• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Obamacare is so bad....

Vern

back from Vegas
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
13,893
Reaction score
5,030
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

That's right. They don't even have the start of a plan.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

They've been using this issue to wind up their base for so long replace has become optional. At this point, with total control of the government, it would be downright embarrassing if they didn't repeal it like a double rinded orange in the hands of a starving man. As long as they slay the beast they've been battling since time immemorial, all else is secondary. They'll own the mess afterwards and bleed votes at mid terms (on the few vulnerable seats anyway). Hopefully people realize what happens when the right has total control in 4 years.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

The right plan is no Obamacare at all and no involvement of government in the insurance business. Unfortunately, people aren't ready to understand that.
 
The right plan is no Obamacare at all and no involvement of government in the insurance business. Unfortunately, people aren't ready to understand that.
And where does that leave us?

• Insurance premiums were rising at double-digit rates for a decade before the ACA was passed.

• There was no guaranteed issue. Insurers spent millions trying to find reasons not to cover people who were a bad risk, or ratepayers with expensive or chronic issues.

• We'd have to kick millions of people off of Medicaid.

• Insurers can reinstate lifetime limits on individuals.

• Insurers can go back to not covering preventative care.

• No more exchanges. Ever try to buy health insurance on your own pre-ACA?

Why is that not sounding particularly fantastic?
 
The right plan is no Obamacare at all and no involvement of government in the insurance business. Unfortunately, people aren't ready to understand that.

Well, you could modify that and allow people to deduct a minimum coverage package, while making it a crime to have medical treatment you cannot pay for.
 
And where does that leave us?

• Insurance premiums were rising at double-digit rates for a decade before the ACA was passed.

• There was no guaranteed issue. Insurers spent millions trying to find reasons not to cover people who were a bad risk, or ratepayers with expensive or chronic issues.

• We'd have to kick millions of people off of Medicaid.

• Insurers can reinstate lifetime limits on individuals.

• Insurers can go back to not covering preventative care.

• No more exchanges. Ever try to buy health insurance on your own pre-ACA?

Why is that not sounding particularly fantastic?

In a country that spends about double the amount per capita on health care as other countries, insurance policies will cost much more than elsewhere. How much do you think the laborers in social democracies pay?
 
I think what people are missing is this battle is all about the 40 million people who did not have health insurance for one reason or another, prior to Obamacare.

There are better ways to fix that than completely dismantling the existing system, and building a new federal system. Don't kid yourself. Full - on socialized, unionized medicine was the ultimate long term, goal, and the Democrats were willing use false promises to screw the 320 million who were just fine to get there.

It's the Republicans fault for not doing anything about it when they had he numbers that led to Obamacare in the first place. So here we are, trying to construct a form of Obamacare that works.

There are only three payers: the patient/family, the employer, or the government,
 
And where does that leave us?

• Insurance premiums were rising at double-digit rates for a decade before the ACA was passed.

• There was no guaranteed issue. Insurers spent millions trying to find reasons not to cover people who were a bad risk, or ratepayers with expensive or chronic issues.

• We'd have to kick millions of people off of Medicaid.

• Insurers can reinstate lifetime limits on individuals.

• Insurers can go back to not covering preventative care.

• No more exchanges. Ever try to buy health insurance on your own pre-ACA?

Why is that not sounding particularly fantastic?
Prior to passage of the ACA, the numbers range from 11-18% uninsured, depending on who's studioes you believe. Most of those were not uninsurable...they were simply uninsured. many of those uninsured were by economic choice. They chose to invest in tattoos and video games and cheetos and tobacco and any number of convenience items rather than investing in health care insurance. Choice.
That means 82-99% had somehow managed to figure out how to obtain health care. And MOST were actually quite satisfied with their coverage.
Was health care perfect? No. Some things should have been changed. Torte reform should still be imposed. Insurance companies SHOULD be forced to not drop clients based on legitimate healthcare needs. As for the uninsured, those that were unable to financially secure healthcare should have been placed on state/fed funded healthcare. We didnt need to blow up a system...we needed an 11-18% solution.
Ive heard it suggested that whatever system congress passed/passes/omposes, that first and foremost they and their immediate families should be subject to. Id go for that.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

Good question. Obamacare is apparently the worst thing on earth without question yet they can't just repeal it and go to how it was before or else people will be mad. Hmm...
 
In a country that spends about double the amount per capita on health care as other countries, insurance policies will cost much more than elsewhere. How much do you think the laborers in social democracies pay?
SouthparkFacepalm.png


We spend double the per capita of other nations with similar cost of living because we have this screwed-up private health care system.

I.e. those Japanese and British and French and German workers are paying less in taxes and total costs, than we are in premiums and costs. Not that complicated.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

Obamacare is not the Republicans to fix. The Democrats own it, the Democrats passed it in the dead of night without any Republican support and without reading it. The Republicans have proposed a fix. Repeal it.

What is the Democrat plan to fix this monstrosity?
 
SouthparkFacepalm.png


We spend double the per capita of other nations with similar cost of living because we have this screwed-up private health care system.

I.e. those Japanese and British and French and German workers are paying less in taxes and total costs, than we are in premiums and costs. Not that complicated.

First of all, most of those countries do not have the same per capita income nor are most comparable for many reasons.
And no. It is not necessarily the private sector system that messed up. You see, it is the probably more the public sector. The American government spends somewhat more than most of the socialist democracies. But in the private sector the people decide to buy the services on their own.

But nota bene: the American worker would have to pay a slightly higher percentage of income than say the German. Do you know how much that is?
 
Obamacare is not the Republicans to fix. The Democrats own it, the Democrats passed it in the dead of night without any Republican support and without reading it. The Republicans have proposed a fix. Repeal it.

What is the Democrat plan to fix this monstrosity?

Oh don't worry about that dishonest ploy. Trying to shift responsibilities to others is normal for liberals.
 
Prior to passage of the ACA, the numbers range from 11-18% uninsured, depending on who's studioes you believe. Most of those were not uninsurable...they were simply uninsured. many of those uninsured were by economic choice. They chose to invest in tattoos and video games and cheetos and tobacco and any number of convenience items rather than investing in health care insurance. Choice.
Tattoos?

Seriously?

Before the ACA, denial rates for individual coverage were around 20%. This was also increasing significantly with each passing year. Plus, that individual care was incredibly expensive, and did not cover much. I know that first-hand, by paying through the nose for a plan that had a $10,000 deductible and a 20% copay.

Plus, the people who received coverage via the Medicaid expansion? They weren't going to be able to afford coverage by giving up their "tattoos and video games." The cost of an Xbox 360 wouldn't even cover a single month's premiums for an individual on a high-deductible plan. (Xbox 360: $400. 2010 average premiums for an individual: $416)


That means 82-99% had somehow managed to figure out how to obtain health care. And MOST were actually quite satisfied with their coverage.
Half the US got its insurance through employers. (This was dropping over the years, btw).

Another 25% got it through government programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).

11% had individual or other coverage.

By the way, care to prove that people were satisfied with both their coverage, and the direction of health care coverage?


Was health care perfect? No. Some things should have been changed. Torte reform should still be imposed.
Malpractice and "defensive medicine" only accounts for about 2% of medical costs.

Much of the excess spending is basically trying to keep older people alive longer, a process that typically extends life while deteriorating quality of life.


Insurance companies SHOULD be forced to not drop clients based on legitimate healthcare needs.
Yep.

The problem is: Imposing that kind of requirement on insurers raises their costs, which increases everyone else's premiums. It incentivizes them to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, too, since they know they will be on the hook for those costs.

That's why the ACA has the individual mandate. This distributes the costs across a larger pool of ratepayers, that includes healthier people. It also reduces the freeloader problem, as otherwise you have people only signing up for insurance when they need it, and dropping it when they think they don't.


As for the uninsured, those that were unable to financially secure healthcare should have been placed on state/fed funded healthcare. We didnt need to blow up a system...we needed an 11-18% solution.
Yeah, about that? Nothing actually got "blown up."

There wasn't a huge raft of hospital closures, or doctors quitting, or pharmaceutical companies shutting down. There weren't less people getting coverage through their employers. The premium increases had slowed for many years, and most of the screaming about premiums was exaggerated -- or a result of Republicans doing everything they could to kill the law, rather than help improve it.

Of course, this is now biting Republicans in the ass. They've spent 8 years complaining about the ACA, and characterizing it as the worst thing ever, and now they need to replace it. Unfortunately, they have cut off pretty much every option that would work. The ACA was based on conservative principles, and worked fairly well in Massachusetts; but they can't just tweak the ACA, as they promised repeal and bashed the law. They can't go with single payer or true socialized medicine, as that would never fly ideologically. And anything else they do will result in people losing care, the wide-spread abandonment of the exchanges, and big increases in premiums.


Ive heard it suggested that whatever system congress passed/passes/omposes, that first and foremost they and their immediate families should be subject to. Id go for that.
News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.
 
News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.

You forgot the most important part
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the health care of members of Congress was entirely paid for by their employer, the federal government. The Affordable Care Act requires members of Congress to purchase their own health insurance through state exchanges, but the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule change in October 2013 that set the federal government's employer contribution for Congress members at an amount equivalent to the rate they were previously paying. This contribution is significantly more than other federal employees receive. It also extends to some members of Congressional staffs. In order to receive the subsidy, Congress members must purchase their health insurance through the DC Health Link Small Business Market.

The Congressional health-care subsidy has faced criticism, as these subsidies are usually reserved for those whose income is below the poverty line. In July 2014, a federal judge threw out a legal challenge by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin to remove this subsidy.

djl

Oh yea,, My source:

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/congress-exempt-obamacare-993f04397369c2a2
 
First of all, most of those countries do not have the same per capita income nor are most comparable for many reasons.
Yes, because Japan and France and the UK are 3rd world nations. lol


And no. It is not necessarily the private sector system that messed up. You see, it is the probably more the public sector. The American government spends somewhat more than most of the socialist democracies. But in the private sector the people decide to buy the services on their own.
*bzzt* wrong, US spends less on the public sector, as a percentage of GDP, than almost every other OECD nation.

oecdspending.jpg



And again, we spend almost double the OECD average on health care:

48294761hd2011fr.png



Unsurprisingly, the most cost-effective parts of the US health care are the government-run ones -- Medicare, Medicaid, VA. They keep costs down for the same basic reason as single-payer or universal coverage systems, namely the government has far more leverage to negotiate with providers than any insurer. The government programs are far larger than any private insurer.

Further, health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.

Choice is critical in order to establish something as a functioning marketplace. Without that choice, providers can't compete, and patients have no leverage. The end result is a disastrous system that sends costs spiraling out of control.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?
I find the Republican response to the ACA an embarrassment. If I were a conservative I'd be outraged that the GOP wasn't able to conjour up a replacement in 6 years and now that the rubber is about to hit the road they still have nothing to show.
 
Yes, because Japan and France and the UK are 3rd world nations. lol



*bzzt* wrong, US spends less on the public sector, as a percentage of GDP, than almost every other OECD nation.

oecdspending.jpg



And again, we spend almost double the OECD average on health care:

48294761hd2011fr.png



Unsurprisingly, the most cost-effective parts of the US health care are the government-run ones -- Medicare, Medicaid, VA. They keep costs down for the same basic reason as single-payer or universal coverage systems, namely the government has far more leverage to negotiate with providers than any insurer. The government programs are far larger than any private insurer.

Further, health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.

Choice is critical in order to establish something as a functioning marketplace. Without that choice, providers can't compete, and patients have no leverage. The end result is a disastrous system that sends costs spiraling out of control.

Did I say "as a percent of GDP "? I don't think so.
Here are 2013 numbers for per capita public spending on health care. I took these ones. They were higher in 2015, but the general picture is the same. It's just too tedious looking for statistics with an iPhone.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/

It might also be noted that the numbers seem to be calculated over the total populations. That would mean that the actual number of beneficiaries would be lower in the US than in the other countries meaning higher coverage per beneficiary in the US. That would correspond to what I have found, when working on the statistics, so I suspect it is so here as well.

As to shopping around, you should do so. In the US the costs of treatment differ quite a bit.
 
Tattoos?

Seriously?

Before the ACA, denial rates for individual coverage were around 20%. This was also increasing significantly with each passing year. Plus, that individual care was incredibly expensive, and did not cover much. I know that first-hand, by paying through the nose for a plan that had a $10,000 deductible and a 20% copay.

Plus, the people who received coverage via the Medicaid expansion? They weren't going to be able to afford coverage by giving up their "tattoos and video games." The cost of an Xbox 360 wouldn't even cover a single month's premiums for an individual on a high-deductible plan. (Xbox 360: $400. 2010 average premiums for an individual: $416)



Half the US got its insurance through employers. (This was dropping over the years, btw).

Another 25% got it through government programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).

11% had individual or other coverage.

By the way, care to prove that people were satisfied with both their coverage, and the direction of health care coverage?



Malpractice and "defensive medicine" only accounts for about 2% of medical costs.

Much of the excess spending is basically trying to keep older people alive longer, a process that typically extends life while deteriorating quality of life.



Yep.

The problem is: Imposing that kind of requirement on insurers raises their costs, which increases everyone else's premiums. It incentivizes them to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, too, since they know they will be on the hook for those costs.

That's why the ACA has the individual mandate. This distributes the costs across a larger pool of ratepayers, that includes healthier people. It also reduces the freeloader problem, as otherwise you have people only signing up for insurance when they need it, and dropping it when they think they don't.



Yeah, about that? Nothing actually got "blown up."

There wasn't a huge raft of hospital closures, or doctors quitting, or pharmaceutical companies shutting down. There weren't less people getting coverage through their employers. The premium increases had slowed for many years, and most of the screaming about premiums was exaggerated -- or a result of Republicans doing everything they could to kill the law, rather than help improve it.

Of course, this is now biting Republicans in the ass. They've spent 8 years complaining about the ACA, and characterizing it as the worst thing ever, and now they need to replace it. Unfortunately, they have cut off pretty much every option that would work. The ACA was based on conservative principles, and worked fairly well in Massachusetts; but they can't just tweak the ACA, as they promised repeal and bashed the law. They can't go with single payer or true socialized medicine, as that would never fly ideologically. And anything else they do will result in people losing care, the wide-spread abandonment of the exchanges, and big increases in premiums.



News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.
The simple fact is that most people that purposely did not get health care made choices based on priorities. Others in similar circumstances made the choice to get health care at the sacrifice of other conveniences...often including their time because they sought second forms of income. You bleat on all you like but the fact remains...the vast majority of society has since we became a country, taken care of their health care needs. Somehow, this horrific thing that no one could possibly make happen...they made it happen.

You are a true believer. I dont expect you to have even the capacity to see the problems the ACA is facing. The reality is...if it was such an awesome thing, they wouldnt have had to lie to get it passed. If it was working, they wouldnt have to lie to promote it. And if it was working as well as you believe it is, they would not be able to even consider repealing it.
 
Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?

What makes you think they don't have a plan? Just because they haven't told you?

Heck, I wouldn't tell you either.

LOL!!
 
Did I say "as a percent of GDP "? I don't think so.
Here are 2013 numbers for per capita public spending on health care. I took these ones. They were higher in 2015, but the general picture is the same. It's just too tedious looking for statistics with an iPhone.
OK, and....?

Since I have the advantage of being at a computer ;) here's a graph for you to check out. Switching to costs per capita still doesn't make the US look very good.

0006_health-care-oecd-full.gif




It might also be noted that the numbers seem to be calculated over the total populations. That would mean that the actual number of beneficiaries would be lower in the US than in the other countries meaning higher coverage per beneficiary in the US.
So what you're saying is:

The US spends more, and covers fewer people, than nations with single payer / universal health care. Thanks for helping me make my point. :thumbs:


As to shopping around, you should do so. In the US the costs of treatment differ quite a bit.
Did you not read what I wrote?

Health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.

To expand on that: In the private insurance system, it's nearly impossible to figure out your costs. Sure, you can call a few MRI facilities -- if there is more than one in your area that takes your insurance, of course -- and hear different prices. But your insurer is paying part of the bill, and that can vary based on which facility you use.

Further: Sometimes you can choose, sometimes you can't. If you have a heart condition, you have the choice of a few medicines, and some may be generic. If you need chemotherapy, you can't pick and choose.

Or: Are you going to decline to get chemo, because surgery is cheaper?

Or: Am I going to use a worse doctor, because he's cheaper?

Artists-and-the-Value-of-Learning-to-Market-Yourself..jpg
 
The simple fact is that most people that purposely did not get health care made choices based on priorities.
Yes, like "food" and "rent" instead of "health insurance."

And again, as I pointed out: People were frequently denied coverage, and the rate at which they were denied was increasing. Meaning that at least 20% of people tried to get covered, and were refused. Even people who had coverage were getting denied on a regular basis, and routinely fighting with insurers to get coverage.


Others in similar circumstances made the choice to get health care at the sacrifice of other conveniences...often including their time because they sought second forms of income. You bleat on all you like but the fact remains...the vast majority of society has since we became a country, taken care of their health care needs. Somehow, this horrific thing that no one could possibly make happen...they made it happen.
And again, 70% of Americans got their coverage through their employer, or the government. 11% got it some other way.

And again, an increasing percentage were unable to get care, as more and more employers were phasing out coverage and/or people were taking jobs that didn't offer health insurance.

And again, the cost of care was skyrocketing. By 2010, a single person who needed coverage would have to cough up $5,000/yr. If you wanted to cover your family, it was $13,000. And prices were spiralling out of control.

o-HEALTH-INSURANCE-PREMIUMS-2015-570.jpg


So no, it wasn't as simple as just taking a second job, or pawning your Xbox.


You are a true believer. I dont expect you to have even the capacity to see the problems the ACA is facing. The reality is...if it was such an awesome thing, they wouldnt have had to lie to get it passed. If it was working, they wouldnt have to lie to promote it. And if it was working as well as you believe it is, they would not be able to even consider repealing it.
:roll:

I'm not a huge fan of the ACA. We would have been much better off if we had gone single-payer or universal in the 50s. We didn't, so now we are screwed.

We knew, before it was passed, that the ACA could work. Mitt Romney's implementation had worked successfully in MA for years before the ACA was passed.

Many of the problems of the ACA are far from unfixable. Many of them are because the Republicans have been trying repeatedly to kill it, and do everything they can to turn it into a political liability for the Democrats. And now, that's blowing up in their faces, because this is pretty much the only conservative option available that will work better than the old system, and they know it.

And of course, you didn't cite a single statistic or source for any of your claims. No surprise there. *yawn*
 
And where does that leave us?

• Insurance premiums were rising at double-digit rates for a decade before the ACA was passed.

• There was no guaranteed issue. Insurers spent millions trying to find reasons not to cover people who were a bad risk, or ratepayers with expensive or chronic issues.

• We'd have to kick millions of people off of Medicaid.

• Insurers can reinstate lifetime limits on individuals.

• Insurers can go back to not covering preventative care.

• No more exchanges. Ever try to buy health insurance on your own pre-ACA?

Why is that not sounding particularly fantastic?

1. Still are
2. still do
3. So? Millions weren't on Medicaid before..
4. So? How many voters you think were affected by lifetime limits
5. they don't cover preventative care now.
6. Yes... I bought insurance on my own prior to the ACA. No big deal
The truth is... that republicans could repeal Obamacare without having ANYTHING in place and it would not be a big deal politically. there probably would be rather little fallout.
 
Obamacare is not the Republicans to fix. The Democrats own it, the Democrats passed it in the dead of night without any Republican support and without reading it. The Republicans have proposed a fix. Repeal it.

What is the Democrat plan to fix this monstrosity?
er uh jimbo, you realize you're not responding to my post. See how once again a conservative (or conservative like poster) has an emotional need to flail at the facts. Let me help you understand how you're not responding to my post.

this thread is not about "fixing" Obamacare. Its about republicans giving up "repeal" narrative for "repeal and replace" narrative. They had to do that because Obamacare was working ( I know that upsets you but please soldier on). And the proof Obamacare is working is they added "and replace". Now 6 years into Obamacare and 3 years into the exchanges, they are waffling, back peddling, hemming and hawing with "repeal and delay". Again, this thread is not about "fixing" Obamacare. Its about republicans pandering to an ignorant base with "repeal and replace sort of, maybe if we can think of something SQUIRREL!" plan.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom