Far left proves that they believe in death panels.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So you DO support death panels; for-profit death panels. Thanks for clearing that up.

With the obvious difference being outside govt control we have multiple options. With govt control we have NONE

Right. And the options for the for-profit model are, money = health care; no money = you're shit out of luck. Unless we go with the ACA, which provides subsidies for those who can't afford the high cost of private insurance.

Except that those without money already have care available through the govt. So why force everyone?

The system needs work, not destroyed. Your pathway leads to less options. That is NEVER good.

 

[J.E.D]

With the obvious difference being outside govt control we have multiple options. With govt control we have NONE

Right. And the options for the for-profit model are, money = health care; no money = you're shit out of luck. Unless we go with the ACA, which provides subsidies for those who can't afford the high cost of private insurance.

Except that those without money already have care available through the govt. So why force everyone?

The system needs work, not destroyed. Your pathway leads to less options. That is NEVER good.

Not everybody does. If you don't make enough to afford private insurance, yet make too much for gov't health care, you're shit out of luck. With the ACA, you're given subsidies if you can't afford the private insurance. It's not destroying the market, it's modifying it in the favor of private insurance companies. Your pathway leads to for-profit death panels, which I presumed you were against given the OP. Go figure

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Right. And the options for the for-profit model are, money = health care; no money = you're shit out of luck. Unless we go with the ACA, which provides subsidies for those who can't afford the high cost of private insurance.

Except that those without money already have care available through the govt. So why force everyone?

The system needs work, not destroyed. Your pathway leads to less options. That is NEVER good.

Not everybody does. If you don't make enough to afford private insurance, yet make too much for gov't health care, you're shit out of luck. With the ACA, you're given subsidies if you can't afford the private insurance. It's not destroying the market, it's modifying it in the favor of private insurance companies. Your pathway leads to for-profit death panels, which I presumed you were against given the OP. Go figure

Private companies CAN NOT flourish in a market where the GOVT forces them to cover illnesses that break the bank without major increases to premiums across the board. Thus the private industry will collapse leaving no alternatives but the GOVT.

It's simple math and a bit of logic. Try it.

 

[J.E.D]

Except that those without money already have care available through the govt. So why force everyone?

The system needs work, not destroyed. Your pathway leads to less options. That is NEVER good.

Not everybody does. If you don't make enough to afford private insurance, yet make too much for gov't health care, you're shit out of luck. With the ACA, you're given subsidies if you can't afford the private insurance. It's not destroying the market, it's modifying it in the favor of private insurance companies. Your pathway leads to for-profit death panels, which I presumed you were against given the OP. Go figure

Private companies CAN NOT flourish in a market where the GOVT forces them to cover illnesses that break the bank without major increases to premiums across the board. Thus the private industry will collapse leaving no alternatives but the GOVT.

Which is why the ACA includes the individual mandate.

Ask Mitt. He knows.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Not everybody does. If you don't make enough to afford private insurance, yet make too much for gov't health care, you're shit out of luck. With the ACA, you're given subsidies if you can't afford the private insurance. It's not destroying the market, it's modifying it in the favor of private insurance companies. Your pathway leads to for-profit death panels, which I presumed you were against given the OP. Go figure

Private companies CAN NOT flourish in a market where the GOVT forces them to cover illnesses that break the bank without major increases to premiums across the board. Thus the private industry will collapse leaving no alternatives but the GOVT.

Which is why the ACA includes the individual mandate.

Ask Mitt. He knows.

Mandate or not the inclusion of pre existing conditions will drive the costs up to the point it breaks everyone monthly. You just don't get it. Costs will skyrocketed just as the cost of the bill has tripped so too will our monthly bills.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obamacare is a ticking time bomb fiscally. And that doesn't include its viability through the courts. Win or lose with SCOTUS it will be defunded and broken up.

 

[J.E.D]

Private companies CAN NOT flourish in a market where the GOVT forces them to cover illnesses that break the bank without major increases to premiums across the board. Thus the private industry will collapse leaving no alternatives but the GOVT.

Which is why the ACA includes the individual mandate.

Ask Mitt. He knows.

Mandate or not the inclusion of pre existing conditions will drive the costs up to the point it breaks everyone monthly. You just don't get it. Costs will skyrocketed just as the cost of the bill has tripped so too will our monthly bills.

Costs are already skyrocketing. YOU just don't get it. What's your solution? What's the GOP solution? We hear an awful lot from conservatives about how terrible this law is, but they don't tell us what they would do.

You may not be aware of this, but according to the law, if a state can come up with an alternative that covers as many uninsured as the ACA does, they can implement it. Vermont already did with a single-payer system. So, where are the alternatives from Republican state legislatures?........

 

[J.E.D]

Obamacare is a ticking time bomb fiscally. And that doesn't include its viability through the courts. Win or lose with SCOTUS it will be defunded and broken up.

Yeah, right. I'm sure voters will be pleased with any politician who takes away their new rights under this law.

Got a pre-existing condition? Well now you can once again be denied coverage because I voted to take that right away. Free mammograms? Not anymore thanks to my vote to take that right away. Oh I have no alternative, I just don't like Democrats. Good luck!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obamacare is a ticking time bomb fiscally. And that doesn't include its viability through the courts. Win or lose with SCOTUS it will be defunded and broken up.

Yeah, right. I'm sure voters will be pleased with any politician who takes away their new rights under this law.

Got a pre-existing condition? Well now you can once again be denied coverage because I voted to take that right away. Free mammograms? Not anymore thanks to my vote to take that right away. Oh I have no alternative, I just don't like Democrats. Good luck!

66% of Americans think SCOTUS should overturn the LAW so your analysis of the result is a figment of your imagination.

 

[J.E.D]

Obamacare is a ticking time bomb fiscally. And that doesn't include its viability through the courts. Win or lose with SCOTUS it will be defunded and broken up.

Yeah, right. I'm sure voters will be pleased with any politician who takes away their new rights under this law.

Got a pre-existing condition? Well now you can once again be denied coverage because I voted to take that right away. Free mammograms? Not anymore thanks to my vote to take that right away. Oh I have no alternative, I just don't like Democrats. Good luck!

66% of Americans think SCOTUS should overturn the LAW so your analysis of the result is a figment of your imagination.

So now you want to base laws on what people support?

What percentage of that 66% would prefer single payer or a public option? You cons like to pretend that anybody who's against it is against gov't involvement in health care, period. That's simply not the truth.

But since you want laws based on public support, then I guess you think there should be a public option, because a majority of Americans support it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah, right. I'm sure voters will be pleased with any politician who takes away their new rights under this law.

Got a pre-existing condition? Well now you can once again be denied coverage because I voted to take that right away. Free mammograms? Not anymore thanks to my vote to take that right away. Oh I have no alternative, I just don't like Democrats. Good luck!

66% of Americans think SCOTUS should overturn the LAW so your analysis of the result is a figment of your imagination.

So now you want to base laws on what people support?

What percentage of that 66% would prefer single payer or a public option? You cons like to pretend that anybody who's against it is against gov't involvement in health care, period. That's simply not the truth.

But since you want laws based on public support, then I guess you think there should be a public option, because a majority of Americans support it.

I never said that, you did. You said people would be outraged so to speak and I provided you stats that you couldn't be more wrong.

Now, change the goals again why dontcha.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And besides that laws are passed by public opinion all the time.

 

[J.E.D]

66% of Americans think SCOTUS should overturn the LAW so your analysis of the result is a figment of your imagination.

So now you want to base laws on what people support?

What percentage of that 66% would prefer single payer or a public option? You cons like to pretend that anybody who's against it is against gov't involvement in health care, period. That's simply not the truth.

But since you want laws based on public support, then I guess you think there should be a public option, because a majority of Americans support it.

I never said that, you did. You said people would be outraged so to speak and I provided you stats that you couldn't be more wrong.

Now, change the goals again why dontcha.

Stats? Real stats would be broken down a little more than "Most people hate the law". Like I said, a good percentage of those "opposed" to the law want to see MORE gov't involvement. Back when the law was being debated, poll after poll showed that a CLEAR majority of Americans supported a gov't option. I know you cons like to ignore that little fact, but ignorance of the truth is no excuse.

 

[J.E.D]

And besides that laws are passed by public opinion all the time.

So then, where's the public option?

Most support public option for health insurance, poll finds

On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So now you want to base laws on what people support?

What percentage of that 66% would prefer single payer or a public option? You cons like to pretend that anybody who's against it is against gov't involvement in health care, period. That's simply not the truth.

But since you want laws based on public support, then I guess you think there should be a public option, because a majority of Americans support it.

I never said that, you did. You said people would be outraged so to speak and I provided you stats that you couldn't be more wrong.

Now, change the goals again why dontcha.

Stats? Real stats would be broken down a little more than "Most people hate the law". Like I said, a good percentage of those "opposed" to the law want to see MORE gov't involvement. Back when the law was being debated, poll after poll showed that a CLEAR majority of Americans supported a gov't option. I know you cons like to ignore that little fact, but ignorance of the truth is no excuse.

I'm not a "con"

I'm an American. Such terms are kinda stupid. Like when I lump all Liberals together. But thanks for the debate. My ex is getting out of the hospital shortly so time to go.

Later.

 

[Greenbeard]

We have price problems not care problems.

Yes, we have care problems. Our care coordination is bad, our information sharing is poor (though the move to electronic health records is a step in the right direction), medical errors remain disturbingly prevalent, and we have pretty wide variations in quality indicators. We have a great deal of room for improvement.

No tort reform

It's harder to find a state that hasn't done tort reform than one that has. That said, the ACA contains the same carrots for states to further reform their tort laws that Paul Ryan's health reform package did.

no buying across state lines

It's fairly clear that most folks don't know what they're asking for with this. Or at least, they're not aware of what those who pre-packaged this slogan are trying to sell them.

no competition in the market.

Bullshit. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market, including sellers operating in out-of-state markets. We're getting standardized quality and price indicators and actuarial numbers that allow sellers to send meaningful, readily understandable indicators to shoppers looking for plans. We're getting a level playing field that allows shoppers to choose the plan they like instead of being denied plan options by industry risk-shedding mechanisms. We're getting consumer-friendly IT interfaces that allow very easy, real-time side-by-side comparisons between plan offerings of different carriers in the market.

The individual health insurance market is on the verge of acting like a competitive market in a way it never has before.

The real problem is the amount of good americans uncovered by the current monopolized health care system.

If that were true then why didn't Obama target them with a program? Instead he put his boot on EVERY American.

He did. Hence the reason the most substantial private insurance market reforms in the ACA pertain to the individual market.

Except that those without money already have care available through the govt. So why force everyone?

No, they don't. Medicaid eligibility is generally categorical, meaning if you don't fit in a specific category (i.e. pregnant women, children, parents), even if you have a low enough income to qualify within those categories, often significantly below the poverty threshold for adults, you don't qualify. The ACA is, for the first time, what makes poverty sufficient condition to receive Medicaid benefits.

Private companies CAN NOT flourish in a market where the GOVT forces them to cover illnesses that break the bank without major increases to premiums across the board. Thus the private industry will collapse leaving no alternatives but the GOVT.

Someone should tell the insurance industry and their investors they've been disbanded because they've been doing pretty well.

 

[Ariux]

Socialized medicine requires death panels.

If your granny is 95yrs old with severely clogged arteries, someone needs to say no to heart surgery. If you were the offspring, you'd say "no", if it were your own money. But, I'm for letting private citizens pay for medical treatment when the death panels refuse to force the taxpayers to pay.

 

[bodecea]

I woulod not watch Hannity unless he gave the winning power ball numbers.

Or if he finally keeps his promise and does that waterboarding for Wounded Warriors Charity.

Until then, he's nothing but a weasling coward.