Affordable Care Act in jeopardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the ACA gets shut down. My premiums have been continuously rising to pay for all the subsidized people that are using it. Meanwhile I went for a yearly physical exam and my premiums have more than doubled in the past year. Thankfully this was my last month using a plan on the exchange.

It's a good thing we have the ACA or your premiums would be even higher

For some people (the sick, those not paying federal taxes) that may be true. For most, including the healthy and the taxpayers, nope -- the actual cost for them is now higher.

This is true, but then, if you are saying that we shouldn't help pay for the sick and the not poor enough for medicare people, then are you saying to them "too bad for you.. you're just sol"?

Let's play this out: a middle income person who can't afford good healthcare (since ACA is no longer available) get sick. Now this person either goes on medicare or ends up in the ER and can't pay. Who ends up paying? The taxpayer.

Either way, taxpayers end up footing the bill. I'd rather have people healthier, able to go see the dr. fore preventative care, and be contributing members of society.

The argument that the taxpayer pays for the non payers, or even other premium payers, was, and still is, bogus. FYI, the total before ACA was about 3% of the total health care spending. 3% is nothing and easily absorbed when you consider the amount of money spent and the fact the majority of it was in hospitals.

So far I have as yet seen the total of premium tax credits paid and haven't seen a total for government subsidized benefits for those who qualify.

And that middle income example you gave, no Medicare for them. The might qualify for Medicaid though.

Middle income people don't qualify for Medicaid! Don't you know that Medicaid is for POOR people, not middle income people? Your income needs to be below $16k or. $18k (or around there). I'm talking about MODERATE earners - ones who earn too much to have other people subsidize their plans) but not so much that they can afford expensive premiums with high deductibles.

And OF COURSE other taxpayers are indirectly paying for the people getting free or nearly free insurance via their more expensive plans that don't pay for anything. All Obamacare did was shift the burden around.

Ok, well, before the internet that kind of ignorance of the facts would be acceptable. The facts you give on Medicaid are wrong. The scenario you set up for moderate earners is wrong. And your last statement was, as a whole, wrong.

As to how it does work that will vary depending on whether a state expanded Medicaid.

As to the premium tax credit, moderate earners are getting the lions share. However, the APTC is somewhat complicated and dependent on household makeup etc.

Here, play with this calculator and you can see examples of how it works. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

And where the taxpayers are paying the bill isn't for the uninsured unpaid bills, that's trivial, it's the cost of Medicaid. Which is the ONLY aspect of ACA that is working well.

And you call ME ignorant? You are so wrong on so many aspects that I don't know where to start.

First, you think the middle income earner I used as an example might qualify for Medicaid? Sure, some states expanded it, but in no circumstances does someone even twice the poverty line qualify. Sure, many DCUMers who make so much money think a moderate earner is poor, but a single who makes $50 or $60k - the example I give and to which you suggested Medicsid as a possibility - makes too much for a taxpayer subsidy. (Anything over $47k, and you're too "rich." For any assistance.) You think because she's too rich for a taxpayer subsidy that she might qualify for Medicaid? People do not understand this program at all.

And taxpayers aren't paying the bill for the low-income people who get free or nearly free insurance? Who do you think is paying for it? The poor people who don't pay any taxes? The insurance companies who just "give" low-cost or free policies away? Of course, taxpayers are paying for it in the form of astronomical premiums and tripled premiums. Beyond that, the government has a system in place to compensate the insurance companies in the exchange. (When the government pays for something, it's the taxpayers that are actually paying.)

(And I don't need to okay around with the calculator you supplied. I know exactly how the tax credits work.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the ACA gets shut down. My premiums have been continuously rising to pay for all the subsidized people that are using it. Meanwhile I went for a yearly physical exam and my premiums have more than doubled in the past year. Thankfully this was my last month using a plan on the exchange.

It's a good thing we have the ACA or your premiums would be even higher

For some people (the sick, those not paying federal taxes) that may be true. For most, including the healthy and the taxpayers, nope -- the actual cost for them is now higher.

This is true, but then, if you are saying that we shouldn't help pay for the sick and the not poor enough for medicare people, then are you saying to them "too bad for you.. you're just sol"?

Let's play this out: a middle income person who can't afford good healthcare (since ACA is no longer available) get sick. Now this person either goes on medicare or ends up in the ER and can't pay. Who ends up paying? The taxpayer.

Either way, taxpayers end up footing the bill. I'd rather have people healthier, able to go see the dr. fore preventative care, and be contributing members of society.

The argument that the taxpayer pays for the non payers, or even other premium payers, was, and still is, bogus. FYI, the total before ACA was about 3% of the total health care spending. 3% is nothing and easily absorbed when you consider the amount of money spent and the fact the majority of it was in hospitals.

So far I have as yet seen the total of premium tax credits paid and haven't seen a total for government subsidized benefits for those who qualify.

And that middle income example you gave, no Medicare for them. The might qualify for Medicaid though.

Middle income people don't qualify for Medicaid! Don't you know that Medicaid is for POOR people, not middle income people? Your income needs to be below $16k or. $18k (or around there). I'm talking about MODERATE earners - ones who earn too much to have other people subsidize their plans) but not so much that they can afford expensive premiums with high deductibles.

And OF COURSE other taxpayers are indirectly paying for the people getting free or nearly free insurance via their more expensive plans that don't pay for anything. All Obamacare did was shift the burden around.

Ok, well, before the internet that kind of ignorance of the facts would be acceptable. The facts you give on Medicaid are wrong. The scenario you set up for moderate earners is wrong. And your last statement was, as a whole, wrong.

As to how it does work that will vary depending on whether a state expanded Medicaid.

As to the premium tax credit, moderate earners are getting the lions share. However, the APTC is somewhat complicated and dependent on household makeup etc.

Here, play with this calculator and you can see examples of how it works. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

And where the taxpayers are paying the bill isn't for the uninsured unpaid bills, that's trivial, it's the cost of Medicaid. Which is the ONLY aspect of ACA that is working well.

And you call ME ignorant? You are so wrong on so many aspects that I don't know where to start.

First, you think the middle income earner I used as an example might qualify for Medicaid? Sure, some states expanded it, but in no circumstances does someone even twice the poverty line qualify. Sure, many DCUMers who make so much money think a moderate earner is poor, but a single who makes $50 or $60k - the example I give and to which you suggested Medicsid as a possibility - makes too much for a taxpayer subsidy. (Anything over $47k, and you're too "rich." For any assistance.) You think because she's too rich for a taxpayer subsidy that she might qualify for Medicaid? People do not understand this program at all.

And taxpayers aren't paying the bill for the low-income people who get free or nearly free insurance? Who do you think is paying for it? The poor people who don't pay any taxes? The insurance companies who just "give" low-cost or free policies away? Of course, taxpayers are paying for it in the form of astronomical premiums and tripled premiums. Beyond that, the government has a system in place to compensate the insurance companies in the exchange. (When the government pays for something, it's the taxpayers that are actually paying.)

(And I don't need to okay around with the calculator you supplied. I know exactly how the tax credits work.)

It's kind of comical how you change what I said then answer your own statement.

You didn't give an example of a single earner making that kind of money and you estimated an amount that for a single taxpayer in an expanded state would be correct at the low figure. It's 16,242 or below to qualify. So why did you say 16 to 18 if you are so aware of the facts. I gave you a link so you could see how and when individuals and families qualify for Medicaid and the tax credit.

As for understanding the program, I have been working with it daily since the beginning.

You are all over the board with inaccurate information and suppositions it would take to long to correct, plus you have a closed mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the ACA gets shut down. My premiums have been continuously rising to pay for all the subsidized people that are using it. Meanwhile I went for a yearly physical exam and my premiums have more than doubled in the past year. Thankfully this was my last month using a plan on the exchange.

It's a good thing we have the ACA or your premiums would be even higher

For some people (the sick, those not paying federal taxes) that may be true. For most, including the healthy and the taxpayers, nope -- the actual cost for them is now higher.

This is true, but then, if you are saying that we shouldn't help pay for the sick and the not poor enough for medicare people, then are you saying to them "too bad for you.. you're just sol"?

Let's play this out: a middle income person who can't afford good healthcare (since ACA is no longer available) get sick. Now this person either goes on medicare or ends up in the ER and can't pay. Who ends up paying? The taxpayer.

Either way, taxpayers end up footing the bill. I'd rather have people healthier, able to go see the dr. fore preventative care, and be contributing members of society.

The argument that the taxpayer pays for the non payers, or even other premium payers, was, and still is, bogus. FYI, the total before ACA was about 3% of the total health care spending. 3% is nothing and easily absorbed when you consider the amount of money spent and the fact the majority of it was in hospitals.

So far I have as yet seen the total of premium tax credits paid and haven't seen a total for government subsidized benefits for those who qualify.

And that middle income example you gave, no Medicare for them. The might qualify for Medicaid though.

Middle income people don't qualify for Medicaid! Don't you know that Medicaid is for POOR people, not middle income people? Your income needs to be below $16k or. $18k (or around there). I'm talking about MODERATE earners - ones who earn too much to have other people subsidize their plans) but not so much that they can afford expensive premiums with high deductibles.

And OF COURSE other taxpayers are indirectly paying for the people getting free or nearly free insurance via their more expensive plans that don't pay for anything. All Obamacare did was shift the burden around.

Ok, well, before the internet that kind of ignorance of the facts would be acceptable. The facts you give on Medicaid are wrong. The scenario you set up for moderate earners is wrong. And your last statement was, as a whole, wrong.

As to how it does work that will vary depending on whether a state expanded Medicaid.

As to the premium tax credit, moderate earners are getting the lions share. However, the APTC is somewhat complicated and dependent on household makeup etc.

Here, play with this calculator and you can see examples of how it works. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

And where the taxpayers are paying the bill isn't for the uninsured unpaid bills, that's trivial, it's the cost of Medicaid. Which is the ONLY aspect of ACA that is working well.

And you call ME ignorant? You are so wrong on so many aspects that I don't know where to start.

First, you think the middle income earner I used as an example might qualify for Medicaid? Sure, some states expanded it, but in no circumstances does someone even twice the poverty line qualify. Sure, many DCUMers who make so much money think a moderate earner is poor, but a single who makes $50 or $60k - the example I give and to which you suggested Medicsid as a possibility - makes too much for a taxpayer subsidy. (Anything over $47k, and you're too "rich." For any assistance.) You think because she's too rich for a taxpayer subsidy that she might qualify for Medicaid? People do not understand this program at all.

And taxpayers aren't paying the bill for the low-income people who get free or nearly free insurance? Who do you think is paying for it? The poor people who don't pay any taxes? The insurance companies who just "give" low-cost or free policies away? Of course, taxpayers are paying for it in the form of astronomical premiums and tripled premiums. Beyond that, the government has a system in place to compensate the insurance companies in the exchange. (When the government pays for something, it's the taxpayers that are actually paying.)

(And I don't need to okay around with the calculator you supplied. I know exactly how the tax credits work.)

It's kind of comical how you change what I said then answer your own statement.

You didn't give an example of a single earner making that kind of money and you estimated an amount that for a single taxpayer in an expanded state would be correct at the low figure. It's 16,242 or below to qualify. So why did you say 16 to 18 if you are so aware of the facts. I gave you a link so you could see how and when individuals and families qualify for Medicaid and the tax credit.

As for understanding the program, I have been working with it daily since the beginning.

You are all over the board with inaccurate information and suppositions it would take to long to correct, plus you have a closed mind.

Perhaps you were originally answering someone else. I was the one who gave the example of a single person earning a moderate income of $50 or $60k, and someone - you it seemed - said that a middle-income person might be able to qualify for Medicaid. I then explained Medicaid was somewhere between $16 and $18k for Medicaid, which is correct - and hardly for the middle income!. (I didn't recall the exact number, but it was between those numbers.) A moderate earner in the income range I gave qualifies neither for Medicaid (obviously), nor a subsidy. Instead, she is stuck paying high premiums with ridiculous deductibles, while other people get highly subsidized plans - including cost-sharing subsidies if they're income is low enough.

I am not all over the board spreading inaccurate information - nor do I have a closed mind. (That's the type if thing liberals accuse people of if they disagree with them.) The fact is that Obamacare made insurance affordable or even free for the low-income, but made it cost prohibitive (or almost useless) for those just over the subsidy cliff. I get so annoyed when liberals keep touting how Obamacare has given insurance to poor people who couldn't afford it previously whole ignoring (or discounting) the fact that middle income earners making around 50 to 60 are much worse off. (Someone else on this board reported that she is a month behind on her insurance because it's become so unaffordable.)I have had to pay every cent out of pocket (other than the preventative checkup) for everything this year because of these high-deductible plans that cost almost as much as my mortgage payment.

[Anonymous]

PP. Just to summarize, if as a single person you're earning less than $47k, you'll get subsidies toward the premium. Low enough, and you'll also get subsidizes to pay for co-pays and deductibles. Lower still, you're on Medicaid. But if you're making just a moderate amount over the subsidy cliff - say $50k or so, you're SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. Just to summarize, if as a single person you're earning less than $47k, you'll get subsidies toward the premium. Low enough, and you'll also get subsidizes to pay for co-pays and deductibles. Lower still, you're on Medicaid. But if you're making just a moderate amount over the subsidy cliff - say $50k or so, you're SOL.

That is the whole purpose of the government policy -- to destroy a middle class. You don't want to make more than a certain amount of money. Stay poor, and your kids will get a financial aid to Ivys too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the ACA gets shut down. My premiums have been continuously rising to pay for all the subsidized people that are using it. Meanwhile I went for a yearly physical exam and my premiums have more than doubled in the past year. Thankfully this was my last month using a plan on the exchange.

It's a good thing we have the ACA or your premiums would be even higher

For some people (the sick, those not paying federal taxes) that may be true. For most, including the healthy and the taxpayers, nope -- the actual cost for them is now higher.

This is true, but then, if you are saying that we shouldn't help pay for the sick and the not poor enough for medicare people, then are you saying to them "too bad for you.. you're just sol"?

Let's play this out: a middle income person who can't afford good healthcare (since ACA is no longer available) get sick. Now this person either goes on medicare or ends up in the ER and can't pay. Who ends up paying? The taxpayer.

Either way, taxpayers end up footing the bill. I'd rather have people healthier, able to go see the dr. fore preventative care, and be contributing members of society.

The argument that the taxpayer pays for the non payers, or even other premium payers, was, and still is, bogus. FYI, the total before ACA was about 3% of the total health care spending. 3% is nothing and easily absorbed when you consider the amount of money spent and the fact the majority of it was in hospitals.

So far I have as yet seen the total of premium tax credits paid and haven't seen a total for government subsidized benefits for those who qualify.

And that middle income example you gave, no Medicare for them. The might qualify for Medicaid though.

Middle income people don't qualify for Medicaid! Don't you know that Medicaid is for POOR people, not middle income people? Your income needs to be below $16k or. $18k (or around there). I'm talking about MODERATE earners - ones who earn too much to have other people subsidize their plans) but not so much that they can afford expensive premiums with high deductibles.

And OF COURSE other taxpayers are indirectly paying for the people getting free or nearly free insurance via their more expensive plans that don't pay for anything. All Obamacare did was shift the burden around.

Ok, well, before the internet that kind of ignorance of the facts would be acceptable. The facts you give on Medicaid are wrong. The scenario you set up for moderate earners is wrong. And your last statement was, as a whole, wrong.

As to how it does work that will vary depending on whether a state expanded Medicaid.

As to the premium tax credit, moderate earners are getting the lions share. However, the APTC is somewhat complicated and dependent on household makeup etc.

Here, play with this calculator and you can see examples of how it works. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

And where the taxpayers are paying the bill isn't for the uninsured unpaid bills, that's trivial, it's the cost of Medicaid. Which is the ONLY aspect of ACA that is working well.

And you call ME ignorant? You are so wrong on so many aspects that I don't know where to start.

First, you think the middle income earner I used as an example might qualify for Medicaid? Sure, some states expanded it, but in no circumstances does someone even twice the poverty line qualify. Sure, many DCUMers who make so much money think a moderate earner is poor, but a single who makes $50 or $60k - the example I give and to which you suggested Medicsid as a possibility - makes too much for a taxpayer subsidy. (Anything over $47k, and you're too "rich." For any assistance.) You think because she's too rich for a taxpayer subsidy that she might qualify for Medicaid? People do not understand this program at all.

And taxpayers aren't paying the bill for the low-income people who get free or nearly free insurance? Who do you think is paying for it? The poor people who don't pay any taxes? The insurance companies who just "give" low-cost or free policies away? Of course, taxpayers are paying for it in the form of astronomical premiums and tripled premiums. Beyond that, the government has a system in place to compensate the insurance companies in the exchange. (When the government pays for something, it's the taxpayers that are actually paying.)

(And I don't need to okay around with the calculator you supplied. I know exactly how the tax credits work.)

It's kind of comical how you change what I said then answer your own statement.

You didn't give an example of a single earner making that kind of money and you estimated an amount that for a single taxpayer in an expanded state would be correct at the low figure. It's 16,242 or below to qualify. So why did you say 16 to 18 if you are so aware of the facts. I gave you a link so you could see how and when individuals and families qualify for Medicaid and the tax credit.

As for understanding the program, I have been working with it daily since the beginning.

You are all over the board with inaccurate information and suppositions it would take to long to correct, plus you have a closed mind.

Perhaps you were originally answering someone else. I was the one who gave the example of a single person earning a moderate income of $50 or $60k, and someone - you it seemed - said that a middle-income person might be able to qualify for Medicaid. I then explained Medicaid was somewhere between $16 and $18k for Medicaid, which is correct - and hardly for the middle income!. (I didn't recall the exact number, but it was between those numbers.) A moderate earner in the income range I gave qualifies neither for Medicaid (obviously), nor a subsidy. Instead, she is stuck paying high premiums with ridiculous deductibles, while other people get highly subsidized plans - including cost-sharing subsidies if they're income is low enough.

I am not all over the board spreading inaccurate information - nor do I have a closed mind. (That's the type if thing liberals accuse people of if they disagree with them.) The fact is that Obamacare made insurance affordable or even free for the low-income, but made it cost prohibitive (or almost useless) for those just over the subsidy cliff. I get so annoyed when liberals keep touting how Obamacare has given insurance to poor people who couldn't afford it previously whole ignoring (or discounting) the fact that middle income earners making around 50 to 60 are much worse off. (Someone else on this board reported that she is a month behind on her insurance because it's become so unaffordable.)I have had to pay every cent out of pocket (other than the preventative checkup) for everything this year because of these high-deductible plans that cost almost as much as my mortgage payment.

The only thing I was responding to was the comments made that included the 16 to 18k and not anything before.

It's true that a single person making 50 to 60 is not going to get any tax credits.

It's also true that each state is different so plans and premiums aren't comparable.

As for me and my wife, we have seen the premium rise from the plan we had through the exchange with a co-op which cost 765 a month to a plan with much higher deductible and no first dollar coverage at a premium over 1,200. A 67% increase in 2 years. If we are lucky we will only get hit with an additional 20% next year. Has ACA played a part in the rising premiums? Yep, sure has. However, they are not higher because those with low incomes aren't paying the same premiums. The insurance companies are being reimbursed by the federal government for the premium reduction by virtue of the tax credits and for the enhanced benefits. The tax payers are essentially paying for that but only to the portion that isn't being funded by ACA implemented fees, tax fines etc. which aren't going so well. How much? Don't know as the numbers aren't in yet. But, it is going to get worse, a bigger shortfall, as a bi-partisan group in Congress is killing the so called Cadillac tax. That was to be a big revenue stream meant to pay for the tax credits, expanded Medicaid and enhanced benefits and isn't going to happen.

I never believed that Cadillac tax was going to produce much revenue. It was a perfect opportunity for corps to reduce benefits, and their out of pocket costs, blaming punitive action by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. Just to summarize, if as a single person you're earning less than $47k, you'll get subsidies toward the premium. Low enough, and you'll also get subsidizes to pay for co-pays and deductibles. Lower still, you're on Medicaid. But if you're making just a moderate amount over the subsidy cliff - say $50k or so, you're SOL.

That is the whole purpose of the government policy -- to destroy a middle class. You don't want to make more than a certain amount of money. Stay poor, and your kids will get a financial aid to Ivys too.

No financial aid from the government is going to be enough to go to an Ivy League school. Community college? Sure but more likely will need a little more depending on where it is etc. State supported university? It helps pay part of it but you will need student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

True, but compare where it is today and where it was 30 years ago. They have made significant progress while we are stagnant, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

True, but compare where it is today and where it was 30 years ago. They have made significant progress while we are stagnant, at best.

Those aren't examples of government efficiently administering anything. And I was much more interesting in our own country and an example there since it is OUR government that would be managing, not someone from Singapore.

As for Canada. I personally know some who moved to the U.S. after retirement and a prime reason was healthcare availability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

True, but compare where it is today and where it was 30 years ago. They have made significant progress while we are stagnant, at best.

Those aren't examples of government efficiently administering anything. And I was much more interesting in our own country and an example there since it is OUR government that would be managing, not someone from Singapore.

As for Canada. I personally know some who moved to the U.S. after retirement and a prime reason was healthcare availability.

Sure Europe's health care is efficient. They live longer than we do, and they pay half as much. Better outcome at less cost is the definition of efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

True, but compare where it is today and where it was 30 years ago. They have made significant progress while we are stagnant, at best.

Those aren't examples of government efficiently administering anything. And I was much more interesting in our own country and an example there since it is OUR government that would be managing, not someone from Singapore.

As for Canada. I personally know some who moved to the U.S. after retirement and a prime reason was healthcare availability.

Sure Europe's health care is efficient. They live longer than we do, and they pay half as much. Better outcome at less cost is the definition of efficiency.

Has anyone looked at the actual health of the citizens in all this

When 1/3 of the US is obses of course our healthcare costs are going to be higher than other places. And using the 90/10 rule that 90% of costs are by 10% of the sickest/fattest/dumbest it makes even more sense why US healthcare costs are so high