I Have a Serious Question about the Affordable Care Act (Page 12): Possibly on the 20th or 21st. If their going to start it start it cause I'm getting tired of waiting on them. Do it...

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

archie bunker wrote:

I get pissed at em too. One day, they'll push it too far.

Possibly on the 20th or 21st. If their going to start it start it cause I'm getting tired of waiting on them. Do it or shut their cowardly ignorant arses up.

tbarber

If they don't replace it the pre existing conditions will be astronomical.I couldn't venture a guess at how many would be uninsured at this point. Without insurance medication is unaffordable. People who can't afford to take medication will end up in the hospital because of conditions that could have been controlled becoming critical.Who pays for it then? Not the patients that couldn't afford it. It will be much more cost effective to replace,repair,or leave it alone for now.

Betta

I say the same thing. No need to replace it. Open the markets and let insurance companies compete for our healthcare dollars across state lines.

cSc61 wrote:

When politicians and media pundits on television discuss what's to become of Obamacare, the phase I keep hearing over and over is "repeal & replace." "Obamacare must be repealed & replaced ASAP!" The biggest argument these days seem to be around the 'replace' portion. What will Republicans replace the Affordable Care Act with ... and, how can they repeal Obamacare before they have something to replace it with.

Here's my question. Why does it need to be replaced with anything. When did repeal & replace become this nation's ONLY option. Why not just repeal it and go back to where we were 8 years ago. I don't remember the country clamoring after the government to take over our healthcare before Obama's lackeys came to power in 2009. Yes, there were issues regarding a small percentage of citizens who were uninsured, and an even smaller fraction of those who found themselves un-insurable. This issue needs to be studied to determine how best to help this 5-7% of the population. But when did we as a nation just settle on the fact that the Government must control and govern the healthcare of 350 million Americans in order to provide a safety net for the few?

Why not just repeal it - period. Go back to square one -- pre-2009 -- and fix what needed mending before the socialist came to power and stole one-seventh our nations GDP out from under us. Seems we're being brainwashed yet again. This time we're being told we can't repeal Obamacare before we have something to replace it with. They want everyone repeating the same phrase over and over instead of asking the question, WHY!? Why does the government need to be involved at all?

I'll tell you why ... because they created yet another entitlement program ... a program that has become unmanageable, unsustainable, and nearly impossible to back out of. And there isn't a single politician, Republican or Democrat, who wants to eliminate an entitlement program that garners them votes, power, and allows them control another layer of our lives.

I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness but I say "REPEAL ONLY - REPLACE WITH NOTHING!"

I'd like to hear from "repeal & replace" advocates why I'm wrong.

When politicians and media pundits on television d... (show quote)

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Not just open the markets. Let the consumer see what and how much we are paying for. Open up the insurance companies to transparency. I want too know what the difference is if I pay in cash compared to what they bill insurance. Just not fair the way it's done now. I liken it to a restaurant where the person at another table orders the same thing I do. He gets charged $5.00 and I get charged $15.00. I'd throw a fit and so would everyone else, but that's exactly what the medical providers do and we say nothing.

Betta wrote:

I say the same thing. No need to replace it. Open the markets and let insurance companies compete for our healthcare dollars across state lines.

Barry Jackson Loc: Montreal, Canada

If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

A big 'AMEN' to a person who has proven himself to be very smart, astute, and observant.

Barry Jackson wrote:

If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

straightUp Loc: California

archie bunker wrote:

Smug, smarmy, self righteous prick. That is you.

Ya know... being misinformed is one thing but a lot of these people vote and their votes destroy lives. That makes them a real problem for a lot of Americans. But I've been misinformed from time to time as well, so I try to be respectful as I suggest alternatives to ignorance. But some of these people refuse to consider the alternatives and some of them carry nasty attitudes on top of their insisted ignorance. As far as I am concerned, that makes them fair game for anyone like me to make fools of. My intention is to make nasty ignorance less attractive to others, so there's a point. I'm sure I *do* come off as smug and smarmy to anyone who is offended by this and if you want to make that a personal problem that's your prerogative.

I would suggest a better course of action... prove me wrong. Trust me, that would make you feel a lot better than just posting self-defeating gripes about my "smugness".

;)

straightUp Loc: California

kenjay wrote:

Sounds great if you just switch the parties around. The democrats haven't had a leader since JFK.

With the Democrats it's not so obvious. They tend to nominate experienced politicians with law degrees which is appropriate for leading a law-based government. It's clearly the Republicans that look for businessmen, Hollywood actors and hockey moms to try to make that popular connection which leaves actual government leadership in question.

JFK was the last Democratic president before the Southern conservatives left the party. I'm pretty familiar with the conservative tendency to see him as the last good Democrat. I suspect that has a LOT more to do with partisan loyalty than unbiased assessment. As for me, I'm still waiting for evidence to suggest Obama is anything other than a true leader.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Exactly. Also about controlling one sixth of the economy and redistribution of wealth. Government should leave the free market and insurance alone. If they want to talk about covering pre-existing conditions and the indigent at least have the guts too not call the program they want to use insurance. Insurance is definitely not being allowed to purchase protection from an event after said event has occurred.

Barry Jackson wrote:

If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

Barry Jackson Loc: Montreal, Canada

Thank you, and of course I add, It takes one to know one! I'm a Canadian citizen. When government-monopoly single-payer health care was introduced in Canada almost 50 years ago, it was intended to be INSURANCE against catastrophic loss. In just a few short years it blossomed into full-fledged health care for every perceived ailment, from sniffles to a headache to a sore toe. It's the nature of the beast: Give a politician an inch and he'll take a mile, especially if he is perceived as doing good for the masses, which translates into support at the polls. Our Medicare is bankrupt, fed like a Ponzi scheme by future revenues. Your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are already a $125-trillion unfunded liability. Don't make it worse by pretending that the greedy idiots in government know what they are doing.

CounterRevolutionary

tbarber wrote:

If they don't replace it the pre existing conditions will be astronomical.I couldn't venture a guess at how many would be uninsured at this point. Without insurance medication is unaffordable. People who can't afford to take medication will end up in the hospital because of conditions that could have been controlled becoming critical.Who pays for it then? Not the patients that couldn't afford it. It will be much more cost effective to replace,repair,or leave it alone for now.

I think you are missing a historical point here. "Preexisting conditions" coverage was written out of health insurance policies through government regulations under the 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act when insurance companies were re-classed as a "for profit industry," placing them under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Once this McCarran-Fergusson Act is overturned, we will have access to all 1700 health insurance companies across all state borders, where "non-profit" health insurance industries can emerge with fair prices for the chronically ill.

You cannot be so naïve to think the Public Option will be more just and affordable. Under government management, it will be cheaper to kill us than cure us. It will not only cost us more financially, it will cost us our lives.

Government is your problem, not the solution!

Bevos

Barry Jackson wrote:

If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

WELL SAID!! And SO true!!!

badbob85037

PeterS wrote:

Ultimate takeover plan? Good god, being required to have health insurance isn't part of a "take over plan." Plus, there are more guns in the hands of citizens than at any point in recent history. And if conservatives are so afraid of dictatorships why do you continually seek out the most authoritarian of leaders? Don't you know that authoritarianism is where dictators come from!

When it allows government to know all your financial and banking business it is. I don't call paying twice as much for half the coverage and a deductible that could only be reached if dying AFFORDABLE. I don't call lying right to my face on the bill honest making obama a piece of dog lawn decor needing some justice. Maybe these worthless tree stumps and illegals that crowd our emergency rooms for a hang nail do. But these are the lower life forms America should lose

CounterRevolutionary

Barry Jackson wrote:

If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

Absolutely right, Barry. There is a triangle of collusion going on between Labor unions, corporate management, and government. The SEIU was promised by Secretary of HHS, Sibelius they could unionize 1/6th the US workforce under the Public Option, whereas the CEOs of merged health insurance companies under Obamacare would join HHS in price fixing and politician campaign financing. They should all bre arrested for racketeering under the RICO laws. Where is the consumer and his physician in this picture? Poof, baby!

Barry Jackson Loc: Montreal, Canada

Presently I am attempting to launch a class-action lawsuit against our federal government and all Liberal members of parliament, jointly and severally, for having STOLEN billions of dollars from the Canadian taxpayers in order to advance the criminal agenda of "climate change." Perhaps some enterprising conservative Americans could do likewise, for all manner of theft from the public treasury. I felt that the surest way to punish the fascists would be to attack the bastards personally, where it hurts the most - in their pocketbooks. Political intervention in the delivery of health care is immoral, stupid and wasteful. Obamacare needs to be abolished, period. Retaining some semblance of it merely kicks the can down the road. You may consider the lawsuit approach, as it would likely generate considerable publicity that the enemedia would otherwise ignore.