Obamacare and the great lie.

[rightwinger]

When Obamacare was being pushed through the Congress so that we could eventually know what it was, one of the main complaints against it was that Democrats were trying to pave the way to socialized healthcare. Democrats insisted that wasn't the case. Republicans said that the whole idea was rife with shortcomings and that in the long run it would fail, setting up the left to claim that more had to be done. But Democrats promised that that wouldn't happen.

But here we are, just a few short years later. Many parts of Obamacare have been overturned or limited by the courts. What's left has little tensile strength to withstand the whims of changing administrations' pens and phones. And the leading Democratic Presidential candidates are rallying around a Medicare-for-all battle cry.

Obamacare was a lie. Will Democrats be willing to admit it?

Single payer was the best option at the time
But hysteria and misinformation killed it

Obamacare was pieced together as the best option at the time.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

At least before, you could go to an ER and get treated.

And you still can. But what a stupid country we are to regard that as an acceptable replacement for health insurance.

Agreed. But many people who have Obama care literally don’t get proper treatment. And they were still having the cost taken away when they got their tax returns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Oddball]

Obamacare was a lie. Will Democrats be willing to admit it?

Fuck no...When have they ever acknowledged any of the other lies they live every day?

I guess you complain about your socialist Medicare and SS and VA ?

They all suck, and should be junked.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But many people who have Obama care literally don’t get proper treatment.

And didn't before Obamacare. Those high deductible plans are meant to stave off financial disaster in the event of a a very expensive medical event. There is no morality or ethics to be found in that. Only mathematics. And these plans still are not cheap for the average American, due to our outrageously high medical costs .

 

[ph3iron]

Five people, huh?

No, there was more than five. I just threw out some names that were senior republicans in leadership positions. And my point is that this was the best idea the republicans could come up with 25 years for healthcare reform .The only other idea they championed was to do nothing. So my point stands.

The fact of the matter is Republicans overwhelmingly rejected this idea, and as I mentioned before - tort reform and freeing up competition across state lines are healthcare reform policies that Republicans have been pushing for years

Freeing up competition?
We loved to hear that in our drug company cabinet meetings.
More rubes to take advantage of.
Across state lines means a run to the bottom.
Sounds good for rubes though

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Across state lines means a run to the bottom

Exactly. The only competition that would create among insurance companies would be regarding who can get the highest number of corrupt, bribe taking governors and state legislators elected to facilitate gouging and higher profits.

And once that is sorted out, the most corrupt (in mind and deed) state leadership would then cause its state to become the location of the headquarters of literally every single health insurance company in America.

 

[ph3iron]

Obamacare was a lie. Will Democrats be willing to admit it?

Fuck no...When have they ever acknowledged any of the other lies they live every day?

I guess you complain about your socialist Medicare and SS and VA ?

They all suck, and should be junked.

You are sucking off them and whining?
Move to Sweden.
Ladies are way more attractive there too.
I don't see any of those trying to get in here

 

[Mac1958]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

 

[Oddball]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

More turd polish...Free the tax slaves.

 

[Mac1958]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

More turd polish...Free the tax slaves.

I'm not fond of paying higher fees, co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles because I'm also paying for others.

I can't understand why anyone would defend that.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

Those are good ideas worthy of discussion. But 70% of a high-expense medical event, e.g. costing $25,000 or more, is still $17,500. That spells bankruptcy for the vast majority of the people in this country of any age. So there would have to be provisions for covering high-cost events. And these are not unique, extremely rare events. A 3-day stay in the ICU or reconstructive surgery on a leg can easily blow past $25K. The odds of such an event (high expense) over your lifetime are better than 1 in 4, if memory serves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't understand why anyone would defend that

Simple: it's better than no coverage, if one's goal is to protect people from bankruptcy and protect against higher Indigent care expenses that we all end up paying. That doesn't make it awesome, but it's not hard to understand, either.

 

[Mac1958]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

Those are good ideas worthy of discussion. But 70% of a high-expense medical event, e.g. costing $25,000 or more, is still $17,500. That spells bankruptcy for the vast majority of the people in this country of any age. So there would have to be provisions for covering high-cost events. And these are not unique, extremely rare events. A 3-day stay in the ICU or reconstructive surgery on a leg can easily blow past $25K. The odds of such an event (high expense) over your lifetime are better than 1 in 4, if memory serves.

That's what Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements are for.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

Those are good ideas worthy of discussion. But 70% of a high-expense medical event, e.g. costing $25,000 or more, is still $17,500. That spells bankruptcy for the vast majority of the people in this country of any age. So there would have to be provisions for covering high-cost events. And these are not unique, extremely rare events. A 3-day stay in the ICU or reconstructive surgery on a leg can easily blow past $25K. The odds of such an event (high expense) over your lifetime are better than 1 in 4, if memory serves.

That's what Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements are for.
.

I.e., private insurance that they don't buy now and won't buy then. Unless I am missing something...

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

But many people who have Obama care literally don’t get proper treatment.

And didn't before Obamacare. Those high deductible plans are meant to stave off financial disaster in the event of a a very expensive medical event. There is no morality or ethics to be found in that. Only mathematics. And these plans still are not cheap for the average American, due to our outrageously high medical costs .

Agreed. Until something happens that might reduce the cost of an aspirin, or stops a specialist from charging $500.00 for walking into your room, we are doomed. But that’s part of the good old boy club also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dana7360]

When Obamacare was being pushed through the Congress so that we could eventually know what it was, one of the main complaints against it was that Democrats were trying to pave the way to socialized healthcare. Democrats insisted that wasn't the case. Republicans said that the whole idea was rife with shortcomings and that in the long run it would fail, setting up the left to claim that more had to be done. But Democrats promised that that wouldn't happen.

But here we are, just a few short years later. Many parts of Obamacare have been overturned or limited by the courts. What's left has little tensile strength to withstand the whims of changing administrations' pens and phones. And the leading Democratic Presidential candidates are rallying around a Medicare-for-all battle cry.

Obamacare was a lie. Will Democrats be willing to admit it?

I'm not a democrat. I've been a registered Independent since 1978.

I disagree with you.

Mostly because Obamacare was never allowed to fully implemented as the law was originally written.

We will never know if it would have succeeded or not because of all the republicans have done to sabotage it and defund it.

I have never supported a private insurance based health care system. At least not one that wasn't properly regulated and that proper regulation won't ever be allowed to happen because of conservatives.

Obamacare was the conservative alternative to health care changes in the 90s when the Clintons were trying to reform health care. Obamacare was originally written by the Heritage Foundation and it was bob dole's health care reform when he ran for president in 1996. Mitt romney implemented it in Massachusetts when he was governor.

Democrats rightly knew they wouldn't get a public coverage program in the Obama years so they dusted off the conservative one. Then conservatives screamed about it and hated it.

I personally believe in proper regulations, choice and real competition if we're going to have private insurance. We don't have any of that now.

The only way there will be real competition in health insurance is if there's a public option. Let the private insurance companies have some real competition for once. Let the public consumer have real choice for once.

Those who want private insurance can have it. Those who want the public can have it.

 

[Mac1958]

Most of them want true Single Payer, but I think it's possible that they'd compromise for a real expansion of the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, which includes a significant free market competition/innovation component.

True as this is, Medicare supplement programs are little more than thick coat of relative free market polish on top of a big socialistic turd.

Well, my idea is to have a graduated scale that includes a base Medicare component for preventive, diagnostic and basic care and increases with age. So a young and healthy person might start with 30% Medicare coverage and 70% supplement coverage.

49% of our lifetime medical expenses are incurred after age 65. Covering young and healthy people at 30% while letting them catch issues early would be a lot cheaper than Medicare for an older person.
.

Those are good ideas worthy of discussion. But 70% of a high-expense medical event, e.g. costing $25,000 or more, is still $17,500. That spells bankruptcy for the vast majority of the people in this country of any age. So there would have to be provisions for covering high-cost events. And these are not unique, extremely rare events. A 3-day stay in the ICU or reconstructive surgery on a leg can easily blow past $25K. The odds of such an event (high expense) over your lifetime are better than 1 in 4, if memory serves.

That's what Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements are for.
.

I.e., private insurance that they don't buy now and won't buy then. Unless I am missing something...

The question would have to be whether some kind of buy-in would be mandatory.

However, I suspect the free market would come up with something. For example, before the ACA there were plans that would cover everything over $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000 in costs. We just need to think and collaborate and innovate a little. A problem isn't a dead end.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question would have to be whether some kind of buy-in would be mandatory.

Yup. And we're back to the individual mandate, then. And the mandate only works if people actually observe and follow it. Which they do not. And who can blame them? The average person doesn't feel the economic pain of a reduced tax return the way they feel the pain of not being able to pay the electric bill or a car payment due to paying a high monthly premium. The mandate is doomed from the start, IMO. No rational actor is going to forego the ubiquitous needs of living in modern society for health insurance, especially when the absolute risk is low and when bankruptcy always looms as an option.

However, I suspect the free market would come up with something.

And I suspect the opposite, with my evidence being that they never have. In fact, the free market has , instead, produced spiralling costs of healthcare. I have always felt that it's moronic to blame insurance companies for high premiums. They would love nothing more than to undercut their competition with lower premiums. But they cannot do so and stay in business, with spiralling healthcare costs.

 

[debbiedowner]

one of the main complaints against it was that Democrats were trying to pave the way to socialized healthcare.

This puzzles me. It was pretty much admitted that this would be a step toward the public option, eventually. The stupid part was ever having the intermediary of the republican idea of the individual mandate in the first place. Definitely the biggest mistake of Obama's political career, IMO.

Right on cue, one of the moonbats blames republicans....Should have called it.

You better go back to what Gingrich proposed when he was in congress and repubs loved it.

 

[Oddball]

one of the main complaints against it was that Democrats were trying to pave the way to socialized healthcare.

This puzzles me. It was pretty much admitted that this would be a step toward the public option, eventually. The stupid part was ever having the intermediary of the republican idea of the individual mandate in the first place. Definitely the biggest mistake of Obama's political career, IMO.

Right on cue, one of the moonbats blames republicans....Should have called it.

You better go back to what Gingrich proposed when he was in congress and repubs loved it.

I'd rather go back to 1965 and junk Medicare/Medicaid altogether.