So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

[Billy000]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

 

[flacaltenn]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

There is no constitutional mandate for federal involvement.

 

[skews13]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

Here's a concept for you.

Hows that Trump alternative thing working out for you?

 

[BluesLegend]

Christ I'm surprised the left can fold a pair of socks without government assistance. Why don't you mooching libs grow a pair and just admit that you want somebody else to subsidize your healthcare insurance.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

 

[Billy000]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

What you are talking about is something the government has to implement. Insurance companies will not do that on their own.

Also, individual states already have the power to design their own healthcare plans.

 

[Billy000]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

 

[Maxdeath]

Christ I'm surprised the left can fold a pair of socks without government assistance. Why don't you mooching libs grow a pair and just admit that you want somebody else to subsidize your healthcare insurance.

They don't want it subsidized they want somebody else to pay for it completely. While they are at it they could also pay the house payments, all food costs and make $15.00 an hour minimum wage.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

 

[Anathema]

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

1. Healthcare is NOT a Right. It never has been and never should be. It is a privilege for those who can afford it or get it through their employers.

2. The US Constitution has no provision or mandate for the Government to be involved in any way with the healthcare industry or medical issues in general.

 

[Billy000]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Lol I love how you just assume these people over spend with no basis of facts. They definitely don’t buy new cars. They buy used. Stuff like TVs is a one time expense. And yes, they have Netflix accounts. God forbid they entertain themselves! Oh the horror. How selfish of them.

It’s also worth noting many of these people are parents.

 

[Wintw]

Honey child, Billy000 Boo Boo. You can't afford it. And neither can our government. Is it clear for you now? Just because you think you can spend someone else's money doesn't not mean however many mental gymnastics you pull justifies doing so.

Oh and the excuses you give for people spending money that they don't have doesn't work either. Which would explain why you are lost in confusion.

 

[DOTR]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Ahh the setup...the straw man..the Democrat statement of the position Republicans must hold...followed by "right?"...and then the burning down of the faux republican position.

Dont fall for Democrat propaganda people. Trump beat them by refusing to let them set his position.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Lol I love how you just assume these people over spend with no basis of facts. They definitely don’t buy new cars. They buy used. Stuff like TVs is a one time expense. And yes, they have Netflix accounts. God forbid they entertain themselves! Oh the horror. How selfish of them.

It’s also worth noting many of these people are parents.

Want to entertain yourself? Go to the park, go for a walk. Godforbid our fat American asses get outside and DO something.

 

[Billy000]

Honey child, Billy000 Boo Boo. You can't afford it. And neither can our government. Is it clear for you now? Just because you think you can spend someone else's money doesn't not mean however many mental gymnastics you pull justifies doing so.

Oh and the excuses you give for people spending money that they don't have doesn't work either. Which would explain why you are lost in confusion.

Oh it’s definitely affordable. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any nation on earth.

 

[danielpalos]

Infrastructure exists for a reason.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves simple poverty so markets can start from there.

 

[Billy000]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Lol I love how you just assume these people over spend with no basis of facts. They definitely don’t buy new cars. They buy used. Stuff like TVs is a one time expense. And yes, they have Netflix accounts. God forbid they entertain themselves! Oh the horror. How selfish of them.

It’s also worth noting many of these people are parents.

Want to entertain yourself? Go to the park, go for a walk. Godforbid our fat American asses get outside and DO something.

Why do you people make all these stupid assumptions about poor people? I get that it makes you feel manly and superior to belittle them, but you’re just making shit up.

 

[Lesh]

So just to be clear...

The position of the GOP on healthcare is to go back to the failed system we had before the ACA?

 

[ph3iron]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

Read up about oz and Canada and the U.K.
90% approval.
They laugh at us.