How would you feel about losing your company-provided health insurance for "medicare for all"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez can we take the politics out of this for one minute and actually have a conversation here

We need to do 2 things

1. Address the moral hazard problem. There needs to be penalties/consequences for poor health behavior poor diet, smoking, not exercising or rewards (lower premiums) for positive behavior
2. Bring back catastrophic plans

Most people are satisfied with their health insurance. Scrapping a system that over 100 million people are happy with makes absolutely no sense.

You seem to ignore the large gap in between. What then? People get sick even if they live healthy lives?

Catastrophic plans don't address things like getting mammograms, a lumpectomy (benign, which I've had). It doesn't address congenital issues like asthma.

The vast majority of people fall in the large gap you keep ignoring.

Not only do they get sick, they also get hit by buses, bitten by dogs, ride in airplanes with people carrying diseases, etc

Under Obamacare you pay for all that anyway because you have a deductible of at least 5k (unsubsidized)

That's the same as a catastrophic plan except you are paying 30 a month instead of 300

It'd even worse than that - try $800+. That's what you'll pay for the "bargain" bronze plan if you're over 60 - and you'll still have a $6k deductible.

Yup.

A scam.

Now imagine not having ANY insurance and how much you will end up paying if you get sick.

What?? We are talking about how a "bronze" catastrophic coversge plan costs $800 a month under Obamacare - when the market price would otherwise be $50. IOW, Obama caused the price of catastrophic plans to go up in cost 10x so other people who earn even slightly less get a major subsidy. We are not talking about going without insurance at all.

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

As Bill Clinton said, it is crazy.

Correction -- he said it was "the craziest thing in the world"

"Bill Clinton criticized President Barack Obama's signature policy reform Monday while on the stump for his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, calling Obamacare "the craziest thing in the world."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

I miss having a President who actually cares about the middle class.

Why would good ol' Bill say such a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez can we take the politics out of this for one minute and actually have a conversation here

We need to do 2 things

1. Address the moral hazard problem. There needs to be penalties/consequences for poor health behavior poor diet, smoking, not exercising or rewards (lower premiums) for positive behavior
2. Bring back catastrophic plans

Most people are satisfied with their health insurance. Scrapping a system that over 100 million people are happy with makes absolutely no sense.

You seem to ignore the large gap in between. What then? People get sick even if they live healthy lives?

Catastrophic plans don't address things like getting mammograms, a lumpectomy (benign, which I've had). It doesn't address congenital issues like asthma.

The vast majority of people fall in the large gap you keep ignoring.

Not only do they get sick, they also get hit by buses, bitten by dogs, ride in airplanes with people carrying diseases, etc

Under Obamacare you pay for all that anyway because you have a deductible of at least 5k (unsubsidized)

That's the same as a catastrophic plan except you are paying 30 a month instead of 300

It'd even worse than that - try $800+. That's what you'll pay for the "bargain" bronze plan if you're over 60 - and you'll still have a $6k deductible.

Yup.

A scam.

Now imagine not having ANY insurance and how much you will end up paying if you get sick.

What?? We are talking about how a "bronze" catastrophic coversge plan costs $800 a month under Obamacare - when the market price would otherwise be $50. IOW, Obama caused the price of catastrophic plans to go up in cost 10x so other people who earn even slightly less get a major subsidy. We are not talking about going without insurance at all.

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

Why are you lying about the prices?

For a 50 year old single person here are the monthly premium prices for a 2019 Bronze plans:

DC (no subsidy): $463 to $587 (6 options)
DC (with subsidy for income below $48K): $240 to $330 (6 options)

MD (no subsidy): $417 to $453 (3 options)
MD (with subsidy): $182 to $217 (3 options)

What’s VA prices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correction -- he said it was "the craziest thing in the world"

"Bill Clinton criticized President Barack Obama's signature policy reform Monday while on the stump for his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, calling Obamacare "the craziest thing in the world."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

I miss having a President who actually cares about the middle class.

Why would good ol' Bill say such a thing?

Because his wife was running against Obama?

Maybe some of you are too young to remember HRC stumping for universal healthcare when Bill was POTUS, which actually was Bill Clinton's plan, not HRC's. It's very similar to ACA. Lots of Rs complained about her taking up a policy role, and of course, fought against any kind of change alongside the insurance industry. Other Dems during that time came up with their own plans. Not Rs, though. They just fought any change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Other than Romney, I haven't seen any R try to help people get health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez can we take the politics out of this for one minute and actually have a conversation here

We need to do 2 things

1. Address the moral hazard problem. There needs to be penalties/consequences for poor health behavior poor diet, smoking, not exercising or rewards (lower premiums) for positive behavior
2. Bring back catastrophic plans

Most people are satisfied with their health insurance. Scrapping a system that over 100 million people are happy with makes absolutely no sense.

You seem to ignore the large gap in between. What then? People get sick even if they live healthy lives?

Catastrophic plans don't address things like getting mammograms, a lumpectomy (benign, which I've had). It doesn't address congenital issues like asthma.

The vast majority of people fall in the large gap you keep ignoring.

Not only do they get sick, they also get hit by buses, bitten by dogs, ride in airplanes with people carrying diseases, etc

Under Obamacare you pay for all that anyway because you have a deductible of at least 5k (unsubsidized)

That's the same as a catastrophic plan except you are paying 30 a month instead of 300

It'd even worse than that - try $800+. That's what you'll pay for the "bargain" bronze plan if you're over 60 - and you'll still have a $6k deductible.

Yup.

A scam.

Now imagine not having ANY insurance and how much you will end up paying if you get sick.

What?? We are talking about how a "bronze" catastrophic coversge plan costs $800 a month under Obamacare - when the market price would otherwise be $50. IOW, Obama caused the price of catastrophic plans to go up in cost 10x so other people who earn even slightly less get a major subsidy. We are not talking about going without insurance at all.

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

Why are you lying about the prices?

For a 50 year old single person here are the monthly premium prices for a 2019 Bronze plans:

DC (no subsidy): $463 to $587 (6 options)
DC (with subsidy for income below $48K): $240 to $330 (6 options)

MD (no subsidy): $417 to $453 (3 options)
MD (with subsidy): $182 to $217 (3 options)

What’s VA prices?

I'm in MD. We have a bronze plan for four that costs $1200/month, and that's only because spouse and I are over 50. If you are younger, it's cheaper. Of course, the R plan would make it so that older people pay even more than what ACA plan allows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correction -- he said it was "the craziest thing in the world"

"Bill Clinton criticized President Barack Obama's signature policy reform Monday while on the stump for his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, calling Obamacare "the craziest thing in the world."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

I miss having a President who actually cares about the middle class.

Why would good ol' Bill say such a thing?

Because his wife was running against Obama?

Maybe some of you are too young to remember HRC stumping for universal healthcare when Bill was POTUS, which actually was Bill Clinton's plan, not HRC's. It's very similar to ACA. Lots of Rs complained about her taking up a policy role, and of course, fought against any kind of change alongside the insurance industry. Other Dems during that time came up with their own plans. Not Rs, though. They just fought any change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Other than Romney, I haven't seen any R try to help people get health insurance.

Wow, talk about alternative facts.

In 2016 Hillary was running against Obama?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

Ds didn't try to get everyone covered. They tried to get LOWER-income covered, even though premiums on Unsubsidized middle earners would skyrocket to the point they couldn't afford insurance.

And that's why the Ds will lose again. They care about those they see as "downtrodden" - poor people. Illegals, etc., - and a big F-U to the regular middle class working girl or guy. How many times have we heard liberals, when a middle earner (REAL middle earner....not DCUM middle earner) say she can't afford health insurance on her earnings of $50,000, be told to just get a better job? Why don't libs tell the low earners to get a better job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

Yup. They are all about "empathy."

You can have empathy for someone and still point out when they make inaccurate statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

Ds didn't try to get everyone covered. They tried to get LOWER-income covered, even though premiums on Unsubsidized middle earners would skyrocket to the point they couldn't afford insurance.

And that's why the Ds will lose again. They care about those they see as "downtrodden" - poor people. Illegals, etc., - and a big F-U to the regular middle class working girl or guy. How many times have we heard liberals, when a middle earner (REAL middle earner....not DCUM middle earner) say she can't afford health insurance on her earnings of $50,000, be told to just get a better job? Why don't libs tell the low earners to get a better job?

Please take a moment in your rant about "Ds" and tell us how you think the "Rs" would help someone like you. They would not. With the Rs, you would have ...nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

Ds didn't try to get everyone covered. They tried to get LOWER-income covered, even though premiums on Unsubsidized middle earners would skyrocket to the point they couldn't afford insurance.

And that's why the Ds will lose again. They care about those they see as "downtrodden" - poor people. Illegals, etc., - and a big F-U to the regular middle class working girl or guy. How many times have we heard liberals, when a middle earner (REAL middle earner....not DCUM middle earner) say she can't afford health insurance on her earnings of $50,000, be told to just get a better job? Why don't libs tell the low earners to get a better job?

Exactly this.

I hope Dems correct course soon...but I'm afraid it will take a while.

The primaries only exacerbate the extremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez can we take the politics out of this for one minute and actually have a conversation here

We need to do 2 things

1. Address the moral hazard problem. There needs to be penalties/consequences for poor health behavior poor diet, smoking, not exercising or rewards (lower premiums) for positive behavior
2. Bring back catastrophic plans

Most people are satisfied with their health insurance. Scrapping a system that over 100 million people are happy with makes absolutely no sense.

You seem to ignore the large gap in between. What then? People get sick even if they live healthy lives?

Catastrophic plans don't address things like getting mammograms, a lumpectomy (benign, which I've had). It doesn't address congenital issues like asthma.

The vast majority of people fall in the large gap you keep ignoring.

Not only do they get sick, they also get hit by buses, bitten by dogs, ride in airplanes with people carrying diseases, etc

Under Obamacare you pay for all that anyway because you have a deductible of at least 5k (unsubsidized)

That's the same as a catastrophic plan except you are paying 30 a month instead of 300

It'd even worse than that - try $800+. That's what you'll pay for the "bargain" bronze plan if you're over 60 - and you'll still have a $6k deductible.

Yup.

A scam.

Now imagine not having ANY insurance and how much you will end up paying if you get sick.

What?? We are talking about how a "bronze" catastrophic coversge plan costs $800 a month under Obamacare - when the market price would otherwise be $50. IOW, Obama caused the price of catastrophic plans to go up in cost 10x so other people who earn even slightly less get a major subsidy. We are not talking about going without insurance at all.

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

Why are you lying about the prices?

For a 50 year old single person here are the monthly premium prices for a 2019 Bronze plans:

DC (no subsidy): $463 to $587 (6 options)
DC (with subsidy for income below $48K): $240 to $330 (6 options)

MD (no subsidy): $417 to $453 (3 options)
MD (with subsidy): $182 to $217 (3 options)

What’s VA prices?

Why do you accuse people who have information you don't a liar?

And why use a 50-year-old as an example? If you are over 60, you will pay more than $800 for an INDIVIDUAL (not family) for the cheapest bronze plan with the maximum deductible of about $7,000. If you go up to silver, the deductible drops to around $5,000 (which still means you'll probably still have to pay for all your medical care), but the premium is more than $1.000. As to above that, I didn't even look. I can barely afford the "bare-bones" $800 bronze plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

Ds didn't try to get everyone covered. They tried to get LOWER-income covered, even though premiums on Unsubsidized middle earners would skyrocket to the point they couldn't afford insurance.

And that's why the Ds will lose again. They care about those they see as "downtrodden" - poor people. Illegals, etc., - and a big F-U to the regular middle class working girl or guy. How many times have we heard liberals, when a middle earner (REAL middle earner....not DCUM middle earner) say she can't afford health insurance on her earnings of $50,000, be told to just get a better job? Why don't libs tell the low earners to get a better job?

Exactly this.

I hope Dems correct course soon...but I'm afraid it will take a while.

The primaries only exacerbate the extremes.

What course would you like them to take. What are the Republicans doing that you think is good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

+2. This is the most truth, and it brings me no pleasure to say so. I’m a Dem.

[Anonymous]

https://www.businessinsider.com/pharma-and-healthcare-ceo-compensation-2018-2019-4

This is a big part of what is wrong. And this doesn’t include stock/options. And this only lists a fraction of those getting rich off of healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it fair for someone earning $50k in a DC suburb, just getting by, to have to pay $800 a month for a craoot bronze plan when someone living in Alabama earning $45k, and living comfortably, gets the same subsidized coverage for $100 a month?

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

I sure hope you're not a Democrat, with your ridiculous non sequitur.

What does the form of our representation have to do with the fact that Obama rammed through a plan that made middle-income people pay $800 a month for a catastrophic plan worth $50 a month so that the lower-income people pay $50 or $100 for the same plan? This entire thing was just a redistribute scheme from the straight middle class (earning $50kish) to the lower-middle class (earning $35kish) and the working class ($25k) WHEN MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE EARNING $50K CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANXE FOR THOSE WHO EARN LESS. And that's what OBamacare did.

Next thing you know is that the Dems will have the middle class subsidize the illegals' health insurance. Just watch.

Most Accurate Comment of the Thread.

Thank you

You're welcome.

And did you see the clueless liberal above who,responded by saying...."well, don't buy an ACA plan then." OMG. So I should just go without insurance because the AFFORDABLE (hah) Care Act inflated the premiums on insurance for the middle class to the point it's not affordable?

You don't know what you are talking about. You should read more.

I know more about it than you. I'm LIVING IT. What type of answer is it to say "well don't buy insurance then" when people report how they are being charged an unaffordable premium as a result of the Affordablr Care Act? All,of a sudden you don't care if people can't afford insurance? I bet you didn't tell low-income people who couldn't afford insurance "don't buy it then."

LIberals. sheesh.

DP.. Rs didn't seem to care that millions couldn't afford insurance prior to ACA. Obama tried to get everyone covered. Some Rs refused to expand medicaid in their states.

Look at the red states that adopted the medicaid expansion. Their people are a lot healthier now. You think folks like ones in the article want to get rid of ACA and go back to what we had before?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/04/04/kentucky-medicaid-expansion-leads-more-colon-cancer-screenings/3367111002/

Rural areas benefit most... you know.. the areas that supported Trump. Ironic, no?

https://wfpl.org/study-kentuckys-rural-areas-benefit-most-from-medicaid-expansion/

Ds didn't try to get everyone covered. They tried to get LOWER-income covered, even though premiums on Unsubsidized middle earners would skyrocket to the point they couldn't afford insurance.

And that's why the Ds will lose again. They care about those they see as "downtrodden" - poor people. Illegals, etc., - and a big F-U to the regular middle class working girl or guy. How many times have we heard liberals, when a middle earner (REAL middle earner....not DCUM middle earner) say she can't afford health insurance on her earnings of $50,000, be told to just get a better job? Why don't libs tell the low earners to get a better job?

THIS. Dems: do you care about these middle earners AT ALL!?!! Because these posts are completely correct. Middle earners can not afford health care while the lower class is getting it for FREE. And what do Dems say? Eh, no biggie. The poor now have BETTER health care access (by a lot) than those who are middle class. Do you not see this??