance companies are the most regulated companies in the country. Each state has regulations as well as the federal govt. the insurance industry is not a high profit industry (7-8% generally).

interstate competition---the more competition the lower the price and the better the product. It works, its called supply and demand

Big pharma is raping us on drug prices. reducing patent lengths would get generics into the market sooner.

people pay for medicare out of every paycheck. What % would be needed as a deduction for total "medicare for all" ? Socialized single payer govt controlled medicine is a terrible idea.

Fishy, why are you repeating everything I just debunked? Tort reform has been enacted in a number of states, a few even have very strict Tort Reform. So, where has it lowered healthcare costs? Oh, right...it hasn't.

Meme-busting: Tort reform = cost control

Yes, reducing patent lengths would do that...it would also take away the monopoly the drug company has for a short time, which means it will never happen. Drug companies own too many Congressmen. Their argument is that they need the time to recoup R & D costs.

Finally...

Friedman analysis of HR 676: Medicare for All would save billions

How Much Could Medicare for All Save You?

 

[rightwinger]

They could, but the fix would require scrapping 90% of it. The good parts of it could be handled in a 2 page bill. The things that are needed but not in it could be handled in two more pages.

Good things in ACA
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

Things that need to be added
1. tort reform, limits on malpractice awards
2. interstate competition between insurance companies
3. reduction in the length of drug patents
4. for illegals---life saving care only, then deportation



there is no reason why a real estate tax should be in a healthcare bill
there is no reason why a healthcare bill should be 2000 pages

If you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions and have no individual mandate or some mechanism to get healthy people to sign up, you wind up with an insurance death spiral where too many sick people sign up, drive premiums up, which drives healthy people away from buying insurance, which means more sick people, which means even higher premiums, etc etc etc.

Also I like the part about 18-26 year old on parents insurance...usually college kids can't afford their own insurance anyway, I know I couldn't have if I wanted to.

The Universities that I attended had a health clinic for their students. I didn't need my parents health insurance as an undergraduate, nor my own insurance as a graduate student while on campus.

Great for the Sniffles

 

[william the wie]

Can the GOP screw up worse than Obamacare is the implied question and the answer is that it would be difficult.

 

[AceRothstein]

Why would a healthy young person sign up to pay a monthly premium of $400-500 when he/she could just pay the $95 penalty? The whole ACA thing is a ponzi scheme that will fail before it even gets going. . . . and we are suffering from the consequences of 08 and 12 right now.

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

try to engage your brain, jake. for just a few minutes.

lets say you are a single 28 year old male, you have a job making 50K. Ok so far? your employer is a small business and does not offer insurance. You have a choice of paying 400/month--4800/year to buy insurance or a $95 penalty when you file your taxes. got it?

also, if you get sick you can go buy a policy---remember pre-existing conditions do not keep you from buying a policy.

Now, whould you pay $4800/year or $95/year? you have 15 seconds to decide.

The problem with that is you don't always know when you are going to get sick. You can get in a car accident and end up with a few hundred thousand in medical bills. You can have a sudden heart attack or pulmonary embolism that will cost a hundred thousand for your stay in the hospital and for all the follow up tests. Even something like cancer that requires surgery one week from when you find you have it, you think that you can get medical coverage in a few days?

 

[AceRothstein]

They could, but the fix would require scrapping 90% of it. The good parts of it could be handled in a 2 page bill. The things that are needed but not in it could be handled in two more pages.

Good things in ACA
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

Things that need to be added
1. tort reform, limits on malpractice awards
2. interstate competition between insurance companies
3. reduction in the length of drug patents
4. for illegals---life saving care only, then deportation



there is no reason why a real estate tax should be in a healthcare bill
there is no reason why a healthcare bill should be 2000 pages

If you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions and have no individual mandate or some mechanism to get healthy people to sign up, you wind up with an insurance death spiral where too many sick people sign up, drive premiums up, which drives healthy people away from buying insurance, which means more sick people, which means even higher premiums, etc etc etc.

Also I like the part about 18-26 year old on parents insurance...usually college kids can't afford their own insurance anyway, I know I couldn't have if I wanted to.

The Universities that I attended had a health clinic for their students. I didn't need my parents health insurance as an undergraduate, nor my own insurance as a graduate student while on campus.

Could you get treated for chemotherapy at the university health clinic?

 

[AceRothstein]

Why would a healthy young person sign up to pay a monthly premium of $400-500 when he/she could just pay the $95 penalty? The whole ACA thing is a ponzi scheme that will fail before it even gets going. . . . and we are suffering from the consequences of 08 and 12 right now.

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

for the record, the tea party is the most pro-american of all current political groups.

What the fuck does this even mean? I'm so tired of conservatives labeling who is more American. You and Sarah Palin should just shut the fuck up with this shit already.

 

[Nyvin]

Why would a healthy young person sign up to pay a monthly premium of $400-500 when he/she could just pay the $95 penalty? The whole ACA thing is a ponzi scheme that will fail before it even gets going. . . . and we are suffering from the consequences of 08 and 12 right now.

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

for the record, the tea party is the most pro-american of all current political groups.

Who are you to define what is "pro-american"? I'm pretty the Tea Party's approval is something like 20% or thereabouts....so I don't buy it.

 

[Redfish]

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

try to engage your brain, jake. for just a few minutes.

lets say you are a single 28 year old male, you have a job making 50K. Ok so far? your employer is a small business and does not offer insurance. You have a choice of paying 400/month--4800/year to buy insurance or a $95 penalty when you file your taxes. got it?

also, if you get sick you can go buy a policy---remember pre-existing conditions do not keep you from buying a policy.

Now, whould you pay $4800/year or $95/year? you have 15 seconds to decide.

The problem with that is you don't always know when you are going to get sick. You can get in a car accident and end up with a few hundred thousand in medical bills. You can have a sudden heart attack or pulmonary embolism that will cost a hundred thousand for your stay in the hospital and for all the follow up tests. Even something like cancer that requires surgery one week from when you find you have it, you think that you can get medical coverage in a few days?

Yes, you can get coverage in a few days. But even without it you will receive treatment--just like now.

No one was being denied medical treatment before ACA, NO ONE. Those of us who had insurance paid for those who did not, Just like we will under ACA. The only thing different is that we now also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy.

It is a foolish attempt to solve a nonexsitent problem.

 

[Nyvin]

try to engage your brain, jake. for just a few minutes.

lets say you are a single 28 year old male, you have a job making 50K. Ok so far? your employer is a small business and does not offer insurance. You have a choice of paying 400/month--4800/year to buy insurance or a $95 penalty when you file your taxes. got it?

also, if you get sick you can go buy a policy---remember pre-existing conditions do not keep you from buying a policy.

Now, whould you pay $4800/year or $95/year? you have 15 seconds to decide.

The problem with that is you don't always know when you are going to get sick. You can get in a car accident and end up with a few hundred thousand in medical bills. You can have a sudden heart attack or pulmonary embolism that will cost a hundred thousand for your stay in the hospital and for all the follow up tests. Even something like cancer that requires surgery one week from when you find you have it, you think that you can get medical coverage in a few days?

Yes, you can get coverage in a few days. But even without it you will receive treatment--just like now.

No one was being denied medical treatment before ACA, NO ONE. Those of us who had insurance paid for those who did not, Just like we will under ACA. The only thing different is that we now also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy.

It is a foolish attempt to solve a nonexsitent problem.

You know that relying on ER care for "treatment" is horridly inefficient and wasteful right? It's probably the WORST healthcare system in the world, by a considerable margin, and not just in costs, but also having people resort to the ER for care is terribly ineffective for the general health of the public as well.

 

[Redfish]

Why in heavens should folks privatize their profit and socialize the risk by not paying for their insurance? Of course they should, and of course they will.

It is that type of thinking that caused us to lose big in 2008 and 2012 and led to the rise of the anti-American TeaPs.

As the greater number of young Americans, not covered by employer plans, joins ACA, the premiums will drop off, as you well know.

for the record, the tea party is the most pro-american of all current political groups.

Who are you to define what is "pro-american"? I'm pretty the Tea Party's approval is something like 20% or thereabouts....so I don't buy it.

listen, kid. I don't give a flying fuck if you buy it or not.

individual freedom
low taxes
small government
individual responsibility
fiscal responsibility
peace through strength
helping the poor and less fortunate
one vote per citizen
sane immigration policy

Thats the tea party. Thats the USA. If you disagree with those basic concepts, then get the fuck out of this country.

 

[AceRothstein]

try to engage your brain, jake. for just a few minutes.

lets say you are a single 28 year old male, you have a job making 50K. Ok so far? your employer is a small business and does not offer insurance. You have a choice of paying 400/month--4800/year to buy insurance or a $95 penalty when you file your taxes. got it?

also, if you get sick you can go buy a policy---remember pre-existing conditions do not keep you from buying a policy.

Now, whould you pay $4800/year or $95/year? you have 15 seconds to decide.

The problem with that is you don't always know when you are going to get sick. You can get in a car accident and end up with a few hundred thousand in medical bills. You can have a sudden heart attack or pulmonary embolism that will cost a hundred thousand for your stay in the hospital and for all the follow up tests. Even something like cancer that requires surgery one week from when you find you have it, you think that you can get medical coverage in a few days?

Yes, you can get coverage in a few days. But even without it you will receive treatment--just like now.

No one was being denied medical treatment before ACA, NO ONE. Those of us who had insurance paid for those who did not, Just like we will under ACA. The only thing different is that we now also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy.

It is a foolish attempt to solve a nonexsitent problem.

Nobody has said anything about being denied medical treatment. The problem is paying for the treatment. With the out of control costs, people will go bankrupt if they don't have coverage. Which has been the case for years. Not having coverage is foolish.

 

[Nyvin]

for the record, the tea party is the most pro-american of all current political groups.

Who are you to define what is "pro-american"? I'm pretty the Tea Party's approval is something like 20% or thereabouts....so I don't buy it.

listen, kid. I don't give a flying fuck if you buy it or not.

individual freedom
low taxes
small government
individual responsibility
fiscal responsibility
peace through strength
helping the poor and less fortunate
one vote per citizen
sane immigration policy

Thats the tea party. Thats the USA. If you disagree with those basic concepts, then get the fuck out of this country.

20% approval = Not pro-american....

20% approval = Fringe group

 

[Redfish]

The problem with that is you don't always know when you are going to get sick. You can get in a car accident and end up with a few hundred thousand in medical bills. You can have a sudden heart attack or pulmonary embolism that will cost a hundred thousand for your stay in the hospital and for all the follow up tests. Even something like cancer that requires surgery one week from when you find you have it, you think that you can get medical coverage in a few days?

Yes, you can get coverage in a few days. But even without it you will receive treatment--just like now.

No one was being denied medical treatment before ACA, NO ONE. Those of us who had insurance paid for those who did not, Just like we will under ACA. The only thing different is that we now also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy.

It is a foolish attempt to solve a nonexsitent problem.

You know that relying on ER care for "treatment" is horridly inefficient and wasteful right? It's probably the WORST healthcare system in the world, by a considerable margin, and not just in costs, but also having people resort to the ER for care is terribly ineffective for the general health of the public as well.

the poor and uninsured were also treated at free county health clinics and other free medical facilities, it was not just the ER.

Yes, treatment at the ER of a sinus infection is expensive and inefficient. Do you really think ACA will change any of that? Do you really think a homeless guy in NYC is going to go to a doctor on park avenue?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Tea party is like the BNP in Britain.

They're for white power world wide!

 

[whitehall]

Will GOP Blow Its Current Advantage In January?

If the ACA hit brigade is losing steam, the TeaPs and reactionaries will try to force Boehner to shut down the govt and default the debt.

If that happens, the Dems take the House and increase the Senate.

It seems like we can't get any posts out of the left these days except wishful thinking based on fantasies or hate speech directed at Christianity.

 

[Redfish]

Who are you to define what is "pro-american"? I'm pretty the Tea Party's approval is something like 20% or thereabouts....so I don't buy it.

listen, kid. I don't give a flying fuck if you buy it or not.

individual freedom
low taxes
small government
individual responsibility
fiscal responsibility
peace through strength
helping the poor and less fortunate
one vote per citizen
sane immigration policy

Thats the tea party. Thats the USA. If you disagree with those basic concepts, then get the fuck out of this country.

20% approval = Not pro-american....

20% approval = Fringe group

higher than congress, and those polls are skewed by media bias. But again, I don't care what you think. I know what this country stands for and what made it great-------and it was not liberalism. It was FREEDOM. What gives you libs a problem is that reall freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail------you want a nanny govt that keeps you from failing and takes from the successful to bail your ass out.

IT WON'T WORK, NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL