Obamacare was to save you $2,500 a year.

Obamacare was supposed to reduce the cost of medicines, why hasnt it.

  • Without competition prices always go up.

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • I dont knkow

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Put the government in control, regulate prices, and soon there isnt a drug left.

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
21,888
Reaction score
6,585
Points
360
Location
Floor E Da
"People are dying": Insulin being rationed as drug prices rise
"This vial of insulin cost just $21 when it first came on the market in 1996. It now costs $275," she said.Some drug makers are already reacting to the outrage. On Wednesday, Sanofi announced it will cut the price of insulin for uninsured patients and those who pay cash to $99 per month. But that doesn't eliminate advocate concerns. "People are dying from lack of access to a drug that has been around for almost a century. I think it's unconscionable," Lipska said.
in the New World Order's depopulation plan, by any means necessary, people have to die. Whether by wars, diseases, or just too expensive healthcare(Socialized Medicine), we see the effect of how well Obamacare worked since it was enacted by only liberal Democrats back in 2009....When there is free market, prices come down, due to supply and demand and competition.. Vote Democrat and you vote for the very people who want you dead.

 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
39,210
Reaction score
11,598
Points
1,360
Not only did premiums go way up, deductibles became sky high.

Taxes will go sky high under Bernie’s plan.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,128
Reaction score
2,595
Points
1,050
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,674
Reaction score
1,405
Points
275
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
Romneycare was a scheme to force more people onto medicaid so as not to lose the state's medicaid funding due to low participation rates. Obamacare was more comparable to what Indiana had and it was faltering on its own anyway. My 3 chief complaints about Obamacare are 1) the mandate in general with an exemption for the very people it was supposedly being created for 2) the gap that left 5 million working poor with no subsidy and no access to health insurance and 3) that it was an off the books tax on a lot of people to subsidize what was largely political payola to women voters.

Yes I support more access to health care. I am fine with the government paying for that increased access. It needs to be done in the open, with full transparency and accountability, and it needs to benefit the people most at risk, not suburban housewives in above median income households who don't want to pay for their birth control
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
34,017
Reaction score
3,301
Points
1,130
The poll doesn't make a lot of sense, but I guess it isn't supposed to. One answer I'd add is "As long as health care consumers aren't paying their own health care bills, prices will continue to rise."
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,128
Reaction score
2,595
Points
1,050
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
Romneycare was a scheme to force more people onto medicaid so as not to lose the state's medicaid funding due to low participation rates. Obamacare was more comparable to what Indiana had and it was faltering on its own anyway. My 3 chief complaints about Obamacare are 1) the mandate in general with an exemption for the very people it was supposedly being created for 2) the gap that left 5 million working poor with no subsidy and no access to health insurance and 3) that it was an off the books tax on a lot of people to subsidize what was largely political payola to women voters.

Yes I support more access to health care. I am fine with the government paying for that increased access. It needs to be done in the open, with full transparency and accountability, and it needs to benefit the people most at risk, not suburban housewives in above median income households who don't want to pay for their birth control
My chief problem government paying for increased access is quit simply the costs associated with that government intervention.

Everyone wants to have healthcare no one wants to pay for it. Want healthcare go buy a policy. The alternative that most are talking about is having the government pay for it. The problem arrises from thinking that it will not cost. Want the government to pay fine demand the government double your federal taxes.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,674
Reaction score
1,405
Points
275
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
Romneycare was a scheme to force more people onto medicaid so as not to lose the state's medicaid funding due to low participation rates. Obamacare was more comparable to what Indiana had and it was faltering on its own anyway. My 3 chief complaints about Obamacare are 1) the mandate in general with an exemption for the very people it was supposedly being created for 2) the gap that left 5 million working poor with no subsidy and no access to health insurance and 3) that it was an off the books tax on a lot of people to subsidize what was largely political payola to women voters.

Yes I support more access to health care. I am fine with the government paying for that increased access. It needs to be done in the open, with full transparency and accountability, and it needs to benefit the people most at risk, not suburban housewives in above median income households who don't want to pay for their birth control
My chief problem government paying for increased access is quit simply the costs associated with that government intervention.

Everyone wants to have healthcare no one wants to pay for it. Want healthcare go buy a policy. The alternative that most are talking about is having the government pay for it. The problem arrises from thinking that it will not cost. Want the government to pay fine demand the government double your federal taxes.
And that is all perfectly fine with me. At least if it is paid through taxes, you have the transparency and accountability of which I spoke....or at least the pretense of it. At the end of the day, however, if the doctor can treat my gashed finger for $200 total when I have insurance, charging someone without it $750 is racketeering as the insurance industry's goon.
 
OP
andaronjim

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
21,888
Reaction score
6,585
Points
360
Location
Floor E Da
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
Romneycare was a scheme to force more people onto medicaid so as not to lose the state's medicaid funding due to low participation rates. Obamacare was more comparable to what Indiana had and it was faltering on its own anyway. My 3 chief complaints about Obamacare are 1) the mandate in general with an exemption for the very people it was supposedly being created for 2) the gap that left 5 million working poor with no subsidy and no access to health insurance and 3) that it was an off the books tax on a lot of people to subsidize what was largely political payola to women voters.

Yes I support more access to health care. I am fine with the government paying for that increased access. It needs to be done in the open, with full transparency and accountability, and it needs to benefit the people most at risk, not suburban housewives in above median income households who don't want to pay for their birth control
My chief problem government paying for increased access is quit simply the costs associated with that government intervention.

Everyone wants to have healthcare no one wants to pay for it. Want healthcare go buy a policy. The alternative that most are talking about is having the government pay for it. The problem arrises from thinking that it will not cost. Want the government to pay fine demand the government double your federal taxes.
The government took over the College Tuition plan, Mad Maxine was grilling the bank CEO's about how college kids had obscene debt and what the banks were going to do with it. The CEO's reminded Mad Maxine that in 2010 Obama took over the tuition plan, talk to him and the debt the kids have....Open mouth insert foot, Mad Maxine.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,128
Reaction score
2,595
Points
1,050
The ACA was Rommney care so poorly implemented you really wonder if it was not meant to fail.
Sky high prices, soaring dedcductables, fewer items covered, higher drug prices. Even the cost of a decent out of pocket policy costs more. Cost to the federal government to subsidize payments going up.

And yet you still have liberals defending it. Are they getting a cut or are they just too blind to see how bad it is because it would mean a crack in their partisan worship?
Romneycare was a scheme to force more people onto medicaid so as not to lose the state's medicaid funding due to low participation rates. Obamacare was more comparable to what Indiana had and it was faltering on its own anyway. My 3 chief complaints about Obamacare are 1) the mandate in general with an exemption for the very people it was supposedly being created for 2) the gap that left 5 million working poor with no subsidy and no access to health insurance and 3) that it was an off the books tax on a lot of people to subsidize what was largely political payola to women voters.

Yes I support more access to health care. I am fine with the government paying for that increased access. It needs to be done in the open, with full transparency and accountability, and it needs to benefit the people most at risk, not suburban housewives in above median income households who don't want to pay for their birth control
My chief problem government paying for increased access is quit simply the costs associated with that government intervention.

Everyone wants to have healthcare no one wants to pay for it. Want healthcare go buy a policy. The alternative that most are talking about is having the government pay for it. The problem arrises from thinking that it will not cost. Want the government to pay fine demand the government double your federal taxes.
And that is all perfectly fine with me. At least if it is paid through taxes, you have the transparency and accountability of which I spoke....or at least the pretense of it. At the end of the day, however, if the doctor can treat my gashed finger for $200 total when I have insurance, charging someone without it $750 is racketeering as the insurance industry's goon.
I take it you really do not understand how insurance works. The $200.00 is what you pay, insurance pays the rest of the $750.00.
Do you call the auto industry goons just because it only costs you $500.00 to get a car fixed that costs someone without insurance 1200.00?

You need to talk to the rest of those yelling for things like Medicare for all because they don't seem to understand that it is not free. When you have to pay for a house, car, food and everything else I think you will be very upset if someone suggests doubling your federal taxes.
 

Scamp

Gold Member
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
343
Points
130
Location
Land of the free, home of the brave.
It's only fair that the people who work, and contribute to society, pay outrageously high premiums for medical care, while the trifling bums who contribute nothing get medical care for free...Right?
 

Agit8r

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
10,424
Reaction score
1,348
Points
245
Because it wasn't fully implemented in many states.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
8,607
Points
1,330
Not only did premiums go way up, deductibles became sky high.

Taxes will go sky high under Bernie’s plan.
No. Med4All is cheaper than the outrageously expensive, terribly inefficient, and entirely unjust system we have today.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
8,607
Points
1,330
Because it wasn't fully implemented in many states.
Agreed. However it should be remembered that O lied a thousand times about Ocare. Lying is a common trait for presidents these days, but few know O was an expert liar while nearly all know Donnie is.
 

Agit8r

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
10,424
Reaction score
1,348
Points
245
Because it wasn't fully implemented in many states.
Agreed. However it should be remembered that O lied a thousand times about Ocare. Lying is a common trait for presidents these days, but few know O was an expert liar while nearly all know Donnie is.
In fairness, he didn't write the bill, congress did.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
39,210
Reaction score
11,598
Points
1,360
Not only did premiums go way up, deductibles became sky high.

Taxes will go sky high under Bernie’s plan.
No. Med4All is cheaper than the outrageously expensive, terribly inefficient, and entirely unjust system we have today.
No, it’s not. The figures they put out in support of it did NOT include all expenses. They were selective, to make it appear that way. And, studies prove them wrong-

Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. Specifically, a study released over the summer by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimated it would cost $32.6 trillion — $3.26 trillion per year — over 10 years. For comparison, the federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office states.

How much would 'Medicare for All' cost? Democrats' health care plan explained
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
34,017
Reaction score
3,301
Points
1,130
Because it wasn't fully implemented in many states.
Agreed. However it should be remembered that O lied a thousand times about Ocare. Lying is a common trait for presidents these days, but few know O was an expert liar while nearly all know Donnie is.
In fairness, he didn't write the bill, congress did.
In fairness, neither did Congress. Liz Fowler did most of the heavy lifting.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
8,607
Points
1,330

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
8,607
Points
1,330
Not only did premiums go way up, deductibles became sky high.

Taxes will go sky high under Bernie’s plan.
No. Med4All is cheaper than the outrageously expensive, terribly inefficient, and entirely unjust system we have today.
No, it’s not. The figures they put out in support of it did NOT include all expenses. They were selective, to make it appear that way. And, studies prove them wrong-

Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. Specifically, a study released over the summer by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimated it would cost $32.6 trillion — $3.26 trillion per year — over 10 years. For comparison, the federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office states.

How much would 'Medicare for All' cost? Democrats' health care plan explained
Wrong. The Koch Brothers commissioned the a study some time ago thinking they could prove your position. They proved Med4All would be cheaper. Makes sense right? The most expensive HC system in the fucking world, can’t be cost effective.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
39,210
Reaction score
11,598
Points
1,360
Not only did premiums go way up, deductibles became sky high.

Taxes will go sky high under Bernie’s plan.
No. Med4All is cheaper than the outrageously expensive, terribly inefficient, and entirely unjust system we have today.
No, it’s not. The figures they put out in support of it did NOT include all expenses. They were selective, to make it appear that way. And, studies prove them wrong-

Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. Specifically, a study released over the summer by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimated it would cost $32.6 trillion — $3.26 trillion per year — over 10 years. For comparison, the federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office states.

How much would 'Medicare for All' cost? Democrats' health care plan explained
Wrong. The Koch Brothers commissioned the a study some time ago thinking they could prove your position. They proved Med4All would be cheaper. Makes sense right? The most expensive HC system in the fucking world, can’t be cost effective.
No, they didn’t. And the findings have been misrepresented according to the researcher.
The Cost of 'Medicare-for-All' - FactCheck.org
Did a study show big savings for Sanders' Medicare for All?
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
353
Points
140
PPACA was President Obama and Congress “doing something” about health care.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top