Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'd love to see the critics of ACA offer their alternative.

The only alternative from the right was the status quo, with millions of uninsured Americans. How many deaths could we have prevented had people without insurance been able to seek treatment timely instead of waithing until the condition was untreatble?

ACA could ahve been better if we had not followed to the letter the idiot Romney's program, but that was politics.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'd love to see the critics of ACA offer their alternative.

"

Alternative.

Get it out of the federal government's hand and let the private market i.e. 300 million + drive the healthcare market instead of 536 politicians and the fourth estate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
[ "I'd love to see the critics of ACA offer their alternative." ]


"Alternative. Get it out of the federal government's hand and let the private market i.e. 300 million + drive the healthcare market instead of 536 politicians and the fourth estate."

The question meant something that would actually provide access to affordable healthcare of roost people. You know, something that would actually work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The question meant something that would actually provide access to affordable healthcare of roost people."

LOL I expected that answer from one who is ignorant of capitalism and how the economy functions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's ObamaKare. Obama said he liked that name. Please....


and, no...most of the newly insured are going to find out they still can't afford to see a doctor.....because they are liable for up to over $5000 a year in deductibles single and $10,000 plus for family coverage.

So.....unless they got wads of bucks stashed away on their income, they aren't going to 'afford' to see any 'doctor' in their 'plan'.

Most folks are signing up for bronze plans....and it has high deductible.

If you need to go to a doc, it will still be unaffordable and worse you will have paid hundreds a month into the system.

It really will turn out to be ZeroKare for at least half the new folks singing up. They won't be able to afford it so

the 'Affordable Kare Act' is just another Obama Lie.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's a liberal diversion. Critics don't need an alternative, those who thought the old system was fine are happy with simple repeal. Those that think the government doesn't have the authority to run this are also happy with repeal.

Just because Obama F$)@#ed up the Insurance Industry doesn't mean someone has to come up with a solution other than go back to the way it was.

We'd be better off if O-care was never passed and things were the same.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The question meant something that would actually provide access to affordable healthcare of roost people. You know, something that would actually work.

______________

You mean where enough "voters" get something they did not have to pay (fully) for and that someone else did pay for? You know those others who don't pay their fair share, instead pay more of your share?

No skin in the game and that entitlement feeling all over again.

W
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You mean where enough "voters" get something they did not have to pay (fully) for and that someone else did pay for? You know those others who don't pay their fair share, instead pay more of your share?

No skin in the game and that entitlement feeling all over again.

---

So, in your ideal society, what happens to people who get sick and can't afford health care? See, we aren't talking about entitlements, or fair share, we are talking about health care. Life and death. Quality of life issues.

Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it. "


Your premise is completely false. In a world where the healthcare market is determined by the private market, i.e. a Doctor/Patient relationship without Government or Insurers determining what's allowed; Consumers puchasing their own health insurance leaving the employer out of the health insurance business. Making insurers accountable to the consumer purchasing the insurance; Having the consumer paying the Doctor's bill and the consumer submitting the claim thus making the consumer fully aware and sensitive of the costs of their care etc etc will make healthcare costs drop precipitously thus making affordable to millions of others.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it.

That is exactly their position. Only in the US of all the industrialized world is this the case. The righties chanted "die die die" at the townhall meeting with Republican candidates. Paul protested but not with much vigor or enthusiasm and certainly with no alternative.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, in your ideal society, what happens to people who get sick and can't afford health care? See, we aren't talking about entitlements, or fair share, we are talking about health care. Life and death. Quality of life issues.

Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it.


http://www.alternet.org/i-watched-my-patients-die-treatable-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it. "

---

"Your premise is completely false. In a world where the healthcare market is determined by the private market, i.e. a Doctor/Patient relationship without Government or Insurers determining what's allowed; Consumers puchasing their own health insurance leaving the employer out of the health insurance business. Making insurers accountable to the consumer purchasing the insurance; Having the consumer paying the Doctor's bill and the consumer submitting the claim thus making the consumer fully aware and sensitive of the costs of their care etc etc will make healthcare costs drop precipitously thus making affordable to millions of others."

In other words, let them die.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In other words, let them die. "

Said the ignorant one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
[ "In other words, let them die. " ]

"Said the ignorant one."

Since that is the extent of your reply (lacking any content, as usual), I take it you have come to realize that your fantasy world where everyone gets health care doesn't exist, and wouldn't work.

But you keep thinking, Butch. That's what you're good at...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But you keep thinking, Butch. That's what you're good at...
"
Actually what I wrote is based on sound economic principles unlike you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, in your ideal society, what happens to people who get sick and can't afford health care? See, we aren't talking about entitlements, or fair share, we are talking about health care. Life and death. Quality of life issues.

Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it.

____________

Put out that flame of hyperbole.

To play your game are you saying everyone else should pay for any and all means possible to keep someone alive, fed, with a sustainable income, insured, housing etc. indefinitely regardless of the cost/effort and means to support themselves afterwards and regardless of their efforts to sustain themselves prior?

In nature we know how that plays out and nature is beautiful right?

We all do what we can "within limits". You just want those limits to be borne by others with no regard for any limits of " societies responsibilities" and ability to pay.

You are a natural disaster on two feet.

W
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You are a natural disaster on two feet.

W"

LOL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The ACA is a complete failure/disaster and it's supporters are now moving the argument to...

"well what would opponents of ACA offer as an alternative"???

At this point who cares!!! ACA is worse than the old system and it's just touching the surface on how bad it is, it will get even worse as it rolls out completely.

Going back to the old system would be a 200% improvement, then address the areas it lacks, not a complete tear down approach like ACA.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That is exactly their position. Only in the US of all the industrialized world is this the case. The righties chanted "die die die" at the townhall meeting with Republican candidates. Paul protested but not with much vigor or enthusiasm and certainly with no alternative.

No, they didn't. As we've discussed at length, the hypothetical at issue was someone who could afford health insurance but deliberately chose not to buy it.

Anyway, there are really only two ways to provide universal access to health care (though lots of variations on that theme):

1) Market-based plus safety net. People are responsible for their own health care insurance, but you provide a safety net for the truly impovershed. In other words, "Medicaid for all." You would have a a system like Medicaid for people who earn too little to afford insurance, and a system of public health clinics for people to receive health care if they are too poor to buy it on their own. If you make enough to be able to afford insurance, you're responsible for buying it yourself, and you will not get any assistance. Similarly, if you are middle class or have substantial private assets, you don't get to keep those things and have the taxpayers pick up your tab for you - you have to spend your own money first, and only if (after that) you're truly poor will the public bear that expense for you. This is the way we provide for universal access to such necessities as housing or food.

2) Universal single-payer health insurance. Nobody is responsible for providing their own health care insurance - the government provides it for you. Everyone pays for that system through some broad system of taxation. People who have more money might or might not be able to buy their way out of whatever the general public gets. There is no means-testing for this service, so it's not in any way a 'safety net' - everyone gets it, no matter how wealthy they are. This is the way we provide for universal access to such necessities as primary education.

Conservatives favor the former, combined with significant regulatory reforms that would allow cheaper health insurance to be sold on the market - particularly allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, thus effectively pre-empting regulation that increases the cost of insurance. Progressive favor the latter.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Actually what I wrote is based on sound economic principles unlike you."

Sure. If you say so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"You are a natural disaster on two feet."

Thanks. And you want to let them die. It's ok, really. It is what you believe, so hold your head high, and stop pretending you don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"ACA is worse than the old system and it's just touching the surface on how bad it is, it will get even worse as it rolls out completely."

You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. Ranting and claiming tha the sky is falling doesn't make it true. The old system was unsustainable, and rising health care costs have been cited as a major drag on our stability, economy, and growth for decades.

Why is this so hard for you? Read up. Look at some facts, try to get the big picture. Turn off Fox "News". THINK.

In my case, my insurance costs have gone down for the coming year. First time that has been true in many years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ranting and claiming tha the sky is falling doesn't make it true. The old system was unsustainable, and rising health care costs have been cited as a major drag on our stability, economy, and growth for decades.


_____________

Do you see the irony in your own statement?

You're ranting and claiming how bad the old system was...that doesn't make it true.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Sure. If you say so.
"

Expected response from one who has NEVER opened an Econ book.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
[ Ranting and claiming tha the sky is falling doesn't make it true. The old system was unsustainable, and rising health care costs have been cited as a major drag on our stability, economy, and growth for decades. ]

_____________

"Do you see the irony in your own statement? You're ranting and claiming how bad the old system was...that doesn't make it true."

The difference is the historical facts. Or do you deny that rising health care costs have been cited as an economic malady for decades?

Ranting = factless claims. Truth always comes out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
do you deny that rising health care costs have been cited as an economic malady for decades?

_________

Moot point because Obamacare has RAISED the cost.

That's a simple fact. He didn't bend the cost curve, he just reallocated the cost, for someone to get a subsidy of a dollar someone else has to pay a dollar more. And in reality, it's more like $1.50 in additional cost to give out that subsidy of $1.

And so far more people have lost their insurance than gained under O-care. Throw in the fact that even people who are getting covered are going to have trouble finding doctors who will accept the new insurance and things have gotten worse.

The stated goals of the law and the reality of what it actually does are two different things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Expected response from one who has NEVER opened an Econ book."

Your claims of expertise or even understanding in things economic are routinely betrayed by your posts. The louder you proclaim your prowess, and the more you label potters ignorant, the more ill-equipped to even participate in these discussions you appear.

You really to should read more, think more, and type less. It would make you look much smarter than you do now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
do you deny that rising health care costs have been cited as an economic malady for decades?

_________

"Moot point because Obamacare has RAISED the cost."

How does that negate the point? Besides, my costs went down for the first time in many years.

"That's a simple fact."

Wrong. See above.

"And so far more people have lost their insurance than gained under O-care."

Can you cite some factual information on this?

"Throw in the fact that even people who are getting covered are going to have trouble finding doctors who will accept the new insurance and things have gotten worse."

You are twisting a prediction of yours into a fact - that does not work. Let's stick with things we can actually know.

"The stated goals of the law and the reality of what it actually does are two different things."

I guess we will find out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How does that negate the point? Besides, my costs went down for the first time in many years.

________

Because you're talking about a goal that didn't happen. If the goal was to make health care more affordable, the law failed. The debate is whether or not Obamacare care made things better or worse. Clearly it's made things worse.

Higher costs and more people losing insurance than keeping it. It didn't solve the problem you are complaining about, it made things worse.

As for your insurance, I find it shocking because mine has double over the past two years. Maybe you should be thanking me for covering your end. And that's the point, any savings you alledgely see are coming out of someone else's pocket.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Higher costs and more people losing insurance than keeping it. It didn't solve the problem you are complaining about, it made things worse.

Why do you constantly repeat this canard. 80% of the population is totally unaffected by the ACA at least immediately. A few self insured people lost policies that can easily be duplicated under ACA. There will be a couple of million people who will obtain insurance coverage
that couldn't get coverage prior to the ACA.

You've already exposed your rear, cbj. You don't care if people die for lack of medical care. You just ignore it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it."


That was Zeke Emmanuel's (adviser to the President) position:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020370660...

" "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Your claims of expertise or even understanding in things economic are routinely betrayed by your posts. The louder you proclaim your prowess, and the more you label potters ignorant, the more ill-equipped to even participate in these discussions you appear.

You really to should read more, think more, and type less. It would make you look much smarter than you do now.
"

In other words, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your claims of expertise or even understanding in things economic are routinely betrayed by your posts. The louder you proclaim your prowess, and the more you label potters ignorant, the more ill-equipped to even participate in these discussions you appear.

You really to should read more, think more, and type less. It would make you look much smarter than you do now.

---

"In other words, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

Exactly what I was trying to warn you about.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How does that negate the point? Besides, my costs went down for the first time in many years.
________

"Because you're talking about a goal that didn't happen. If the goal was to make health care more affordable, the law failed."

Bzzzt. Again, my costs are going down this year. MORE people have access to health care now.


"Higher costs and more people losing insurance than keeping it."

Who? Where? Every story I have seen claiming that millions have 'lost' their insurance turns out to be false. Plans were canceled and replaced with something else for the most part. More people can nose get insurance than could before.

"As for your insurance, I find it shocking because mine has double over the past two years."

Mine has gone up steadily for many years. Why did your double? Same coverage? Is your insurance company telling you that their costs doubled in anticipation of ACA? Sorry, but I suspect there is more to your story.

"Maybe you should be thanking me for covering your end. And that's the point, any savings you alledgely see are coming out of someone else's pocket."

That is how insurance works. It is a shared risk pool. When a claim is paid to you it has always been 'coming out of someone else's pocket'. If you think you've only been paying your way all along, you'd be wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MORE people have access to health care now.

And yet, more people are without insurance.

Who? Where? Every story I have seen claiming that millions have 'lost' their insurance turns out to be false. Plans were canceled and replaced with something else for the most part. More people can nose get insurance than could before.

Apparently you only watch White House press conferences because you are just repeating Obama lies.

Why did your double? Same coverage? Is your insurance company telling you that their costs doubled in anticipation of ACA?

Yes it's from ACA, the taxes and additional required coverage. Same policy, the only difference is what the government has mandated must be covered is added. And there was no problem with our insurance before then. Everyone's insurance is going up. You appear to be the exception to the rule.

That is how insurance works. It is a shared risk pool. When a claim is paid to you it has always been 'coming out of someone else's pocket'.

Except I'm talking about subsides, if someone is quoted a $600 policy and gets $300 from the government that $300 is coming from someone else. The government doesn't just print money (well, maybe they do). It's not about shared risk, it's about the makers subsidizing the takers. The Greedy "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" crowd that wants' someone else to pay for them.

It's not about the risk pool. It's about subsidies. Two different things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nigel says:

So, in your ideal society, what happens to people who get sick and can't afford health care? See, we aren't talking about entitlements, or fair share, we are talking about health care. Life and death. Quality of life issues.

Let them die? Is that your position? Don't be ashamed, admit it.


Not only that, but how about the people who have pre-existing conditions, with some of those conditions created by sources totally out of their control?

"List of Pre-Existing Conditions
Declinable Conditions
Which Can Cause Denial
of Health Insurance Coverage"

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medicine/pre-existing-condit...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
goof: 80% of the population is totally unaffected by the ACA at least immediately.

I think that number's way, way off. That 80% you're thinking of probably includes people like me -- those who currently have insurance through an employer but worry about getting coverage should that job be lost. Now, with the ACA, I know that pre-existing conditions won't make me an insurance pariah.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
[ MORE people have access to health care now. ]

"And yet, more people are without insurance."

You know this how, exactly?

[ Who? Where? Every story I have seen claiming that millions have 'lost' their insurance turns out to be false. Plans were canceled and replaced with something else for the most part. More people can nose get insurance than could before. ]

"Apparently you only watch White House press conferences because you are just repeating Obama lies."

And apparently you cannot provide any other information to prove your point.



[ Why did your double? Same coverage? Is your insurance company telling you that their costs doubled in anticipation of ACA? ]

"Yes it's from ACA, the taxes and additional required coverage. Same policy, the only difference is what the government has mandated must be covered is added. And there was no problem with our insurance before then. Everyone's insurance is going up. You appear to be the exception to the rule."

Not everyone's insurance is going up. I'm amazed the your policy was so poor that it had to be doubled in order to meet the minimum requirements. I'd say you and a big problem waiting to happen. If why you say is accurate, you were severely underinsured.

[ That is how insurance works. It is a shared risk pool. When a claim is paid to you it has always been 'coming out of someone else's pocket'.

"Except I'm talking about subsides, if someone is quoted a $600 policy and gets $300 from the government that $300 is coming from someone else. The government doesn't just print money (well, maybe they do). It's not about shared risk, it's about the makers subsidizing the takers. The Greedy "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" crowd that wants' someone else to pay for them.

It's not about the risk pool. It's about subsidies. Two different things."

So who paid for those folks hospital stays and other health care costs before? You and I did. Society will pay those costs one way or another. Wouldn't it be better for those folks to have access to care, to be healthier and have an improved quality of life? Instead of waiting until they are so sick they can't function? If this works, and I think it will, our overall health care system will improve, our general health as a society will improve, and overall costs will go down across the board.

Pretending those costs are not there isn't a solution.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ACA could ahve been better if we had not followed to the letter the idiot Romney's program, but that was politics.
______________________

So what you're saying is that ACA has many, many problems, and they are the result of Obama copying Romney's program? So Obama's signature program is not a good one, and it's the other side's fault?

I guess the previous thread about lying hucksters was correct.

There's just no shame, none at all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what you're saying is that ACA has many, many problems, and they are the result of Obama copying Romney's program? So Obama's signature program is not a good one, and it's the other side's fault?
_____________________

Not only that, they are admitting to their heroes being too dumb to fix any of the problems within Romney's program(btw if I call it RomenyCare is that the same as saying friggin honkey?)
Print the post Back To Top