Republicans get schooled on ACA again. Why can't they learn their lesson?
That is at least your fourth commentary in a row in about fifteen minutes, full of cheap rhetoric and your usual POS slurs. What a hack. Who pays you? Soros? Dumbo?
Just more attempts to get into a pissing contest. Your commentaries aren't worth addressing until you start writing like an adult.
Why do you keep replying and taking such a beating?
No matter, I am tired of your i***tic whining, sniveling and crying, so go take a Midol for those cramps
E wrote:
That is at least your fourth commentary in a row in about fifteen minutes, full of cheap rhetoric and your usual POS slurs. What a hack. Who pays you? Soros? Dumbo?
Just more attempts to get into a pissing contest. Your commentaries aren't worth addressing until you start writing like an adult.
E wrote:
That is at least your fourth commentary in a row in about fifteen minutes, full of cheap rhetoric and your usual POS slurs. What a hack. Who pays you? Soros? Dumbo?
Just more attempts to get into a pissing contest. Your commentaries aren't worth addressing until you start writing like an adult.
And this is at least your fourth response that does nothing to disprove what he posted. Cheap rhetoric isn't an occupational hazard just for the left. Nor is name calling, eh?
working class stiff wrote:
And this is at least your fourth response that does nothing to disprove what he posted. Cheap rhetoric isn't an occupational hazard just for the left. Nor is name calling, eh?
Working Class Stiff:
You're right. I haven't responded to his initial comments. I'm responding to his childish cheap slurs that are all about his posts. All to frequently. If he posted in an intelligent manner, on his political points, it would open up intelligent responses to his posts. This is his all to common game and I had the time to basically call out his childish rants. Yes, I slipped into his usual pissing contest, but I stayed deliberately off his four topics that started out with cheap shots. I responded in kind.
At this point in time, I would have no problem trying to discuss issues with you.
cheers
Obamacare tops 50 percent popularity among Americans for first time in new poll, after Senate unveils bill to gut health-care law
51 percent of the public now sees Obamacare favorably.
Majorities of the public oppose cuts to Medicaid.
There is also strong opposition to weakening federal Obamacare rules requiring certain health benefits, and that prevent insurers from charging sicker customers more.
Dan Mangan | @_DanMangan
Friday, 23 Jun 2017 | 11:03 AM ET
CNBC.com
Affordable Care Act more popular than House health-care plan: Poll
Friday, 23 Jun 2017 | 7:07 AM ET | 01:30
The Affordable Care Act for the first time is now viewed favorably by more than half of all Americans, according to a new poll released a day after the introduction of a Republican-drafted Senate bill which would gut that major health-care law better known as Obamacare.
In the past seven years that included 79 separate tracking surveys, the Kaiser Family Foundation had never before found more than 50 percent support for Obamacare by the public. A total of 51 percent of Americans now sees the ACA positively.
The poll also found that a House bill which closely resembles the new Senate bill released Thursday is still widely unpopular with the public — and that support for the House's proposal to repeal and replace much of Obamacare has significantly dropped among Republicans.
Fifty-five percent of the public views the House's American Health Care Act unfavorably, compared with just 30 percent with favorable views of that bill, according to the survey.
And since May, support among Republicans for the House bill has dropped from 67 percent to 56 percent. The House's bill barely won passage in May.
Kaiser's survey additionally revealed that strong majorities of Americans, regardless of political stripe, have favorable views of Medicaid, the government health coverage program for the poor.
Only slightly above one-third of people support cuts to the expansion of Medicaid benefits to more poor adults that Obamacare put into place, and for changing federal funding for all of Medicaid, which would limit how much states receive in financial support. Both of those proposals are key parts of the Senate and House bills, which would also change the way the federal government subsidizes the purchase of private individual health plans.
The survey also found that large shares of the public, and majorities of people in both major political parties, supported the federal government barring health insurers from charging people with pre-existing health conditions more money for their coverage, and requiring that insurance plans cover a certain minimum set of health benefits. Both the Senate and House bills could weaken such control by the federal government.
"The public at large is deeply skeptical about the repeal-and-replace plan, with support among the Republican base h*****g in but slipping and in danger of falling further," said Drew Altman, CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Half of the public believed "they and their family will be better off if the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land, compared to a little more than a third (36) who think they will be better off under the Republican plan," Kaiser said in a summary of the poll results.
Republicans were more likely than Democrats and independents to say they would be better off under a replacement plan, by a ratio of 3-to-1.
The survey, conducted from June 14 to last Monday, interviewed 1,208 adults. It has an overall margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Dan Mangan
Reporter
ACA sucks and that is a simple fact. Of course so many love ACA. It is another WELFARE program they can't or won't have to pay for. They don't have the sense to repeal and demand it is replaced with good fair Health Care based on less expensive free market principles. Apparently they'd rather pay a bureaucrat then a doctor.
And no, I'm not in favor of the Republican plan. It is also a failure waiting to happen that will blow up in their face, just as ACA blew up in Democrat's faces.
What is the government's role in Health Care? Emergency relief, and inspection of insurance companies and medical personal and hospitals and licensing to insure that everyone involved is qualified and lives up to its insurance contracts, etc.
The government doesn't belong in Health Care directly and the Veterans Administration is an example of how poorly they can perform. In many ways it is a good system, but we have seen so many failures when legislators and presidents and lobbyists and bureaucrats get a hold of something like that. And they all swear to be standing behind the Veterans as a special class. What would they do for you? You don't want to know, but they will all have great care that you can't get.
Some reasons ACA stinks. They expanded the roles of Medicare. Who is going to pay for it. It is and was going broke before ACA added to its cash flow problems by stripping its reserves. You all yell don't mess with my Medicare. Hey, they did and you were to blind to see it. Unless it gets a huge tax increase it will go broke and then you will all yell, 'What happened?' It is called ACA and Democrats. And the Republicans won't solve it either.
Subsidies. So they will pay you subsidies to get your own insurance. That is called WELFARE. Of course so many are for it. They aren't paying for it. The tax payers will have to pay for this and it will run up America's debt. And you think you got health insurance. You got Catastrophic Insurance. You still have to pay almost all of your bills. Think, they give you a $500/month subsidy. You pay $500/month insurance. You have a $12000/year minimum before the insurance kicks in. That means you could pay $18.000/year before you get a dime of insurance.
Pre-existing conditions. Now that one is a real POS. If you have insurance and you end up with some major issue that will cost you say $100,000/year. The insurance company should not be able to cut you if you pay your bills. Ever. But if you don't have insurance or just want to change companies, you should not be able to stick some company for your $100,000. Lets take the numbers above. You get $500/month and pay the same. You have to wait until the minimum is satisfied. Then they would have to pay the rest. How is that right? You pay the Insurance company $18,000 and expect them to now pay $76,000 automatically. This is nuts. So, someone does nothing for fifty years and suddenly gets sick with ABC disease and XYZ Insurance Company has to carry you for life. Nuts.
The government already took care of us with Medicaid and Medicare. We contribute to them all of our working lives and get the benefits, as such as they are.
They are going broke. They need to go back to 2008 and balance the books and the reserves by slight increases in payments to them in various ways. That is it.
Then open the markets with cross border insurance programs that the various companies propose, and regulated by the States. Either you get the insurance through a collective, or the collective of your job, or individual purchases. Everyone gets a flat deduction from their taxable income to cover this. Then you are on your own. Make your yearly deals or life long deals, regular insurance to cover general cost, catastrophic insurance to cover major issues. You should not have your premiums increased, beyond inflation and overall health industry increases, as you get older. But if you wait until you are older, you pay higher rates. Actuarial tables work and can come up with a fair analyses. Then buy into the program you want. Competition keeps costs down, within the insurance industry and the health industry.
I know a lot of you are ready to attack my post in various parts. This is how I see the issues and the solutions. I'll let you fight it out among yourselves. I'm covered.
cheers
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.