So Repubs begin repeal of ACA....

[Sho Nuff 719]

Seriously Libs, You know this was one of the main issues both the GOP and Trump ran on right? Yet you think actually following through is bad? You're delusional. This is why you lost this election. Not looking good in here. You just never learn.

I think following thru without a plan is stupid yes. Think the cost of the repeal with no real option yet is stupid.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Probably the only real solution.

 

Why isn't it ready to go right now?

I guess they haven't worked it out yet. All I know is inwoukd like to see whatever they do be streamlined and less of a burden on the people that actually come out of pocket for insurance, individuals who work and businesses. A catastrophic mandate would reduce costs for everyone and still protect people from bankruptcy if they get seriously ill and the govt from picking up the tab for the most expensive medical issues. Anything below the catastrophic line is up to the individual to pay for or insure themselves for and some assistance for those unable to afford it.

[trumpurethra 42]

I think the problem is it places the burden on the small business owner.

 

Burden can really only fall on the government and that's why we need true universal coverage. Single payer or the like.

 

But conservatives don't want that. Fine. What's the alternative?

 

Boom - Obamacare. Previously known as Romneycare. Originally dreamed up by the heritage foundation.

 

That's why we are where we are. Republicans couldn't support the plan because obama would've gotten the credit. Now they want to get rid of it but it's THEIR best plan. How do you come up with an alternative to the best plan you could've put together within a marketplace framework?

 

Quite a pickle to be in.

 

Agreed, removing the profit from the healthcare system or governing that profit (like utilities) is the only logical solution.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

I guess they haven't worked it out yet. All I know is inwoukd like to see whatever they do be streamlined and less of a burden on the people that actually come out of pocket for insurance, individuals who work and businesses. A catastrophic mandate would reduce costs for everyone and still protect people from bankruptcy if they get seriously ill and the govt from picking up the tab for the most expensive medical issues. Anything below the catastrophic line is up to the individual to pay for or insure themselves for and some assistance for those unable to afford it.

Great. Put the plan together, introduce it to the public, THEN repeal Obamacare. Seems like a no-brainer, right?

[trumpurethra 42]

I guess they haven't worked it out yet. All I know is inwoukd like to see whatever they do be streamlined and less of a burden on the people that actually come out of pocket for insurance, individuals who work and businesses. A catastrophic mandate would reduce costs for everyone and still protect people from bankruptcy if they get seriously ill and the govt from picking up the tab for the most expensive medical issues. Anything below the catastrophic line is up to the individual to pay for or insure themselves for and some assistance for those unable to afford it.

 

Interesting idea. What about preexisting conditions and insurance caps?

[Strike 3,982]

This is a perfect encapsulation for the whole debate.

 

You have nothing, that is clear.

 

The side you support also has nothing. If they had something this would be repeal & replace immediately. Not "repeal and see what the fock happens."

 

Good luck with that.

 

No, you can simply look through all of the posts I made years ago before Obummercare was passed. You know, in the threads where all you did was b*tch and whine while I was posting links and solutions. But no, instead of doing that you'll just keep your head buried in the sand like you always do!!!

[Strike 3,982]

Worms,

 

Here's a crumb. See if you can form any intelligent conclusions from the following article:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/5-of-americans-made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/

 

Prove you're worth discussing this with.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

 

Interesting idea. What about preexisting conditions and insurance caps?

Insurance companies should still have to accept pre existing conditions, but they should be given a tax break if they are overburdened by it. And if the pre-existing is a catastrophic, it is covered by that insurance. No caps for catastrophic, but you buy the insurance you want for the rest. If you don't want a cap, buy one without a cap.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Worms,

 

Here's a crumb. See if you can form any intelligent conclusions from the following article:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/5-of-americans-made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/

 

Prove you're worth discussing this with.

Oh no, it doesn't work like that. I asked you a question first and you need to answer it: What. Is. Your. Prediction?

 

How does this play out?

 

I told you my predictions. Now let's get yours on the record.

 

Then we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong.

[Strike 3,982]

Oh no, it doesn't work like that. I asked you a question and you answer it first: what. Is. Your. Prediction?

 

How does this play out?

 

I told you my predictions. Now let's get yours on the record.

 

Then we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong.

 

I'm concerned about solutions to the health care issue. As I have been since before Obummercase was enacted, as proven by my numerous constructive posts on the topic. I threw you a bone to see if that was what you cared about. This post proves yet again that all you care about is partisan bickering. As I said previously, fock off.

 

And, I already posted a prediction. Apparently you missed it. Let me refresh your memory. I predict you'll stay an uninformed idiot. Thanks for proving that I am correct.

[Bier Meister 1,515]

 

IMO, if you employ someone in America you should be required to provide health care.

 

I think that who carries the burden of providing health care is debatable.

 

I think the problem is it places the burden on the small business owner.

 

Burden can really only fall on the government and that's why we need true universal coverage. Single payer or the like.

 

 

 

 

yes. remove it from business and place it on gubment.

[trumpurethra 42]

Worms,

 

Here's a crumb. See if you can form any intelligent conclusions from the following article:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/5-of-americans-made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/

 

Prove you're worth discussing this with.

 

Fair enough. If your child was diagnosed with a rare and extremely difficult to treat illness and you became a member of that 5%, how would you feel?

 

Would you think its ok that your insurance company caps its payout at $5 mill if the cost to treat your child will well exceed that?

 

Would you think its ok that an insurance company can choose not to cover your child in the future after they recover from the illness?

[trumpurethra 42]

 

I think that who carries the burden of providing health care is debatable.

 

 

 

yes. remove it from business and place it on gubment.

 

So you are advocating socialized medicine.

[Bier Meister 1,515]

yes, but i can have socialistic tendencies with a few areas of policy.

[trumpurethra 42]

BTW, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the people to take care of themselves (get exercise, eat right, no honey boo-boos lol). I feel this needs to be an imprtant part of the plan as well. For instance, yes socialized medicine is required but you cannot sit on your lazy azz all day playing xbox and eating doritos. You would be required to be in relatively good health to participate.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Insurance companies should still have to accept pre existing conditions, but they should be given a tax break if they are overburdened by it. And if the pre-existing is a catastrophic, it is covered by that insurance. No caps for catastrophic, but you buy the insurance you want for the rest. If you don't want a cap, buy one without a cap.

Well this sorta betrays that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

"Catastrophic" coverage essentially means high deductible. It won't do you a lick of good if you have the flu or an ear infection or something like that. But if you get in a bad accident or you get really sick with cancer or something like that, then that $5,000 deductible is going to be met and now you're covered.

 

So you really can't have caps or it doesn't do much. It's also nonsensical to talk about caps in catastrophic versus non catastrophic because the only area where the caps WOULD come into play is when someone has a fockload of medical bills brought on by a catastrophic injury or illness.

 

I've made this point before and I'm really trying not to be a d1ck: this is very complicated stuff and it WILL NOT have a simple solution. So when people say "well fock it, just repeal the damn thing and then I'm sure some simple and obvious solution will present itself" ... no, it won't. Because it doesn't exist.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

 

I'm concerned about solutions to the health care issue. As I have been since before Obummercase was enacted, as proven by my numerous constructive posts on the topic. I threw you a bone to see if that was what you cared about. This post proves yet again that all you care about is partisan bickering. As I said previously, fock off.

 

And, I already posted a prediction. Apparently you missed it. Let me refresh your memory. I predict you'll stay an uninformed idiot. Thanks for proving that I am correct.

Why are you so scared of being on record? It's a simple request, one you continuously run from

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Well this sorta betrays that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

"Catastrophic" coverage essentially means high deductible. It won't do you a lick of good if you have the flu or an ear infection or something like that. But if you get in a bad accident or you get really sick with cancer or something like that, then that $5,000 deductible is going to be met and now you're covered.

 

So you really can't have caps or it doesn't do much. It's also nonsensical to talk about caps in catastrophic versus non catastrophic because the only area where the caps WOULD come into play is when someone has a fockload of medical bills brought on by a catastrophic injury or illness.

 

I've made this point before and I'm really trying not to be a d1ck: this is very complicated stuff and it WILL NOT have a simple solution. So when people say "well fock it, just repeal the damn thing and then I'm sure some simple and obvious solution will present itself" ... no, it won't. Because it doesn't exist.

I guess we have different meanings for catastrophic. There was almost a civil dialogue going , but I guess not.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

I guess we have different meanings for catastrophic. There was almost a civil dialogue going , but I guess not.

Alright, my mistake.

 

What did you mean?

[SUXBNME 1,340]

yes. remove it from business and place it on gubment.

Bad idea, imo

.

Allowing interstate commerce would be a good start

[Reality 2,710]

Dems gave it a shot with no interest in a bipartisan effort. The results have been horrible and unsustainable. It cost the left 3 straight elections, excluding the presidency. Now the American people have given the Reps all 3 branches of Government and it's their turn to take a shot. They will fail or they will succeed, it's on them now. Repeal is the first step, they are doing exactly what the American people asked them to do.

 

The local back and forth here will change nothing.

 

HTH

[Strike 3,982]

Why are you so scared of being on record? It's a simple request, one you continuously run from

 

I'm worried about solutions, not political BS. That's why i didn't vote for either of the two idiots that actually had a chance to win. Unlike you who supported a trainwreck. Sorry, I'm not playing your political games. If you ever want to discuss the actual issue, and show yourself worthy of doing so, we can discuss what could actually fix the healthcare mess. But you don't want that. It makes me sad that all you want to do is argue over Dems/Repubs. I feel sorry for you.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Dems gave it a shot with no interest in a bipartisan effort. The results have been horrible and unsustainable. It cost the left 3 straight elections, excluding the presidency. Now the American people have given the Reps all 3 branches of Government and it's their turn to take a shot. They will fail or they will succeed, it's on them now. Repeal is the first step, they are doing exactly what the American people asked them to do.

 

The local back and forth here will change nothing.

 

HTH

Mostly correct but I ask again: why repeal with no replacement?

 

And why isn't there a replacement when you've been planning repeal for eight years?

 

If they had a replacement plan ready to go, it'd be different. And until they do, why repeal?

[Bier Meister 1,515]

BTW, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the people to take care of themselves (get exercise, eat right, no honey boo-boos lol). I feel this needs to be an imprtant part of the plan as well. For instance, yes socialized medicine is required but you cannot sit on your lazy azz all day playing xbox and eating doritos. You would be required to be in relatively good health to participate.

 

I do not see it as black and white.... I believe all should have coverage, but i would not have an issue developing a tiered cost system based on individuals' efforts to maintain a healthy lifestyle. slippery slope for those that may have medical disadvantages to stay within the "norm."

 

Bad idea, imo

.

Allowing interstate commerce would be a good start

 

to me this is a broader issue than just health care. this is related to one's view of the role of government. I also firmly believe that health care should not be tied into employment (from both an individual and business viewpoint)

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Alright, my mistake.

 

What did you mean?

Cancers and other diseases, heart disease, serious accidents. Pretty much the issues that cause people to go bankrupt and cost the Govt a lot of money to pick up the tab for. Require a policy for those issues, spread out the risk over the populace and insurance companies still turn a profit. And it should bring uniformity to the cost. It also reduces rhe cost and burden on employers and individuals who actually buy insurance.

[giraldi02 470]

Am I gonna get a larger tax return this year if it's repealed?

 

If not, there's no point to rush the repeal

[MDC 5,896]

The ACA has been great for people who were uninsured before but it's been a total bust for everyone else. It does nothing to control rising costs, which is the biggest problem with our free market system.

 

I just want to Trump's website because I honestly don't know what his plan is. All I got was a laundry list of free market reforms like allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines, tort reform etc. For such a maverick it looks like his HC plan is the same nonsense the GOP has been peddling for years.

 

When it comes to HC we have one party that has bad solutions and another one that doesn't think there's a problem.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Cancers and other diseases, heart disease, serious accidents. Pretty much the issues that cause people to go bankrupt and cost the Govt a lot of money to pick up the tab for. Require a policy for those issues, spread out the risk over the populace and insurance companies still turn a profit. And it should bring uniformity to the cost. It also reduces rhe cost and burden on employers and individuals who actually buy insurance.

So just a list is covered ailments? Which should account for all catastrophic injury and illness?

 

Outside that list you aren't covered?

 

No offense but I really fail to see the distinction. Catastrophic coverage is supposed to cover all that stuff so really all you're doing is adding on a bureaucracy of choosing what's "catastrophic" (versus simply expensive enough to trigger a high deductible) and what isn't.

 

You could have a plan where everyone gets or has to buy coverage with a $5,000 deductible and no caps.

 

It isn't a bad plan but there are drawbacks.

 

What happens when someone can't pay the $5,000 deductible? I'd bet a lot of Americans fall into this camp. Sad as it is most don't have 5 grand sitting in a savings account for a rainy day.

 

Then aren't you basically forcing or at least encouraging people to wait until something is catastrophic and very expensive to treat before they seek medical care?

 

Say someone has an infection and they could just go to the doctor but it'd cost a thousand bucks after the visit, diagnostics, prescription etc. So they don't go then. As a result it develops into a very bad thing and now the person needs emergency care and maybe an amputation or something like that. Could've avoided it all if they'd gone to the doc before but they didn't have coverage for that.

 

From a total efficiency standpoint, preventative care makes a lot of sense. You can really reduce your overall costs to the system by encouraging people to get stuff nipped in the bud.

[Strike 3,982]

Well, looks like the GOP IS working on a replacement.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/rand-paul-obamacare-replacement/

 

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Well, looks like the GOP IS working on a replacement.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/rand-paul-obamacare-replacement/

 

Rand Paul is anyway

[Strike 3,982]

Rand Paul is anyway

 

1) All it takes is one.

 

2) FTA:

 

"I completely disagree with those who say we either don't have a plan or have to wait," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday. "There are about 50 replacement bills that have been out there for years."

 

So no you're wrong. They just have to use all the plans they've been considering and put one good one together.

 

3) Shut the fock up dumbass. All you and your ilk have done in this thread was WHINE that there was no replacement. Well, there is. So shut it.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Well, looks like the GOP IS working on a replacement.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/rand-paul-obamacare-replacement/

 

Good forRand...Itrust him to come up with a good plan that is actually conservative and can do good.

[giraldi02 470]

Why not just remove the age requirement for Medicare and make THAT the health care for everyone?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Why not just remove the age requirement for Medicare and make THAT the health care for everyone?

Who gets to pay for it?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Obamacare is a failure. Why is anyone still clinging to a failure? At least give the republicans their chance at failing.

Because people will die in the meantime. That's why.

 

Not to mention that we all know the republicans don't really have a plan or any desire to fix heathcare.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Because people will die in the meantime. That's why.

 

Not to mention that we all know the republicans don't really have a plan or any desire to fix heathcare.

Not this time. They have to fix it, they ran on it. If they don't, they are out. Pressure makes diamonds.

[drobeski 3,061]

Because people will die in the meantime. That's why.

 

Not to mention that we all know the republicans don't really have a plan or any desire to fix heathcare.

plans since 2009

 

 

Clueless as usual ..stick with Shakespeare

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

plans since 2009

 

 

Clueless as usual ..stick with Shakespeare[/quote

Again...which plans. Asked out earlier and you pussed out as I expect you will again.

[Strike 3,982]

 

 

plans since 2009

 

 

Clueless as usual ..stick with Shakespeare[/quote

Again...which plans. Asked out earlier and you pussed out as I expect you will again.

 

We have to pass them before you can know what is in them

[Sho Nuff 719]

ame="Sho Nuff" post="5858637" timestamp="1484535595"]

 

 

 

We have to pass them before you can know what is in them

So... a deflection with the old out of context quote. Typically