ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

^^^


And the healthcare costs and premiums were rising before the ACA. The ACA actually curbed those cost increases. Why people are complaining about that is beyond me, unless it is because they believe the rhetoric they are getting from Fox and the Koch brothers.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sounds like you should get a better job with better insurance.

NB: This is the line that I was told most of my life when I pointed out that, due to my preexisting condition, I was completely uninsurable on the open market. Not that it was more expensive, not that I didn't want the high deductibles. Uninsurable. So ACA allows me to actually have insurance if I should lose my job (or want to start my own business or be a SAHM or whatever)

Just to be clear, you think it's more important that insurance is cheap, than that people are actually able to get insurance.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP.. the new bill will cause states to cut subsidies to middle class. Right now, some lower middle class do get subsidies. It also would cut subsidies to most states. WV, for example, would see a decrease in subsidies of $1bil over six years. Honestly, I can't see how WV senators would vote for this. They want a decrease in their subsidies?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-states-hit-gop-health-bill-49977625

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP seems to forget that we've already been through this drill 50 times over the last 7 years.

OP here. This time feels different than the last 2. I don't count the other when Rs knew Obama would veto.

Why? If I'm not mistaken they've also attempted several repeal votes since Obama's been gone.

Because McCain is close to Graham and will vote for it this time.

And AZ gov supports. This time is different.

But Rand Paul is opposing the bill. Is he going to change his mind?

He's voted along party lines last two repeal efforts after saying he didn't support.

He'll vote yes. He's a showboat.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

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.)

Funny you attack Liberals. Liberals want single payer, healthcare as a right for all Americans. An end to accessing healthcare though private insurance companies.

[Anonymous]

The ACA will bankrupt the nation

[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.)

Funny you attack Liberals. Liberals want single payer, healthcare as a right for all Americans. An end to accessing healthcare though private insurance companies.

I attacked the sanctimonious liberal PP who made a big issue over how SHE cares about people and SHE is willing to pay more, and with the clueless statement that the struggling lower-middle class can afford to pay more, too. I can't stand that holier-than-thou (and completely out-of-touch) attitude.

[Anonymous]

Do you know why the ACA will bankrupt the nation? Lifestyle choices,. Heroin abuse. Surgical endocarditis for heroine abuses. Obesity. Type iI diabetes. Non compliance. Entitlement. Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

ACA will bankrupt the nation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A number of countries skimp on defense knowing that we will fill in for them if necessary. That way they have more to spend on health and welfare.

So wouldn't "America First" suggest that we use some of that money to take care of the quality of life and general welfare of US citizens?

Stop making sense, we don't do that in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Funny you attack Liberals. Liberals want single payer, healthcare as a right for all Americans. An end to accessing healthcare though private insurance companies.

I attacked the sanctimonious liberal PP who made a big issue over how SHE cares about people and SHE is willing to pay more, and with the clueless statement that the struggling lower-middle class can afford to pay more, too. I can't stand that holier-than-thou (and completely out-of-touch) attitude.

+1. It is a common theme on this board, and inherent in the DC area mentality. That's a big part of why I moved from there.

[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.)

Funny you attack Liberals. Liberals want single payer, healthcare as a right for all Americans. An end to accessing healthcare though private insurance companies.

DP. Depends who counts as a liberal. Most Democratic politicians have not come out for single payer. (That may be starting to change.) Obama when president was not in favor of single payer.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ACA will bankrupt the nation

No, the useless insurance companies and for-profit health care industry, big pharma, politicians, Kochs, hedge funders, and all the other lowlife vampire squids profiting off people's illness, pregnancy or aging will bankrupt the nation.

Campaign finance reform should be something Rs and Ds can get behind.