Democrats Run Away From Obamacare

[Jeffwhosoever]

And the reasons to "run" just keep piling up. I'd hate to be a Democrat in Washington DC right now. They have zero job security.

Government Report Finds 65% of Small Firms Face ObamaCare Premium Hikes - Investors.com

 

[A2SG]

It didn't fix the problem, and it created new headaches in places where the problem did not exist.

Uh, people lost their insurance coverage before the ACA, usually because their medical needs were too expensive for the insurance company's bottom line (an oft used excuse was the "pre-existing condition"), so that problem is far from new.

Where the ACA failed most was in trying to make insurance companies provide better coverage without being able to just drop patients for any made up reason they wanted to. This caused an industry-wide hissy fit and insurance companies raised their prices way higher than needed, and made sure their paid spokesmen (aka the GOP) blamed President Obama for it directly.

-- A2SG, just goes to show you can't trust the huge for-profit health insurance industry to act in the public good......

 

[SolomonVII]

Uh, people lost their insurance coverage before the ACA, usually because their medical needs were too expensive for the insurance company's bottom line (an oft used excuse was the "pre-existing condition"), so that problem is far from new.

Where the ACA failed most was in trying to make insurance companies provide better coverage without being able to just drop patients for any made up reason they wanted to. This caused an industry-wide hissy fit and insurance companies raised their prices way higher than needed, and made sure their paid spokesmen (aka the GOP) blamed President Obama for it directly.

-- A2SG, just goes to show you can't trust the huge for-profit health insurance industry to act in the public good......

So what's your bottom line?
You running from ACA, or just holding you nose and giving it a fully body embrace?

 

[A2SG]

So what's your bottom line?
You running from ACA, or just holding you nose and giving it a fully body embrace?

Neither.

I do acknowledge some aspects of the bill are needed and necessary, like many of the regulations on private insurance, no "pre-existing condition" cancellations and the like. But, overall, I think the ACA's conservative market-based plan that strengthens the hold private insurers have on our health care system is the wrong way to go. Not only do insurance companies dictate health care decisions, it leeches billions of dollars a year out of the system, in terms of insurance company profits.

I favor single payer. Not only would it be far more cost effective than private for-profit health insurance, it would guarantee coverage for all Americans.

-- A2SG, since you asked....

 

[SolomonVII]

Neither.

I do acknowledge some aspects of the bill are needed and necessary, like many of the regulations on private insurance, no "pre-existing condition" cancellations and the like. But, overall, I think the ACA's conservative market-based plan that strengthens the hold private insurers have on our health care system is the wrong way to go. Not only do insurance companies dictate health care decisions, it leeches billions of dollars a year out of the system, in terms of insurance company profits.

I favor single payer. Not only would it be far more cost effective than private for-profit health insurance, it would guarantee coverage for all Americans.

-- A2SG, since you asked....

Single payer is not in the cards. After this boondoggle, it will be a long, long time before Americans will trust government to be able to run an even bigger health care program.

For sure, a lot of Democrats thought that they would be pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, and have creeping socialist system growing out of Obamacare. But I think it is safe to say now that ACA has been such an epic fail, that single payer cannot be spawned out of something that is so rancid and toxic to the touch.

 

[A2SG]

Single payer is not in the cards. After this boondoggle, it will be a long, long time before Americans will trust government to be able to run an even bigger health care program.

How do you figure? The government doesn't run any health care program now.

But, I agree that single payer probably won't happen...but more because of the money the health insurance industry funnels into the pockets of politician of both parties (though mostly the GOP).

For sure, a lot of Democrats thought that they would be pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, and have creeping socialist system growing out of Obamacare.

No, they don't. The ACA is a conservative market-based plan that has about as much in common with socialized medicine as a flying saucer does.

But I think it is safe to say now that ACA has been such an epic fail, that single payer cannot be spawned out of something that is so rancid and toxic to the touch.

Why? Single payer is the exact opposite of Obamacare. It's cost effective, it's simple, and it will guarantee access to health care for all Americans, without exception.

-- A2SG, "rancid and toxic to the touch" does sound like something a conservative think tank would come up with, doesn't it?

 

[dogs4thewin]

How do you figure? The government doesn't run any health care program now.

But, I agree that single payer probably won't happen...but more because of the money the health insurance industry funnels into the pockets of politician of both parties (though mostly the GOP).



No, they don't. The ACA is a conservative market-based plan that has about as much in common with socialized medicine as a flying saucer does.



Why? Single payer is the exact opposite of Obamacare. It's cost effective, it's simple, and it will guarantee access to health care for all Americans, without exception.

-- A2SG, "rancid and toxic to the touch" does sound like something a conservative think tank would come up with, doesn't it?

People already HAVE access. With or without Obamacare.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

People already HAVE access. With or without Obamacare.

Actually, the way things are going, there will be less people insured than before the ACA, and only those in the upper class will be able to afford healthcare. Hold Democrats accountable and elect them OUT of office. People who passed this law should never be in a position of decision making power above digging ditches, and that is pushing it.

 

[Skaloop]

People already HAVE access. With or without Obamacare.

Not guaranteed access, though.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Not guaranteed access, though.

And they won't have it with Obamacare either. Either this law was written by totally incompetent politicians, are was written by those who only care for the upper class.

 

[A2SG]

People already HAVE access. With or without Obamacare.

Nope. For those who can't afford health insurance, the only access they have to health care in any form is an ER. And not only is that amazingly expensive for all of us, but it's the least effective way to be treated for the patient!

-- A2SG, surely we can do better.....

 

[A2SG]

Actually, the way things are going, there will be less people insured than before the ACA, and only those in the upper class will be able to afford healthcare. Hold Democrats accountable and elect them OUT of office. People who passed this law should never be in a position of decision making power above digging ditches, and that is pushing it.

Except that the other guys (the ones who came up with the idea in the first place, remember!) have no plan to replace it with, except to return to the system that the ACA tried to fix!

-- A2SG, so the choice is some guys who tried, but didn't get it right the first time, or guys who don't want to even try....

 

[A2SG]

Actually, the way things are going, there will be less people insured than before the ACA, and only those in the upper class will be able to afford healthcare. Hold Democrats accountable and elect them OUT of office. People who passed this law should never be in a position of decision making power above digging ditches, and that is pushing it.

Except that the other guys (the ones who came up with the idea in the first place, remember!) have no plan to replace it with, except to return to the system that the ACA tried to fix!

-- A2SG, so the choice is some guys who tried, but didn't get it exactly right the first time, or some guys who don't even want to try....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Except that the other guys (the ones who came up with the idea in the first place, remember!) have no plan to replace it with, except to return to the system that the ACA tried to fix!

-- A2SG, so the choice is some guys who tried, but didn't get it right the first time, or guys who don't want to even try....

When you go from bad to worse, you fire those who made this change.

Hillary-care, Obama-care, Demo-care.

For those of you still insulated by your employer based plan, your time is coming. Mark my words.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Not guaranteed access, though.

If they are bleeding out yes they do.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Nope. For those who can't afford health insurance, the only access they have to health care in any form is an ER. And not only is that amazingly expensive for all of us, but it's the least effective way to be treated for the patient!

-- A2SG, surely we can do better.....

that is ACCESS. If you are not bleeding out then they should not HAVE to treat you. Plus people always have the option of going bankrupt or prison and people HAVE taken that option before. I believe that the government owes healthcare to the following groups.

1. People who have had their SEVENTH birthday not their 62nd not their 65th but SEVENTH birthday.
2. Members of the armed services current and retired; because one they served us and two that is in the contract.
3, Those who become disabled (keep in mind I AM disabled, BUT have never worked so I would not fit in this group.
and 4 inmates because once the state CHOOSES to take customery of someone they CHOOSE to take on their care per the 8th amendment.

Other than those four groups no one has the right to expect ANY healthcare from the government (unless without it they would die like right then.

 

[Skaloop]

If they are bleeding out yes they do.

I meant guaranteed access for anything, not just emergency situations.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I meant guaranteed access for anything, not just emergency situations.

Here is where we differ. The only services I feel the government should be mandated to provide ARE emergency situations.

 

[DaisyDay]

Actually, the way things are going, there will be less people insured than before the ACA, and only those in the upper class will be able to afford healthcare. Hold Democrats accountable and elect them OUT of office. People who passed this law should never be in a position of decision making power above digging ditches, and that is pushing it.

This speculation seems to be based on fear rather than fact.

 

[Skaloop]

Here is where we differ. The only services I feel the government should be mandated to provide ARE emergency situations.

That's not what you said in your previous post with the four situations when it should be. Which includes anyone over seven, military personnel and veterans (although that's redundant unless there are a lot of soldiers under the age of seven out there), the disabled who work/worked (so screw the disabled kids under seven), and people in prison (again redundant until we start imprisoning toddlers).