Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Yes yes. This is what the republicans were insisting on the whole time…lol! You maga types have no credibility. You did everything to stop or sabotage the ACA but did nothing and offered no alternatives.

Every republican I know over 50 is on ACA. Small businesses owners to consultant. They are getting hammered!

First, arguing that you can’t support the dissolution of a failed piece of policy because some republicans use it is just arguing in bad faith.

Second, democrats never allowed republicans into the room when they were writing Obamacare. It was passed on party lines, and as Pelosi herself said when pressed why Obamacare was being rammed down Americans’ throats with zero participation from the Republican Party, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” (https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2010/03/19/whats-in-the-bill-read-it-and-weep/). You can’t blame republicans for the failure that Obamacare has became.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The subsidies are primarily people making over 100k. Four times the federal poverty level was the original limit, that was eliminated under Biden's 'temporary' expansion.

A few things.

Why is someone making 2X, 3X, 4X the federal poverty level getting subsidies? You are either in poverty or you aren't. That's just playing games with the system. It's shifting cost from one group of people to another. Time to end that.

I WANT people to feel the full brunt of not having subsidies.

There's an attempt to mask the true cost of services. That's a disservice to the payer, the taker, the maker, the provider, the insurer, and everyone involved. Market signals need to be accurate so that people can see the true costs of policy and who is getting their ox gored. That includes the patient paying $37 for an aspirin so another person can walk away without paying anything.

Finally, the payer of the bill through income taxes, FICA, etc, have less disposable income for everything else. So other industries suffer because health care costs are consuming everything. It's a big hit on our economy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The subsidies are primarily people making over 100k. Four times the federal poverty level was the original limit, that was eliminated under Biden's 'temporary' expansion.

A few things.

Why is someone making 2X, 3X, 4X the federal poverty level getting subsidies? You are either in poverty or you aren't. That's just playing games with the system. It's shifting cost from one group of people to another. Time to end that.

I WANT people to feel the full brunt of not having subsidies.

There's an attempt to mask the true cost of services. That's a disservice to the payer, the taker, the maker, the provider, the insurer, and everyone involved. Market signals need to be accurate so that people can see the true costs of policy and who is getting their ox gored. That includes the patient paying $37 for an aspirin so another person can walk away without paying anything.

Finally, the payer of the bill through income taxes, FICA, etc, have less disposable income for everything else. So other industries suffer because health care costs are consuming everything. It's a big hit on our economy.

Anonymous wrote:The subsidies are primarily people making over 100k. Four times the federal poverty level was the original limit, that was eliminated under Biden's 'temporary' expansion.

Anonymous wrote:The subsidies are primarily people making over 100k. Four times the federal poverty level was the original limit, that was eliminated under Biden's 'temporary' expansion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Yes yes. This is what the republicans were insisting on the whole time…lol! You maga types have no credibility. You did everything to stop or sabotage the ACA but did nothing and offered no alternatives.

Every republican I know over 50 is on ACA. Small businesses owners to consultant. They are getting hammered!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.