Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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??

Getting the middle-class and the poor to fight each other while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. It's like that joke where there's a dozen cookies with a rich guy, a middle-class guy, and a poor guy sitting at the table. The wealthy guy takes eleven of them, then points to the last one and whispers to the middle-class guy, "I think he's trying to steal your cookie."

Obama stole 10 cookies from the middle class guy to give 3 to the poor guy and 7 to the rich one.

THIS!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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??

Getting the middle-class and the poor to fight each other while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. It's like that joke where there's a dozen cookies with a rich guy, a middle-class guy, and a poor guy sitting at the table. The wealthy guy takes eleven of them, then points to the last one and whispers to the middle-class guy, "I think he's trying to steal your cookie."

Obama stole 10 cookies from the middle class guy to give 3 to the poor guy and 7 to the rich one.

Anonymous wrote:Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

LOL no we need to reduce the cost by eliminating the middlemen, not more subsidy, You sound like a commie with your subsidy talk. Our healthcare system is 18% of gdp. The rest of the developed world is at 9-11% of gdp. The extra cost is the insurance companies and drug manufacturers making themselves rich. This is almost a 10% drain on our economy and causes huge market inefficiencies. More subsidies just means more money for the bloated insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

I do not understand why anyone- employer or employee would want their work place providing health insurance. It’s not a core business of the majority of business, increases their cost, and is a headache to administer. It forces employees to make choices in their career that they would not make if healthcare was provide outside of your place of employment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is exactly what Obama promised in 2008...and see what happened.

Now a number of Senators with similarly little/ zero experience are giving the same speech...guess what would happen in the real world.

My point: Why isn't there one single tried-and-true Governor among the top 10 Dem candidates for 2020? I could trust him/ her to lead a substantial health reform...but frankly none of the candidates we have now.

At the time, health care costs were supposedly so high because we had so many uninsured people. That wasn't untrue - BUT the rises in insurance costs that had been going on WELL BEFORE ACA suddenly got blamed on ACA and republicans refused to pass all of the measures that were part of it.
And then, when we didn't have as high of uninsured costs, the healthcare industry gave those profits to executives and stock holders instead of lowering costs for everyone else.

Now we have pharmaceutical companies jumping in to the game by raising the cost to exorbitant levels.

People in the US are DYING because of epi pens and insulin. The system is BROKEN.

This is why we need an overhaul of the whole dang system.

Anonymous wrote:
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??

Getting the middle-class and the poor to fight each other while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. It's like that joke where there's a dozen cookies with a rich guy, a middle-class guy, and a poor guy sitting at the table. The wealthy guy takes eleven of them, then points to the last one and whispers to the middle-class guy, "I think he's trying to steal your cookie."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

SO MUCH THIS. Anyone ever wonder about the educational background of most healthcare lobbyists? Hint: none were doctors or received any medical training. And yet, they promote specific agendas. Based on what? Science? Medical best practices? Nope. Based on what will help their employers’ bottom lines. THEY ARE THE SWAMP, and they don’t intend to help any of you. Unless your last name is Sackler.

+2
Medicare for all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is exactly what Obama promised in 2008...and see what happened.

Now a number of Senators with similarly little/ zero experience are giving the same speech...guess what would happen in the real world.

My point: Why isn't there one single tried-and-true Governor among the top 10 Dem candidates for 2020? I could trust him/ her to lead a substantial health reform...but frankly none of the candidates we have now.

Anonymous wrote:We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

SO MUCH THIS. Anyone ever wonder about the educational background of most healthcare lobbyists? Hint: none were doctors or received any medical training. And yet, they promote specific agendas. Based on what? Science? Medical best practices? Nope. Based on what will help their employers’ bottom lines. THEY ARE THE SWAMP, and they don’t intend to help any of you. Unless your last name is Sackler.

Anonymous wrote:We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

We have to bring the costs down. And this starts at the top. No more overpaid execs. No more lobbyists. No more crooked drug companies (ie: Mylan and Purdue.) Period. Only then can we have a serious conversation about this because that is why it’s so damn expensive.

Instead of the middle earner paying a fortune for Obamacare insurance and still having to "space out" treatments, while the low earner on free insurance gets whatever the doctor reommended, why not reverse it:

- People paying the full insurance amount without subsidies will have their insurance plan cover the treatment schedule recommended by their doctor.
- People being subsidized and getting free or practically free insurance will have their insurance plan cover "a treatment schedule" that is spaced out.

Now before the lefties race in saying "no fair.....why should poor people not get the recommended treatment schedule!" - remember, they are not paying for insurance. I'd switch it around and ask why aren't the lefties defending the middle class paying for insurance who are forced to space out their treatments? In order to "even things out," we need to rearrange the subsidy distribution: less free money for those earning $35,000 in order to give at least some relief to those earning $60,000.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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??

+2.

Yes, that is absolutely true! I have had to "spread out" treatments/exams because I couldn't afford them, while the poor person next to me gets the recommended schedule.

The Dems just don't get this. They are so focused on giving more freebies to the low-income that they have disregard for the working guy.....you know, the couple in middle America earning $75,000 between them (which is actually above average) trying to come up with $1200 - $1400 a month or more in premiums.

Trump was right in that we have to scale back the subsidies to the low income. I was in the doctor's office for an exam, which took all of ten minutes, and for which I received a bill of $600. Because of Obama-Don't-Care for the middle income, I had to pay the whole thing. In the meantime, the lower-income person gets away with a $5 co-pay.

We need minimums for anyone above Medicaid:

1) Minimum monthly premium: $100
2) Minimum co-pay at doctor's office: $25
3) Minimum co-pay at ER for a non-ER event: $150

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?

Yup. They are all about "empathy."

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

Except that the statement wasn't inaccurate. As a result of Obamcare, middle-income earners are paying "gold-level" prices for what is essentially a catastrophic plan. NOW I get why Obama disallowed true catastrophic plans under his scheme: if he allowed them, what person would pay the inflated prices for a bronze plan when they could get the same coverage (or lack thereof) with a cheap actual catastrophic plan? Middle earners would have bought that plan, and then the insurance companies couldn't have overinflated their bronze premiums to cover the added expense of the excellent coverage, at $50 a month, that low income got. Obama had to FORCE middle earners to buy the inflated product (which is why he had the penalty in there, in addition to killing the option for a true catastrophic plan).

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?

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??

+2.

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?

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.

What do you mean I would have nothing at all? I would buy insurance that covered me for medical expenses, like I did before Obamacare. So would the millions of others who can no longer afford insurance under the Obamacare redistribution scheme.

And why not address what I said about Ds redistributing money from the middle class to the lower class to such an extreme that the middle class can't afford the $800 month premium and the lower class gets to pay $30? A big problem with Obamacare was that in Obama's desperation to get free or "cell phone" cost equivalent to the lower income, he devised a system that made (or permitted) insurance companies to skyrocket the costs on middle class people.

The entire problem is that TOO MUCH IN THE WAY OF SUBSIDIES were given to low income. Now I know Ds only care about low income, but the fact of the matter is that we just can't afford to let low income people making $35000, $45000 get away with paying $50 for health insurance while shifting the burden onto the middle earners. I know this will enrage all the bleeding-heart liberals, but the low-income will just have to cough up more money. I'd say $100 minimum/month for insurance (unless you're so poor you're on Medicaid) so that middle earners can get some relief from their suffocating insurance bills (on top of having to pay their own medical expenses on top of that).