Anonymous wrote:The ACA will bankrupt the nation

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.