Reply to Government Shutdown - September, 2025 Editiion

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Government Shutdown - September, 2025 Editiion"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.[/quote]

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do.  We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.[/quote]

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics