ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ACA is bankrupting the nation

\

Fixed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Obamacare priced health insurance out of reach for tax-paying middle-income people (who previously could afford care) while providing free care to low-income people, how about for the next three years we give the free care to the middle-income people and no care to the poor. We'll take turns! Then we can switch back again. It's not fair that the poor get free care and moderate earners can't afford it all.

What total BS. Middle class pay more for healthcare, but they can afford it. They may not like their premiums, but they pay them. The poor CAN'T pay them. Period. The poor go without health care, or at least they did before the ACA.

Every single anti ACA poster on this board has whined about how their premiums have risen since Obamacare was passed. So what? So you pay a little more, so what? I'm happy to pay more so poor people get coverage. I can't turn a blind eye to the suffering of my fellow humans, and by paying a little more for health insurance, I'm allowing them to get healthcare, which is humane and right.

Spoken like a sanctimonious liberal who has NO CLUE just how impossible it is for the real middle class (not DCUM middle class) to afford health care under the UACA. am talking about someone who earns less than $50k pre-tax. How is someone like that expected to pay $15,000 -or close to half her take-home - on medical care?

And the poor went without health care before the ACA? Well now we have middle class people who are going without health care AFTER the ACA. But that's the problem with liberals. All the sympathy for the poor, while callously telling the struggling lower-middle class....."you can afford to pay more." NO. They cannot. I personally had to forgo recommended treatment because of the astronomical cost while poor people got it for free.

(Your problem might be that you are thinking of the middle class as those with incomes of $100,000 and up.)

If you are making $50K with kids, you can get a subsidy under ACA. The new bill would probably remove that subsidy.

I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

[Anonymous]

New bill

Red - increase in subsidies; green - decrease

Notice how many R states are green

[Anonymous]

I am sure Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are happy with this.

It looks like a Ted Cruz subsidy package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Blame the GOP who refused for 6 years to bring any patches or fixes to the ACA for vote. The dems have tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New bill

Red - increase in subsidies; green - decrease

Notice how many R states are green

So people in Virginia will get more in the way of subsidies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Blame the GOP who refused for 6 years to bring any patches or fixes to the ACA for vote. The dems have tried.

Patches would have driven th country even further into unsustainable debt. The idea of liberals' fixes is simply to give more money to poorer people, with no concerns that we can't even afford what we have currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Blame the GOP who refused for 6 years to bring any patches or fixes to the ACA for vote. The dems have tried.

DP. Good try but Obama and the Dems own the ACA. This was Obama's baby. This was the legislation he pushed.

[Anonymous]

I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Nor, for a young, single healthy person. Even with a high deductible, the premiums are ridiculous.

The ACA penalizes employed people who work for small companies that do not offer health insurance or the self-employed. Premiums have more than quadrupled in the last few years. And, the deductibles are ridiculous. A high deductible policy used to be quite affordable before the ACA.

These are the people who are paying for the ACA. Those who do not have health insurance policies at work.

When they put in the 26 year old coverage under parents' policy, they cut out a whole lot of the young and healthy. So, it really makes the costs higher for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

The four biggest states to lose out via the state block grants are the most liberal - with major, urban poor areas taking up a huge amount of the current subsidies - California, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Nor, for a young, single healthy person. Even with a high deductible, the premiums are ridiculous.

The ACA penalizes employed people who work for small companies that do not offer health insurance or the self-employed. Premiums have more than quadrupled in the last few years. And, the deductibles are ridiculous. A high deductible policy used to be quite affordable before the ACA.

These are the people who are paying for the ACA. Those who do not have health insurance policies at work.

When they put in the 26 year old coverage under parents' policy, they cut out a whole lot of the young and healthy. So, it really makes the costs higher for everyone else.

Exactly. They said they needed young, healthy people in the insurance pools for them to be sustainable, so what do they do - give the young adults coverage under their parents' policy instead of requiring them to buy their own plans.. They did that to get the young'uns to come out and vote for Obama, even though it destabilized the exchange plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are happy with this.

It looks like a Ted Cruz subsidy package.

? Was that sarcasm? PA, OH, and MI looks like they will be getting a decrease in subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Nor, for a young, single healthy person. Even with a high deductible, the premiums are ridiculous.

The ACA penalizes employed people who work for small companies that do not offer health insurance or the self-employed. Premiums have more than quadrupled in the last few years. And, the deductibles are ridiculous. A high deductible policy used to be quite affordable before the ACA.

These are the people who are paying for the ACA. Those who do not have health insurance policies at work.

When they put in the 26 year old coverage under parents' policy, they cut out a whole lot of the young and healthy. So, it really makes the costs higher for everyone else.

Part of the problem is also the heavy subsidies. When people with low income can get better coverage for free than what is affordable to people on medium level income, the balance is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't the House have to pass this bill too? There are several districts in even Blue states that are R, and it will be interesting to see if they support a bill that may reduce subsidies to their constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm talking about an individual earning $50k whose kids are grown. There is no help for someone like that under the current ACA.

Nor, for a young, single healthy person. Even with a high deductible, the premiums are ridiculous.

The ACA penalizes employed people who work for small companies that do not offer health insurance or the self-employed. Premiums have more than quadrupled in the last few years. And, the deductibles are ridiculous. A high deductible policy used to be quite affordable before the ACA.

These are the people who are paying for the ACA. Those who do not have health insurance policies at work.

When they put in the 26 year old coverage under parents' policy, they cut out a whole lot of the young and healthy. So, it really makes the costs higher for everyone else.

Part of the problem is also the heavy subsidies. When people with low income can get better coverage for free than what is affordable to people on medium level income, the balance is wrong.

Yes, I wrote upthread that despite my high premiums for an ACA plan, I could not follow the recommended schedule of treatment for a condition I have. A woman I know has a mother - who never learned to speak English and never had a job in the 40 years she's lived here - with the same condition, and she gets the treatments, on schedule, and paid for completely.