Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with it. My company does it automatically now when you hit 65 and offers a raise and supplemental policy. Everyone is happy with it.

Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for All you will look back and wonder why you raised such a ruckus.

+1

Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for all, free immigration for all, free college for all, no debt for all, free childcare for all, affordable housing for all, and universal income for all, you will look back and wonder why you raised suck a ruckus.

Venezuela.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for All you will look back and wonder why you raised such a ruckus.

+1

Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for all, free immigration for all, free college for all, no debt for all, free childcare for all, affordable housing for all, and universal income for all, you will look back and wonder why you raised suck a ruckus.

Venezuela.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for All you will look back and wonder why you raised such a ruckus.

+1

Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for all, free immigration for all, free college for all, no debt for all, free childcare for all, affordable housing for all, and universal income for all, you will look back and wonder why you raised suck a ruckus.

Anonymous wrote:Who are you people? Once we all have Medicare for All you will look back and wonder why you raised such a ruckus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1.

It's because it "costs" tens of thousands of dollars to go to a hospital, even if it's for something common like giving birth to a child. The argument isn't public vs private, because both have their pros/cons but it won't matter what we end up with if we still have things like drug companies being able to make prices whatever they want, insurance companies claiming costs of care are higher, etc. I am not saying I have the answer to this problem but no matter what path we end up on, if they're going to charge you $600 for an epipen, then prices will continue to go up... whether it's Medicare or a private company.

ITA.. and I stated this up thread a few times, but I can't see Rs every agreeing to this. It would mean price regulation which they don't want to do. I don't see why not, though, since they do regulate utilities. Short of price regulations, the only way to get price down is to increase the bargaining power, and that means expanding medicare or medicaid.

Because $$$$$.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1.

It's because it "costs" tens of thousands of dollars to go to a hospital, even if it's for something common like giving birth to a child. The argument isn't public vs private, because both have their pros/cons but it won't matter what we end up with if we still have things like drug companies being able to make prices whatever they want, insurance companies claiming costs of care are higher, etc. I am not saying I have the answer to this problem but no matter what path we end up on, if they're going to charge you $600 for an epipen, then prices will continue to go up... whether it's Medicare or a private company.

ITA.. and I stated this up thread a few times, but I can't see Rs every agreeing to this. It would mean price regulation which they don't want to do. I don't see why not, though, since they do regulate utilities. Short of price regulations, the only way to get price down is to increase the bargaining power, and that means expanding medicare or medicaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1 and I voted for Hillary and wanted Bernie in ‘16 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/463425-colbert-questions-sanders-on-middle-class-tax-hike-after-pressing-warren-on

I thought Bernie actually cared about the middle-class. Dunno if he changed his views, or if this was always as he imagined, but I personally feel betrayed, he’s just like the rest of the Democrats that care more about “inequality” than they do about the middle class. Guess what? Most people don’t want a completely equal country, they just want things more fair i.e. 400 billionaires NOT holding more wealth than the bottom 64% of Americans.

So what we do is exempt the first $29,000 of a person’s income, you make less than $29,000, you pay nothing in taxes.

If he really cared about the MC, that “2” in 29,000 would be a “5” or “6”. In what world is $29,000 middle-class? I’d like to live there.

There are other ways to control costs, and not throw half of The U.S.A. off their current health plans. I guarantee you most people do not want longer wait times while at the same time subsidizing the people who will add to longer waiting times (why do you think most Doctors only take so-many medicare/caid patients? The programs pay them less for more work) We just want to stop paying more for less every year!!!

Just. Infuriating. Don’t even get me started how it seems like all the Democrats want to cover illegal aliens too. All while they want to keep importing poverty.

Ok, then stop paying more for less every year. Stop paying for health insurance. Problem solved. Capitalism. You're welcome.

Except, Obamacare outlawed the insurance policies that so many people want and need, at affordable rates.

Please bring back capitalism, you know, where supply meets demand.

Does capitalism negate laws? Well it sounds like you have two choices. Pay for health insurance or don't.

Imagine we passed a law that said every house must have 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a fully modern equipped kitchen and a 900 sq feet garden at minimum.

Do you think more or less people would be able to afford housing?

You made your choice. You voted for Trump. And despite having the Presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress, the R's didn't repeal the ACA. The Rs know you are going to vote for them no matter what so they have no motivation to fix healthcare costs. The more expensive healthcare gets the more you blame the Democrats, despite the fact that Trump himself has acknowledged that healthcare is a really complicated issue.

So you have two choices. Buy health insurance or not.

I already have insurance, like most other families.

You're the whiner. You'd love to abolish everyone's existing plans in order to build who knows what exactly.

As OP says, you won't have my vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1 and I voted for Hillary and wanted Bernie in ‘16 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/463425-colbert-questions-sanders-on-middle-class-tax-hike-after-pressing-warren-on

I thought Bernie actually cared about the middle-class. Dunno if he changed his views, or if this was always as he imagined, but I personally feel betrayed, he’s just like the rest of the Democrats that care more about “inequality” than they do about the middle class. Guess what? Most people don’t want a completely equal country, they just want things more fair i.e. 400 billionaires NOT holding more wealth than the bottom 64% of Americans.

So what we do is exempt the first $29,000 of a person’s income, you make less than $29,000, you pay nothing in taxes.

If he really cared about the MC, that “2” in 29,000 would be a “5” or “6”. In what world is $29,000 middle-class? I’d like to live there.

There are other ways to control costs, and not throw half of The U.S.A. off their current health plans. I guarantee you most people do not want longer wait times while at the same time subsidizing the people who will add to longer waiting times (why do you think most Doctors only take so-many medicare/caid patients? The programs pay them less for more work) We just want to stop paying more for less every year!!!

Just. Infuriating. Don’t even get me started how it seems like all the Democrats want to cover illegal aliens too. All while they want to keep importing poverty.

Ok, then stop paying more for less every year. Stop paying for health insurance. Problem solved. Capitalism. You're welcome.

Except, Obamacare outlawed the insurance policies that so many people want and need, at affordable rates.

Please bring back capitalism, you know, where supply meets demand.

Does capitalism negate laws? Well it sounds like you have two choices. Pay for health insurance or don't.

Imagine we passed a law that said every house must have 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a fully modern equipped kitchen and a 900 sq feet garden at minimum.

Do you think more or less people would be able to afford housing?

You made your choice. You voted for Trump. And despite having the Presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress, the R's didn't repeal the ACA. The Rs know you are going to vote for them no matter what so they have no motivation to fix healthcare costs. The more expensive healthcare gets the more you blame the Democrats, despite the fact that Trump himself has acknowledged that healthcare is a really complicated issue.

So you have two choices. Buy health insurance or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's it exactly. Bernie does't consider people earning under $29,000 middle income - he considers them low income (and correctly). And that's who he cares about. These people are already getting free health insurance (or close to it), and now he wants to send more taxpayer benefits their way? How is that helping the hard-working middle earner paying taxes, paying for his own food without food stamps, and paying rent with no subsidies?

That is why Trump won. The bulk of Americans struggle to pay their bills and raise their families on moderate incomes, and they are tired of hearing of how the Dem candidates are gong to give even more help to people earning less.

I agree. I just don’t understand why they don’t understand that.
Sorry had to cut some of those quotes. It was getting ridiculously long with all of them in each message

You're right about those quotes!

But what will happen - as it did already with the poster just above - is that liberals will come out with their smug self-righteousness and declare how they don't just vote for themselves, they vote for what is best for the country. The implication of course is that they KNOW what's best for our country (like defending and protecting illegal aliens and giving more free stuff to low income.) The affluent people on DCUM can afford to say that.

But what they still don't get is that MOST of the country isn't an affluent DCUM poster. They are mechanics, and assistant managers at diners, and the like, and are watching their pennies to make ends meet. They do not see that giving more stuff to people earning less - including illegal aliens! - is best for the country.

And to the smug liberal just up a post, I TOO vote for what is best for the country. We just disagree on what that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1 and I voted for Hillary and wanted Bernie in ‘16 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/463425-colbert-questions-sanders-on-middle-class-tax-hike-after-pressing-warren-on

I thought Bernie actually cared about the middle-class. Dunno if he changed his views, or if this was always as he imagined, but I personally feel betrayed, he’s just like the rest of the Democrats that care more about “inequality” than they do about the middle class. Guess what? Most people don’t want a completely equal country, they just want things more fair i.e. 400 billionaires NOT holding more wealth than the bottom 64% of Americans.

So what we do is exempt the first $29,000 of a person’s income, you make less than $29,000, you pay nothing in taxes.

If he really cared about the MC, that “2” in 29,000 would be a “5” or “6”. In what world is $29,000 middle-class? I’d like to live there.

There are other ways to control costs, and not throw half of The U.S.A. off their current health plans. I guarantee you most people do not want longer wait times while at the same time subsidizing the people who will add to longer waiting times (why do you think most Doctors only take so-many medicare/caid patients? The programs pay them less for more work) We just want to stop paying more for less every year!!!

Just. Infuriating. Don’t even get me started how it seems like all the Democrats want to cover illegal aliens too. All while they want to keep importing poverty.

Ok, then stop paying more for less every year. Stop paying for health insurance. Problem solved. Capitalism. You're welcome.

Except, Obamacare outlawed the insurance policies that so many people want and need, at affordable rates.

Please bring back capitalism, you know, where supply meets demand.

Does capitalism negate laws? Well it sounds like you have two choices. Pay for health insurance or don't.

Imagine we passed a law that said every house must have 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a fully modern equipped kitchen and a 900 sq feet garden at minimum.

Do you think more or less people would be able to afford housing?