• Plan C on Obamacare "Repeal now, replace later" Collapses
    106 replies, posted
So 1) Source sucks 2) No where in there does it actually state almost no one pays into as YOU state. 3) What it does state is that there is some conflicting reports based on how you view "Newly" insured 4) What little it does say about people not paying in, is in the sections about people under 26 under their parents insurance, which guess what, someone is paying for and that is helping a lot of people. You being upset, and having to pay more, made millions of peoples lives better. I'm not happy you're mad, but shit got better for other people and your anger is worth it.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52489440]Anecdotes do not trump facts. I said on the previous page that 14.5 million people who are newly insured under Obamacare are on Medicaid. And most of them pay little to nothing. Well, here is the fact of the matter: There are a lot of Americans who are taking advantage of what is given to them and I don't believe it's fair for hardworking Americans who struggle to support themselves should have to pick up the tab.[/QUOTE] Yeah, like those Americans who make more than I'll ever see in my life time, then turn around and try and paint myself and all the people in my economic circle as parasites. Seriously, fuck this invisible enemy within shit. Theres not some seedy underclass thats living in luxury at the tax payers expense. I've seen too much of middle america burnt out on paying impossible hospital bills or having to take on another mouth to feed. This "real, hard working americans" versus "unemplyed, lazy americans" is nothing but a class warfare witch hunt and you know it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52489691]So 1) Source sucks 2) No where in there does it actually state almost no one pays into as YOU state. 3) What it does state is that there is some conflicting reports based on how you view "Newly" insured 4) What little it does say about people not paying in, is in the sections about people under 26 under their parents insurance, which guess what, someone is paying for and that is helping a lot of people. You being upset, and having to pay more, made millions of peoples lives better. I'm not happy you're mad, but shit got better for other people and your anger is worth it.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/15/rand-paul/medicaid-expansion-drove-health-insurance-coverage/[/url] Alright, how does Politifact sound then? They basically say the same thing regarding most newly enrolled people going onto Medicaid. About 3.6 were technically eligible before Obamcare, but that still leaves over 10 million people who became newly eligible under the Medicaid expansion. As for the "Newly ensured" part, you can basically count people who have enrolled since 2015 as that. 2) I'll concede due to lack of statistics on this specific subject. However, I can argue that the majority of health costs are picked up by the taxpayers anyways, because that is the primary design of Medicaid to begin with. As for your last statement, "One man's loss is another man's gain." I know many people feel that this end result at another person's expense is worth it. However, with regards to the Medicaid expansion, and the fact that the current system is collapsing; I cannot see socialized medicine being the solution to our issues. Going to a single payer system isn't a solution either in my opinion due to issues such as government rationing of healthcare, but that's a debate for another time. All I can simply say is that I and many other Americans will fight for legislation that reflects our beliefs and values. I want to see this law repealed and then perhaps we can look at better alternatives for folks with pre-existing conditions, etc. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Action Frank;52490347]This "real, hard working americans" versus "unemplyed, lazy americans" is nothing but a class warfare witch hunt and you know it.[/QUOTE] Well, class warfare is something that has been perpetuated from both sides. You have the left running the "Greedy rich" vs "average Americans" also. Yet, there is validity in both statements. I can definitely say that there are lazy, good for nothing pricks out there who abuse the system so they don't have to work a day in their life. I've met them in person, and I absolutely loath them. But don't get me wrong, there are greedy sons of bitches up at the top too, who I believe need to be put in check also. However, your ideas and my ideas regarding the handling of both of these groups are completely different.
Well if you can't socialize medicine in the us, then you accept that you want the worlds most expensive, least effective health care system Why do you accept that [editline]20th July 2017[/editline] Like you're essentially saying "My money is more important than your health for the years it may take for us to figure out how to help you. Sorry, not sorry". [editline]20th July 2017[/editline] Also, using "Half True" as another source for your argument isn't great. [QUOTE]Paul said the vast majority of people that got insurance under Obamacare got it through Medicaid. About 20 million people gained coverage and about 14.5 million of those were under Medicaid or CHIP. But a sizeable fraction of that 14.5 million were eligible before the Affordable Care Act took effect. One estimate said about a quarter of them were previously eligible. Another estimate put it as high as half. There is some guess work behind all the reports. Medicaid might account for slightly more than half of those who gained coverage. Most people wouldn’t say that amounts to the vast majority, but it is likely still the majority.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52491071]Well if you can't socialize medicine in the us, then you accept that you want the worlds most expensive, least effective health care system Why do you accept that [editline]20th July 2017[/editline] Like you're essentially saying "My money is more important than your health for the years it may take for us to figure out how to help you. Sorry, not sorry". [editline]20th July 2017[/editline] Also, using "Half True" as another source for your argument isn't great.[/QUOTE] I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009]I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.[/QUOTE] Kay but you can already sell them across state lines in some states and they're not taking advantage of that. Do you know how insurance functions? There's tons of reasons just saying "cross state borders" doesn't mean anything useful or substantive. I think socialized medicine works, because every nation but yours proves it does. Your nation is failing at even doing a reasonable or comparative job to other systems. This isn't an ideological divide. This is reality. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] If pre existing conditions are covered for ANYONE, you will pay for that JUST having insurance. You think your premiums will drop without removing that? Then all Americans won't have what you claim to want.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52494035]Kay but you can already sell them across state lines in some states and they're not taking advantage of that. Do you know how insurance functions? There's tons of reasons just saying "cross state borders" doesn't mean anything useful or substantive. I think socialized medicine works, because every nation but yours proves it does. Your nation is failing at even doing a reasonable or comparative job to other systems. This isn't an ideological divide. This is reality. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] If pre existing conditions are covered for ANYONE, you will pay for that JUST having insurance. You think your premiums will drop without removing that? Then all Americans won't have what you claim to want.[/QUOTE] better point, the ACA was the republican alternative to socialised medicine, clearly its not nearly as stable or effective of a system, so what can they ever come up with that is better but more conservative?
[QUOTE=Sableye;52494436]better point, the ACA was the republican alternative to socialised medicine, clearly its not nearly as stable or effective of a system, so what can they ever come up with that is better but more conservative?[/QUOTE] Let 20 million Americans die from lack of proper care, that way there's that many less people to have to pay for that can't otherwise afford (therefor contribute to) health insurance, meaning your premiums go down [I]and[/I] the waiting rooms at the doctor's office are that much less crowded! Hooray! :downs:
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009] Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. [/QUOTE] I can't believe it's July 2017 and people are still parroting this [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/the-problem-with-gop-plans-to-sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html"]brazen[/URL] [URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-won-t-save-money"]lie[/URL] like they won't be called out on it.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009]I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.[/QUOTE] do you know what a competitive, efficent free market solution looks like? do you even know what that means because i hear a whole lot of right wingers spew that off with no other substance to it. why exactly is a tried and true system of single payership somehow worse than us continuing down this spiral of being a laughing stock as people die just because a bill isnt 'right' enough for you
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009]I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.[/QUOTE] Can you explain how an ideal capitalistic insurance system would function? Because from what I understand of insurance, it makes absolutely no sense as a for-profit business. Insurance as a concept is inherently a wealth redistribution system. Everyone pays into a pool that people can draw from. But it [I]only[/I] works if there are healthy people paying into the pool who don't draw from it.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009]I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.[/QUOTE] Give me the name of a country with an efficient and fair "free market" type healthcare.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009] I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans.[/QUOTE] Imagine thinking that 'competitive free market' and 'healthcare' is a good combination.
The fact that a "competitive free market type healthcare" is considered a potential solution at all is baffling to me. Nobody would suggest making firefighters or the police a competitive free market service.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009] I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. [/QUOTE] ah yes, the invisible hand of capitalism will surely make sure everything goes just fine, exactly like it has done with ISPs and network providers oh wait
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52494009]I don't accept that I want the worlds most expensive, least effective healthcare system.. I want a competitive free-market solution that will provide various plans that are suitable to the needs of all Americans. Trump's ideas of allowing insurance across state lines and such will help develop a better private system solution. You and I simply see things differently. You see socialized medicine as the solution. I see a competitive free-market as the solution. As for the Politifact source: I mentioned an estimated number of people who were eligible before Obamacare. Obviously, that estimate could vary, but Politifact agrees that the majority are newly eligible under Obamacare. So yes, It's not the best argument, but it can still persist even if you were to shave the numbers down.[/QUOTE] A competitive free market isn't the solution because a free market leaves every poor person or person with pre existing conditions in the dust. You know, kinda like how it worked before Obamacare.
[QUOTE=elowin;52495582]A competitive free market isn't the solution because a free market leaves every poor person or person with pre existing conditions in the dust. You know, kinda like how it worked before Obamacare.[/QUOTE] Don't forget that in these peoples minds if you're too poor to afford healthcare its your fault for being lazy so you don't deserve healthcare anyway.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52495563]The fact that a "competitive free market type healthcare" is considered a potential solution at all is baffling to me. Nobody would suggest making firefighters or the police a competitive free market service.[/QUOTE] Now you're just giving him ideas.
Pro-repeal voices winning, two senators just flipped back to pro repeal.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52496287]Pro-repeal voices winning, two senators just flipped back to pro repeal.[/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=Saxon;52496303]Source?[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/888730395235282944[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/888731385162334208[/media]
Ones gotta wonder at all the favours being tossed around by the Trump campaign to get their first real win in 6 months I mean it's pretty clear there's not a lot of support for this, so something is being offered to generate that support.
Pork barrel politics are back, baby. We're on the Trump Train straight back to the 80s in every way.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52495563]The fact that a "competitive free market type healthcare" is considered a potential solution at all is baffling to me. Nobody would suggest making firefighters or the police a competitive free market service.[/QUOTE] Actually, I was once banned from a guy's LiveJournal (back when that was a thing) because he was arguing for exactly that, and I told him that it wouldn't work nearly as well as he thought it would. He also suggested I download Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" on audio book. Best damn sleep-aid I ever had. (not so much because of the content, the content was laughable for the most part, but the reader's voice was just sleep-inducing)
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52496333]Ones gotta wonder at all the favours being tossed around by the Trump campaign to get their first real win in 6 months I mean it's pretty clear there's not a lot of support for this, so something is being offered to generate that support.[/QUOTE] GOP is a laughing stock, senators might flip to maintain party image. Still their isn't an official source on this yet outside twitter gossip, meaning they can't confirm it yet. [editline]22nd July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52488078]$500 a month damn I wish Obama had just gotten his initial ACA through.[/QUOTE] Need to stay on my current plan past 26 to get my surgery which is why its so expesneive. They spontaneously decided I needed a few more doctors visits past the mandatory 6 month wait which baffeled the team that was going to do my surgery even. I was origianlly scheduled to have it just before my 26th birthday. These extra appointments are so I would fall off the insurance and they wouldn't have to cover it. I found a loophole that allowed me to continue my coverage, at the expense of raping my bank account. The wonders of private for-profit healthcare.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52496333]Ones gotta wonder at all the favours being tossed around by the Trump campaign to get their first real win in 6 months I mean it's pretty clear there's not a lot of support for this, so something is being offered to generate that support.[/QUOTE] Favours? More like threats. [url]https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-26/koch-urgency-conservative-network-fears-closing-window[/url] The Rep. big money sacks just closed until actions are taken.
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;52495567]ah yes, the invisible hand of capitalism will surely make sure everything goes just fine, exactly like it has done with ISPs and network providers oh wait[/QUOTE] That's a terrible argument to make. Telecommunications is a heavily regulated industry compared to others. You can't do anything as an ISP without the approval from local, state, and federal governments. When you have the government so involved in something, you're gonna get at least an oligopoly. I will say though, we have at least a somewhat healthier market compared to the likes of Canada. You only have about 3 Cellular companies to choose from in most parts of the country, and usually just one ISP unless you live in the urban city, where it isn't much better. Anyways, I won't discuss this any further since it isn't related to the topic of this thread. [editline]22nd July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=01271;52496704]Favours? More like threats. [url]https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-26/koch-urgency-conservative-network-fears-closing-window[/url] The Rep. big money sacks just closed until actions are taken.[/QUOTE] Well, there is going to be a vote on repealing Obamacare no matter what. McConnell plans to get all Republicans on record for this. Any Republican that voted for the repeal bill back on Obama is gonna have to go on record as a defector under Trump. Now, do you honestly expect these Republican defectors to put a massive shit-stain on their record for upcoming elections? Of course not. Now they're wisening up and getting back on the Trump Train.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52497105]Telecommunications is a heavily regulated industry compared to others. You can't do anything as an ISP without the approval from local, state, and federal governments. When you have the government so involved in something, you're gonna get at least an oligopoly.[/QUOTE] Gee I wonder why? Certainly not ISP's lobbying for regulations that hurt startups and small competitors. Even a giant like Google has faced opposition from ISP's who lobbied to have Google Fiber banned from certain cities. [QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52497105]I will say though, we have at least a somewhat healthier market compared to the likes of Canada. You only have about 3 Cellular companies to choose from in most parts of the country, and usually just one ISP unless you live in the urban city, where it isn't much better. [/QUOTE] My town has 2 providers to choose from, neither seem to be great. On a wider scale, ISP's were given tax breaks to expand and upgrade in the 90's and have since done nothing, these tax breaks are still in effect. Comcast straight up sabotage a small competitor recently and is currently in litigation over it. And of course there's a very real possibility they'll kill Net Neutrality and be granted unlimited power to decide what and what cannot be put on the internet.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52497105]That's a terrible argument to make. Telecommunications is a heavily regulated industry compared to others. You can't do anything as an ISP without the approval from local, state, and federal governments. When you have the government so involved in something, you're gonna get at least an oligopoly. [/QUOTE] That isn't really true. I presume you oppose net neutrality on these same grounds? Yes, regulations make it harder for the little guy to get in. But competition that can, and does, just buy you out of a billion dollar investment isn't going to happen just cause you scream "FREE MARKET" at the top of your lungs in these conversations. [QUOTE]I will say though, we have at least a somewhat healthier market compared to the likes of Canada. You only have about 3 Cellular companies to choose from in most parts of the country, and usually just one ISP unless you live in the urban city, where it isn't much better. [/QUOTE] No, and in the coming months, I'm just going to be laughing at you for saying this, let alone suggesting this on the eve of the death of net neutrality. [QUOTE]Well, there is going to be a vote on repealing Obamacare no matter what. McConnell plans to get all Republicans on record for this. Any Republican that voted for the repeal bill back on Obama is gonna have to go on record as a defector under Trump.[/QUOTE] You make that sound like anyone should give a shit about being a "Defector Under Trump". That's a fucking badge of honour mate. You should, for one or two seconds, consider dwelling on the concept of "Loyalty" to a person with none to you. [QUOTE]Now, do you honestly expect these Republican defectors to put a massive shit-stain on their record for upcoming elections? Of course not. Now they're wisening up and getting back on the Trump Train.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and when healthcare in the US reverts to being the worst on the global market, and millions of people suffer, and a few hundred thousand die, and the frame work that supports care for the less fortunate is destroyed, you'll be paying less in premiums and receiving almost no care, or coverage. Enjoy. ALSO, how telling is it that you ignored Raidyrs total tear down of your capitalist idea of "Sell across state lines"?
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;52497105] Now, do you honestly expect these Republican defectors to put a massive shit-stain on their record for upcoming elections? Of course not. Now they're wisening up and getting back on the Trump Train.[/QUOTE] If they had any balls or sense, they'll know sticking with the stupid asshole is a BAD idea. His presidency is sinking and sinking fast. Also the fact repealing it would kill 100,000s. That would be a far bigger stain.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.