ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Rand Paul is against it, so am I.

He is the only one who gets health care.

So you are in a fully Congressionally covered plan? Not many of us are so lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My health insurance has increased $3750 under OBama.

THanks liberals.

It would have increased even more without the ACA.

Hardly. The rate of increase has almost doubled since the ACA. Ir was going up around 15% a year! and now it's going up by 25%. And with worse coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's only legacy is the ACA which is why he is so vocal about keeping it intact and not seeing it repealed. Absent the ACA he would be remembered as the first black president and that is about it.

The goal with ACA was laudable but Obama's greatest failing was that he would come up with half-baked solutions to significant issues - which is what ACA is in the form that it was passed - and then leave it to others to fix when it began to fall apart. He did it with ACA and he did it with DACA where he signed an EO to offer temporary respite to 800K young people in the country illegally and left it to others to fix when the $hit hit the fan.

In both instances he feigns indignation when the "fix" that he wants is one that is not palatable to the successor administration. The reality is that if he wanted something that was more enduring he should have crafted it that way in the first place. ACA was passed entirely by Democrats when they had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate and a sizable majority in the House. They squarely are to blame for coming up with a flawed piece of legislation that was bound to fall apart.

No, those most vocal about it being repealed are the ones engaging in partisanship. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS, YOU DO. Or rather, those pulling your strings do:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network-piggy-banks-closed-republicans-healthcare-tax-reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

Don't act like you care one bit about whether anyone is exposed to financial ruin. If you did, you wouldn't be seeking to remove federal protections on lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions. Yes, let's leave it up to the states to decide who or what is covered. I trust the states. I mean, it's not like half of them decided to secede from the union solely to preserve human bondage. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

Don't act like you care one bit about whether anyone is exposed to financial ruin. If you did, you wouldn't be seeking to remove federal protections on lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions. Yes, let's leave it up to the states to decide who or what is covered. I trust the states. I mean, it's not like half of them decided to secede from the union solely to preserve human bondage. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

The point is that the ACA doesn't provide lifetime caps now....not really.

[Anonymous]

Republicans tearing down the health insurance coverage for millions of people just to spite Obama will go down as one of the most shameful episodes of this era. (Well, it does have a lot of competition with Trump's push to destroy the environment and education and world peace, but it's up there.)

Seriously, if you wondered whether Republican politicians had souls before this, now you should be completely assured that indeed they do not. Even if you feel that the ACA is flawed (yes, we can agree that it could be improved) for most Americans it has proven to be a better situation than the system in place before, and for most Americans what the Republicans are "replacing" it with will be much worse.

You just wait until your cancer treatments or other medical emergency care are refused coverage and you find yourself with $300k in medical bills. And don't think it won't happen. It happened before.

All those healthy people chortling that they no longer have to pay for maternity coverage are going to get a sticker shock when it turns out they unexpectedly get a pre-existing condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

If Obama would have had the ability to get any health insurance legislation through Congress that he wanted without Republicans resisting it, what do you think he would have done? Honest answer, please.

[Anonymous]

Headline from The Onion:

GOP Leaders Confident They’ll Have Cruelty Necessary To Pass Healthcare Bill
WASHINGTON—Increasingly optimistic that the callousness they required would be locked down by the September 30 deadline, GOP leaders were confident Wednesday that they will have the cruelty necessary to pass their new healthcare bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

Don't act like you care one bit about whether anyone is exposed to financial ruin. If you did, you wouldn't be seeking to remove federal protections on lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions. Yes, let's leave it up to the states to decide who or what is covered. I trust the states. I mean, it's not like half of them decided to secede from the union solely to preserve human bondage. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

The point is that the ACA doesn't provide lifetime caps now....not really.

Can you give me a concrete example of a condition for which there is no in-network provider? How many are affected by this hole? In my personal experience, the OON specialists visits may not be covered, but often the treatment these specialists recommend or provide is covered. For instance an MS specialist doesn't take any insurance for office visits (not in any network). But also charges a reasonable fee that wouldn't bankrupt someone unless they were there daily, which is not very likely; even monthly would be affordable. But all the treatment said specialist provides, including the $60,000/year worth of medication, 2-3 MRI's/year, 2-3 blood panels per year, is considered "in-network" and is covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's only legacy is the ACA which is why he is so vocal about keeping it intact and not seeing it repealed. Absent the ACA he would be remembered as the first black president and that is about it.

The goal with ACA was laudable but Obama's greatest failing was that he would come up with half-baked solutions to significant issues - which is what ACA is in the form that it was passed - and then leave it to others to fix when it began to fall apart. He did it with ACA and he did it with DACA where he signed an EO to offer temporary respite to 800K young people in the country illegally and left it to others to fix when the $hit hit the fan.

In both instances he feigns indignation when the "fix" that he wants is one that is not palatable to the successor administration. The reality is that if he wanted something that was more enduring he should have crafted it that way in the first place. ACA was passed entirely by Democrats when they had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate and a sizable majority in the House. They squarely are to blame for coming up with a flawed piece of legislation that was bound to fall apart.

This is a good analysis. Ironically, if he had been less obsessed with compromise and moderation, he could have gotten single payer enacted. That would have been a legacy that stuck (as pretty much all entitlements do). His own desire to please his corporate masters ended up screwing him in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's only legacy is the ACA which is why he is so vocal about keeping it intact and not seeing it repealed. Absent the ACA he would be remembered as the first black president and that is about it.

The goal with ACA was laudable but Obama's greatest failing was that he would come up with half-baked solutions to significant issues - which is what ACA is in the form that it was passed - and then leave it to others to fix when it began to fall apart. He did it with ACA and he did it with DACA where he signed an EO to offer temporary respite to 800K young people in the country illegally and left it to others to fix when the $hit hit the fan.

In both instances he feigns indignation when the "fix" that he wants is one that is not palatable to the successor administration. The reality is that if he wanted something that was more enduring he should have crafted it that way in the first place. ACA was passed entirely by Democrats when they had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate and a sizable majority in the House. They squarely are to blame for coming up with a flawed piece of legislation that was bound to fall apart.

He didn't leave it to others to fix. The democrats and Obama had all sorts of fixes that the GOP refused to bring to a vote. It is incredibly disingenuous not to acknowledge that.

Why would anyone think Republicans would vote in favor of supposed fixes to the ACA when they wouldn't vote for the ACA in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Changes/fixes to ACA

http://galen.org/2016/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

Right wing organization, not non-partisan.

So? (Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.) It's all true.

One little-known change Obama allowed was to remove the cap on out-of-network expenses. So if you develop a condition for which there is no Network specialist, you will be totally exposed to financial ruin EVEN when your policy provides OON benefits. This was another secret gimme from Obama to the insurers.

Don't act like you care one bit about whether anyone is exposed to financial ruin. If you did, you wouldn't be seeking to remove federal protections on lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions. Yes, let's leave it up to the states to decide who or what is covered. I trust the states. I mean, it's not like half of them decided to secede from the union solely to preserve human bondage. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

The point is that the ACA doesn't provide lifetime caps now....not really.

So fix that. Why would it be difficult to amend the ACA to fix it, if that is what the Republicans want? I'm sure the Democrats would go along with it, so what's their excuse for not fixing the things in the ACA they don't like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's only legacy is the ACA which is why he is so vocal about keeping it intact and not seeing it repealed. Absent the ACA he would be remembered as the first black president and that is about it.

The goal with ACA was laudable but Obama's greatest failing was that he would come up with half-baked solutions to significant issues - which is what ACA is in the form that it was passed - and then leave it to others to fix when it began to fall apart. He did it with ACA and he did it with DACA where he signed an EO to offer temporary respite to 800K young people in the country illegally and left it to others to fix when the $hit hit the fan.

In both instances he feigns indignation when the "fix" that he wants is one that is not palatable to the successor administration. The reality is that if he wanted something that was more enduring he should have crafted it that way in the first place. ACA was passed entirely by Democrats when they had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate and a sizable majority in the House. They squarely are to blame for coming up with a flawed piece of legislation that was bound to fall apart.

He didn't leave it to others to fix. The democrats and Obama had all sorts of fixes that the GOP refused to bring to a vote. It is incredibly disingenuous not to acknowledge that.

Why would anyone think Republicans would vote in favor of supposed fixes to the ACA when they wouldn't vote for the ACA in the first place?

Why would anything think Republicans would vote in favor of anything that actually helps Americans rather than their bank accounts?