Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Tugger wrote:seb146 wrote:But that WILL happen if you control immigration. Again: Americans can not survive picking berries in the field. Even if we make enough per hour, the prices of everything else goes up so that makes everything out of reach again. You don't understand basic economics. Or maybe it is immigration you don't understand. Illegals work the fields here because they are paid more here than their home country. Fine. Does that mean Americans should settle for those extraordinarily low wages and pray the markets react accordingly?
I disagree. Controlling immigration does not mean you do not allow needed workers from entering to do needed work. It means you control that process. And a big part of that control would be enable if employers were held accountable to ensure the correct process was followed by those they employ.
You are arguing a point that doesn't make sense.
Tugg
WarRI1 wrote:According to Bloomberg News two hours ago reports that the C.B.O says that an Obama repeal will leave 32 million uninsured by 2018,2020. Now is that not sweet? Remember Trump saying, we will have a wonderful tremendous healthcare law. Bullshit from start to finish.
Tugger wrote:seb146 wrote:But that WILL happen if you control immigration. Again: Americans can not survive picking berries in the field. Even if we make enough per hour, the prices of everything else goes up so that makes everything out of reach again. You don't understand basic economics. Or maybe it is immigration you don't understand. Illegals work the fields here because they are paid more here than their home country. Fine. Does that mean Americans should settle for those extraordinarily low wages and pray the markets react accordingly?
I disagree. Controlling immigration does not mean you do not allow needed workers from entering to do needed work. It means you control that process. And a big part of that control would be enable if employers were held accountable to ensure the correct process was followed by those they employ.
You are arguing a point that doesn't make sense.
Tugg
DocLightning wrote:But this idea that the GOP will steer the ACA into the ground JUST SO THEY CAN BLAME THE OPPOSITION is awful. .
tommy1808 wrote:DocLightning wrote:But this idea that the GOP will steer the ACA into the ground JUST SO THEY CAN BLAME THE OPPOSITION is awful. .
Well, todays GOP would have ´happily used Pearl Harbor to capture the White House and given Hawaii as a gift of gratitude to the Japanese. Killing a few tens of thousands US citizens won´t phase them a bit.
wingman wrote:Here's how Trump cares for Americans looking for a good job and decent wage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post ... 9579f76999
To be a Republican supporter of this guy you really have to suspend your brain.
seahawk wrote:Did they have an insurance before Obamacare?
seb146 wrote:Some right wing pundits are using wording that is very disturbing to me. They complain about the CBO score that millions will lose coverage under "repeal and replace" or "simple repeal" but pundits are saying those millions "...choose not to buy insurance..." We would "choose not to buy" because we can not afford it.
wingman wrote:What still gets lost in all of this is the fact that the core tenet of the ACA, the mandate that drives participation and revenue, exemplifies the most cherished of traditional Republican values..that people should pay for their own shit vs. living off the backs of others.
wingman wrote:That's what happens when 32M uninsured people show up at the emergency room and force the rest of us to pay the cost. Under the ACA those people now contribute to their own eventual medical expenses and get better care for their participation.
wingman wrote:This is why Republicans in Massachusetts invented the predecessor to the ACA in the first place. Remember that inconvenient truth?
DfwRevolution wrote:seb146 wrote:Some right wing pundits are using wording that is very disturbing to me. They complain about the CBO score that millions will lose coverage under "repeal and replace" or "simple repeal" but pundits are saying those millions "...choose not to buy insurance..." We would "choose not to buy" because we can not afford it.
That doesn't compute.
The CBO estimates show that 15 million people buy health insurance today because they are legally mandated to do so. Clearly, those 15 million people can afford it but don't find it a good value. That isn't surprising since Obamacare drove premiums and deductibles sky high.
DfwRevolution wrote:No. Forcing Americans to buy a financial product - health insurance - against their will is not a "Republican value."
seb146 wrote:But did premiums go up because of ACA or did they go up because insurance companies found another way to make a profit?
seb146 wrote:Also, just because 15 million are now insured under ACA does not mean they could afford it before. Health care was not a good value before and it is a worse value now because of insurance companies jacking up prices.
wingman wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:No. Forcing Americans to buy a financial product - health insurance - against their will is not a "Republican value."
So you are against auto and home insurance yes?
wingman wrote:Do you pretend to believe that there are Americans that will go their entire lives without incurring healthcare costs?
wingman wrote:Maybe I missed the news that the GOP is going to issue new legislation making Auto and Home insurance optional, is that the case?
wingman wrote:The United States stands alone in the industrialized world attempting to rely so heavily on for profit healthcare and there is not a single example in this world where a country has successfully managed its healthcare in such a way. Why do we think it will work here? It won't and it never has.
DfwRevolution wrote:I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first.
Dutchy wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first.
And you don't want the best system for most of the people? But instead just religiously holding on to a free market. That sounds more like a dogma than anything else.
DfwRevolution wrote:Dutchy wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first.
And you don't want the best system for most of the people? But instead just religiously holding on to a free market. That sounds more like a dogma than anything else.
Of course I want the best system for the most people. That's why I want a free market. Free markets consistently provide the best services for the lowest costs.
Is that a "religious dogma" of mine? Nope. I specifically said I would consider alternatives, but only after we disprove what should be the most obvious starting point.
Dreadnought wrote:casinterest wrote:Where did you pull the 10% number? The bottom FORTY percent have .2% of the wealth in the US.
Why are you talking about wealth? The amount in your savings account or the value of your home has little to do with whether you can afford monthly insurance payments. BTW the bottom 40% earns about 8% of total wages. Duh. If they earned 40% they wouldn't be bottom 40, right. Pointless.casinterest wrote:We have to subsidize doe to the upper wealth members controlling so much of the wealth in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in ... ted_States
Put down your Karl Marx books and get a real education. The fact that someone is rich does not mean that someone else is poor - or that he somehow is rich at the expense of someone else.
And again, you are conflating wealth with earnings.casinterest wrote:They aren't in the US, so they blame the ACA for their loss of insurance? They would have lost their Cadillac plan even without the ACA. The costs were spiraling. Note that his letter said costs. Their case is also one where they chose to retire outside of the US. Theirs is an issue where the private company decided to not honor their Cadillac plan. Don't blame the ACA for that issue.
He worked in the US for that company the whole time. That decision did not come out of the blue. There were discussions, shareholders meetings, roundtables etc held by the company with retirees and management, which (my dad attended) over a period of a couple of years deciding what to do with retiree benefit programs. It was 100% clear that ACA was the root cause of their plan becoming unsustainable - for the first time in that company's 150 year history, they were going to have to renig on retiree benefits that were promised.
While your parents enjoyed many years of a good program there would have been "unpleasant" price increases over his years. Bush II first 4 years saw my one man company's premiums double and larger policies felt doubling before Bush ii left office. Your dad's employer would have been discussing premium increases long before Obama took office.
BTW, ObamaCare outlawed Pre-existing Conditions Exclusions - pity Switzerland didn't have that standard.casinterest wrote:It is a success, because without the ACA, those families would have seen the increase anyway as it is the costs of medical care that are out of control. Not the fact that we have more insured.
Pure supposition on your part. ACA mandated a massive increase in required coverage. Basic economic laws such as third party payer effects require that result in a massive cost increase that would otherwise not have happened. Yes, costs were increasing before ACA, but deductibles were lower, and I think the scope of the increases smaller.
DfwRevolution wrote:Of course I want the best system for the most people. That's why I want a free market. Free markets consistently provide the best services for the lowest costs
DfwRevolution wrote:I really don't care what the rest of the world does. I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first. Our healthcare sector today isn't remotely close to a free market. Profit is one of the most powerful incentives for driving cost efficiency, innovation, and quality.
DfwRevolution wrote:seb146 wrote:But did premiums go up because of ACA or did they go up because insurance companies found another way to make a profit?
Both? Obamacare introduced massively complex and interlocking rules that raised the compliance costs and coverage costs. Likewise, mandating that people buy a product certainly doesn't help control price.
DfwRevolution wrote:seb146 wrote:Also, just because 15 million are now insured under ACA does not mean they could afford it before. Health care was not a good value before and it is a worse value now because of insurance companies jacking up prices.
Again, that just doesn't make sense by definition. Those 15 million people can afford Obamacare insurance policies today because they are buying them. As premiums have gone up, then it follows that those 15 million people also could have purchased them pre-Obamacare when insurance was cheaper.
DfwRevolution wrote:Likewise, mandating that people buy a product certainly doesn't help control price.
DfwRevolution wrote:Those 15 million people can afford Obamacare insurance policies today because they are buying them. As premiums have gone up, then it follows that those 15 million people also could have purchased them pre-Obamacare when insurance was cheaper.
DfwRevolution wrote:It doesn't follow that because people may incur healthcare costs that the most rational way to pay for that care is via an insurance scheme.
DfwRevolution wrote:I really don't care what the rest of the world does. I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first.
Dutchy wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:I want a free market health care system and won't entertain any other alternatives until we try that first.
And you don't want the best system for most of the people? But instead just religiously holding on to a free market. That sounds more like a dogma than anything else.
wingman wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:No. Forcing Americans to buy a financial product - health insurance - against their will is not a "Republican value."
So you are against auto and home insurance yes? Think about that..a single claim would potentially bankrupt a family in either product category. But as I pointed out (and this is purely a guess I admit), millions of Americans probably go their entire lives without filing an auto or home claim. Do you pretend to believe that there are Americans that will go their entire lives without incurring healthcare costs? I simply do not understand the difference between support for insurance in two cases but not in another. It defies all logic. Maybe I missed the news that the GOP is going to issue new legislation making Auto and Home insurance optional, is that the case?
seahawk wrote:A car insurance is meant to protect a third party in case of an accident caused by the insured person. Healthcare does not protect third parties.
tommy1808 wrote:seahawk wrote:A car insurance is meant to protect a third party in case of an accident caused by the insured person. Healthcare does not protect third parties.
Healthcare protects 3rd parties. You needing to buy healthcare means i don´t have to subsidize your treatment when you fall ill without being able to pay. Unless you want to go the BMIs route and require hospitals to let anybody die that doesn´t have proof of sufficient funds.
best regards
Thomas
seahawk wrote:Sure, no insurance, no service - quite simple.
DIRECTFLT wrote:On the floor of Senate this morning, Sen. Bernie Sanders laid out the reason that America's Healthcare per capita cost is roughly TWICE as much as other industrialized nations, yet American do not receive TWICE the quality of healthcare as those in the other nations.
Sen. Sanders argument is that Health Care should be provided to all in the US with a single payer system.
Sen. Sanders remarked that Healthcare should *not* be a commodity.
Sen. Sanders said, that like others in other countries, that all should be covered.
I agree.
This BS of American's per capita cost being TWICE the cost as many other institutionalized nations per capita cost has got to be the POINT of TRUE Healthcare Reform.
TRUE HEALTHCARE REFORM --- IF not now....WHEN???
It appears that Rs are all about saving Health Insurance companies, and allowing Big Pharma to keep it's "Free Market" pricing alive and well, in the United States.
Dutchy wrote:DIRECTFLT wrote:On the floor of Senate this morning, Sen. Bernie Sanders laid out the reason that America's Healthcare per capita cost is roughly TWICE as much as other industrialized nations, yet American do not receive TWICE the quality of healthcare as those in the other nations.
Sen. Sanders argument is that Health Care should be provided to all in the US with a single payer system.
Sen. Sanders remarked that Healthcare should *not* be a commodity.
Sen. Sanders said, that like others in other countries, that all should be covered.
I agree.
This BS of American's per capita cost being TWICE the cost as many other institutionalized nations per capita cost has got to be the POINT of TRUE Healthcare Reform.
TRUE HEALTHCARE REFORM --- IF not now....WHEN???
Then you are talking about kind of an American NHS, although I agree with you, don't think that will be achievable.
DIRECTFLT wrote:What I DON'T want is for the Govt. to find "New" ways for the public to pay for OVER-priced Healthcare!!!
Expensive end-of-life healthcare... how do the other industrialized nations handle the cost of it ??
The General health of the citizens is more important than the specialized help.
IOW, you assure basic healthcare for all, and then if there's money left, you can attend to specialized care. My basic health should not have to be ignored so that someone can get complex and expensive at the end of their lives... Or something like that..
coolian2 wrote:Veteran or not, brain cancer or not, John McCain is a fraud and a jackass.
wingman wrote:What still gets lost in all of this is the fact that the core tenet of the ACA, the mandate that drives participation and revenue, exemplifies the most cherished of traditional Republican values..that people should pay for their own shit vs. living off the backs of others. That's what happens when 32M uninsured people show up at the emergency room and force the rest of us to pay the cost. Under the ACA those people now contribute to their own eventual medical expenses and get better care for their participation.
BobPatterson wrote:coolian2 wrote:Veteran or not, brain cancer or not, John McCain is a fraud and a jackass.
Nothing subtle about you, is there?
BobPatterson wrote:What Sen. McCain voted for was to permit legislation to advance for debate. It will go nowhere without major revision, which he calls for.
einsteinboricua wrote:BobPatterson wrote:What Sen. McCain voted for was to permit legislation to advance for debate. It will go nowhere without major revision, which he calls for.
With all due respect Bob, do some more research. Yes, McCain voted to advance for debate. Then he took to the floor to cal for "regular order" and said he would not vote for the bill in its current form...before this tidbit happened.
Look closely and you'll see the dear Maverick voting for the BCRA (the second proposal the Senate submitted). He would later vote against a clean repeal.