Republican senators block extension to ACA subsidies

[forkup]

Allowing people with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance is expensive. Not affordable.

It is. As long as what they cost to the system is balanced by healthy people paying in to it too. Since most people don't spend their life in perfect health they will benefit to.

It's literally how every insurance works. Those that need the system are balanced by those that don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is. As long as what they cost to the system is balanced by healthy people paying in to it too. Since most people don't spend their life in perfect health they will benefit to.

It's literally how every insurance works. Those that need the system are balanced by those that don't.

Letting someone without insurance wait until they have an expensive problem is expensive.

 

[Foxfyre]

The US Constitution does not make you (or anyone) liable for another person's individual debt or burden.

I know that. You know that. But apparently the OP doesn't know that.

 

[Bitterhook]

Let’s hear the republican plan for healthcare.

Former Governor and Senator Mitt Romney called himself a Republican.
He and his constituents in Massachusetts provided President Obama's Administration with a 'blue print' for the Affordable Care Act.

That would be an accurate representation of the Republican plan for healthcare.
Not that it is none of the federal government's business and can be better managed at the state level, but that they as Republicans can manage the same crap better.

Unfortunately, that is a bit short of how things could be handled better and with more accountability at the state level.

 

[forkup]

Letting someone without insurance wait until they have an expensive problem is expensive.

That's why you make it so everybody has insurance so there are no "uninsured."

And the cost remains the same for the insured and uninsured. The only thing that changes is the likely ability to pay that costs.

Your system will simply make it so people can't afford care when needed. Mine aims to prevent that.

And I can't see a rational reason to prefer your system. And I doubt you can site one either.

 

[Bitterhook]

I know that. You know that. But apparently the OP doesn't know that.

That's generally because the OP, and others have fallen victim to a crazy misinterpretation of the 'General Welfare Clause' and cannot understand the difference between a road or a fire department that everyone can use which is 'general' and putting someone's name on a benefits check providing an 'individual' with 'Individual Welfare'.

But you probably know that too, and we still need to tell everyone.

 

[Bitterhook]

That's why you make it so everybody has insurance so there are no "uninsured."

And the cost remains the same for the insured and uninsured. The only thing that changes is the likely ability to pay that costs.

Your system will simply make it so people can't afford care when needed. Mine aims to prevent that.

And I can't see a rational reason to prefer your system. And I doubt you can site one either.

If you are subsidizing the uninsured, then the costs are never the same, because you are paying your cost, and paying for their subsidy.

 

[Rawley]

Let’s hear the republican plan for healthcare.

It was voted on yesterday.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why you make it so everybody has insurance so there are no "uninsured."

And the cost remains the same for the insured and uninsured. The only thing that changes is the likely ability to pay that costs.

Your system will simply make it so people can't afford care when needed. Mine aims to prevent that.

And I can't see a rational reason to prefer your system. And I doubt you can site one either.

The Canadian and British government run system don't sound like they're working very well.

Can you show me that they are?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Letting someone without insurance wait until they have an expensive problem is expensive.

Thus: individual mandate

 

[jknowgood]

I brought up an analogy. To illustrate that trying to blame the failure of a system on the person who conceived the system instead of the people who actively are sabotaging it is about as bad faith as it gets.

Yes liberal leadership destroyed the fire departments ability to do its job. By not doing forest management and draining the reservoirs to save a dart fish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Canadian and British government run system don't sound like they're working very well.

Can you show me that they are?

What would that evidence look like?

Would better health outcomes across the board with lower per capita spending do it?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That was the solution. And that's how insurance works. You pay to insure yourself against a risk. The more you spread the risk the cheaper it gets.

By the way. You guys have been against Obamacare since it's inception. Although Obamacare has given insurance to millions of people that didn't have it before. Not once has any of you offered anything but "someday" when it came to offering a viable alternative.

One thing you leftists ******* hate is letting people have choices.

 

[forkup]

If you are subsidizing the uninsured, then the costs are never the same, because you are paying your cost, and paying for their subsidy.

What about EVERYBODY paying, so there's no uninsured is to hard of a concept?

 

[forkup]

The Canadian and British government run system don't sound like they're working very well.

Can you show me that they are?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

This chart collection examines how U.S. health spending compares to health spending in other similarly large, wealthy OECD countries using the OECD Health Statistics database.

www.healthsystemtracker.org

Seems to be working cost wise.

Healthiest Countries 2026

Comprehensive overview of the healthiest countries around the world, highlighting the top ten healthiest countries worldwide including what is the healthiest and which one is the least healthy country in the world.

worldpopulationreview.com

Also works by outcome.

So what data point are you using to support your view? Vibes I'm guessing.

 

[Bitterhook]

What about EVERYBODY paying, so there's no uninsured is to hard of a concept?

Everyone can pay without the federal government being involved.
There is no reason to give people in the federal government even more money to manage a failing system.

Nothing is stopping anyone from paying whatever they can for their healthcare.
If they want better or more affordable options, then they need to petition their State Representatives and neighbors where they have more power and a better ability to hold their Representatives accountable.

To subsidize anyone means that someone else is paying for their burden, and the costs are no longer the same.
Subsidies funded by a bottomless National Treasury with no accountability, lead to nothing more than increased prices, unbridled inflation, corrupt bureaucracies, and unsurmountable debt.

 

[Nostra]

$350MM in bribes. We get it.

Lies

 

[Nostra]

Then in the words of the Honorable Jeff Foxworthy,...... "Here's Your Sign!".

When trying to be clever always make sure you don't embarrass yourself.

Foxworthy didn't use that line........................That was Bill Engvall.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everyone can pay without the federal government being involved.

No they cannot, which is why we invented Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA in the first place.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Letting someone without insurance wait until they have an expensive problem is expensive.

Get rid of insurance. Its healthcare. Insurance is just a hyper crappy way of trying to cover it.