Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The ACA changes weren't added like that. It's a rewrite.well if that's all then go for it.False. There was extensive health care regulation on providers, insurers, and employers - before the ACA.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.???how would returning things to how they were (perfectly working) just a few years ago before the disaster ACA was forced on the workers, bring us back decades? seriously, did the passing of the ACA cause some sort of shift in time that changed history too?Replacing the ACA is fine with me.
Killing the ACA, leaving in place no health care coverage system is criminally irresponsible.
That would set us back by a good number of decades, obviously.
When you kill the ACA it doesn't mean some OTHER legislation that was killed suddenly comes back into existence.
That's not how legislation works.
Also, remember that our law, and health care in general has moved on from that, including the edges related to how health care interacts with other law that has also changed.
If we are to get a new system, it's going to have to be designed, written into law, and a transition plan will be required.
Ryan knows that.
BTW: People are very clear about how losing the features of the ACA is NOT what they want. Read the polls. Just going back to what we had before will be seen as a disaster.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
Such regulation has existed for decades - the ACA just added regulation, such as requiring insurers to offer their policies to all (regardless of age, gender, preexisting conditions, etc.)
If the ACA just ADDED regulations, then taking those ADDED regulations away would pretty much leave the industry in the same shape it was when it worked.
Hopeycare is a tax and it's being repealed.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
We had private companies that sold policies with pages and pages of fine print that would cap your policy at lifetime payouts, kick you off whenever they felt you are getting too expensive and lock out people with pre-existing conditions. And people with low income could never afford health insurance unless their employer covered it. All of this while medical costs and healthcare spending in general was spiraling out of control for 30 years.
This is your "worked really well"? What you are saying is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.
Learn to cope.
Replacing the ACA is fine with me.If you bother to check, you will see that the coverage and availability features of the ACA are wildly supported by Republicans as well as Dems.A purely partisan accusation was made, and I pointed out that the accusation was bs.
So, your point is just more pure partisan hackery.
And, if someone makes a partisan complaint that is BS, I WILL CALL THEM ON IT.
I don't see the ACA as being a failure AT ALL. In fact, it is functioning today, improving health care coverage for America, even though there has been far less modification to it than there has been to any other program anywhere nearly as significant.
Pure BS. It's unaffordable and terrible insurance to boot. It was successful in one way, to create as many new government dependents as possible. That was the only goal from the beginning. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.
Right, that's why they voted against it and even brought repeals of it to DumBama multiple times which of course he refused to sign.
Killing the ACA, leaving in place no health care coverage system is criminally irresponsible.
That would set us back by a good number of decades, obviously.
Why? Those people can't go out and buy a policy without Commie Care?
worked well for me.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
We had private companies that sold policies with pages and pages of fine print that would cap your policy at lifetime payouts, kick you off whenever they felt you are getting too expensive and lock out people with pre-existing conditions. And people with low income could never afford health insurance unless their employer covered it. All of this while medical costs and healthcare spending in general was spiraling out of control for 30 years.
This is your "worked really well"? What you are saying is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.
rates dropped for who? you? everyone? out of pocket is less than it was also? amazing.Replacing the ACA is fine with me.If you bother to check, you will see that the coverage and availability features of the ACA are wildly supported by Republicans as well as Dems.Pure BS. It's unaffordable and terrible insurance to boot. It was successful in one way, to create as many new government dependents as possible. That was the only goal from the beginning. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.
Right, that's why they voted against it and even brought repeals of it to DumBama multiple times which of course he refused to sign.
Killing the ACA, leaving in place no health care coverage system is criminally irresponsible.
That would set us back by a good number of decades, obviously.
Why? Those people can't go out and buy a policy without Commie Care?
You forget the options for people before the ACA were pretty much non existent.
The ACA works great here in Mass. we have virtually no uninsured and rates dropped this year.
Methinks conservatives have sabotaged the ACA in their state just so they can complain about it .
Replacing the ACA is fine with me.If you bother to check, you will see that the coverage and availability features of the ACA are wildly supported by Republicans as well as Dems.Pure BS. It's unaffordable and terrible insurance to boot. It was successful in one way, to create as many new government dependents as possible. That was the only goal from the beginning. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.
Right, that's why they voted against it and even brought repeals of it to DumBama multiple times which of course he refused to sign.
Killing the ACA, leaving in place no health care coverage system is criminally irresponsible.
That would set us back by a good number of decades, obviously.
Why? Those people can't go out and buy a policy without Commie Care?
You forget the options for people before the ACA were pretty much non existent.
The ACA works great here in Mass. we have virtually no uninsured and rates dropped this year.
Methinks conservatives have sabotaged the ACA in their state just so they can complain about it .
Also, corporations that have coverage today will need time to figure out what they will offer their employees. Most employers that have well paid positions will probably offer something, as it is a way to be competitive in attracting employees. But, others may drop coverage and I'd bet most will have some amount of change.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.???how would returning things to how they were (perfectly working) just a few years ago before the disaster ACA was forced on the workers, bring us back decades? seriously, did the passing of the ACA cause some sort of shift in time that changed history too?Replacing the ACA is fine with me.
Killing the ACA, leaving in place no health care coverage system is criminally irresponsible.
That would set us back by a good number of decades, obviously.
When you kill the ACA it doesn't mean some OTHER legislation that was killed suddenly comes back into existence.
That's not how legislation works.
Also, remember that our law, and health care in general has moved on from that, including the edges related to how health care interacts with other law that has also changed.
If we are to get a new system, it's going to have to be designed, written into law, and a transition plan will be required.
Ryan knows that.
BTW: People are very clear about how losing the features of the ACA is NOT what they want. Read the polls. Just going back to what we had before will be seen as a disaster.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
I think they could bring things back to when employers provided that benefit. But in order to do that, Trump and the Republicans would have to offer some sort of incentive. The companies that dropped coverage will not go back to providing it just because Commie Care was repealed.
I'm just saying there will need to be a transition period.
Well, when the ACA came in corporations were allowed an extended grace period, because they needed even more time than insurance companies did in reworking their employee health care options. So, I bet any other significant change will require similar work on their part, even if the next solution looks more simple in some way. Simple doesn't really mean that issues of competitiveness and cost will be easier to figure out. There will have to be a transition period.Also, corporations that have coverage today will need time to figure out what they will offer their employees. Most employers that have well paid positions will probably offer something, as it is a way to be competitive in attracting employees. But, others may drop coverage and I'd bet most will have some amount of change.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.???how would returning things to how they were (perfectly working) just a few years ago before the disaster ACA was forced on the workers, bring us back decades? seriously, did the passing of the ACA cause some sort of shift in time that changed history too?
When you kill the ACA it doesn't mean some OTHER legislation that was killed suddenly comes back into existence.
That's not how legislation works.
Also, remember that our law, and health care in general has moved on from that, including the edges related to how health care interacts with other law that has also changed.
If we are to get a new system, it's going to have to be designed, written into law, and a transition plan will be required.
Ryan knows that.
BTW: People are very clear about how losing the features of the ACA is NOT what they want. Read the polls. Just going back to what we had before will be seen as a disaster.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
I think they could bring things back to when employers provided that benefit. But in order to do that, Trump and the Republicans would have to offer some sort of incentive. The companies that dropped coverage will not go back to providing it just because Commie Care was repealed.
I'm just saying there will need to be a transition period.
If they are providing healthcare benefits now, I don't see why that would change one way or the other once Commie Care is repealed. The problem with this nonsense is that lower income people get coverage for almost nothing with the subsidies, the wealthy don't care because they've always been able to afford it, and the middle-class are the ones getting screwed because we don't get much of a subsidy at all.
Still looking for the GOP healthcare planThe hyperbole from the left is why Democrats have 1,030 less State and Federal seats under Obama.Here America, come and get a copy and give us your feedback in the next 20 minutes.Like when Democrats gave America a few hours to read Obamacare?
View attachment 105176
Harry Reid (D-USSR)
convened the senate IN SECRET at 2 am on a snowy Christmas eve
NONE of the Senators read the over 2000 pages bill
through parliamentary maneuvers the minority Republicans were NOT allowed to object
and for those reasons
Obama Hellcare must be abolished immediately if not sooner.
.
Bullshit
The final vote was out in the open and celebrated
There is good reason Democrats are now irrelevant in American politics.
View attachment 105246
Doesn't take long to read this
worked well for me.The system of health insurance that actually worked well before the ACA was not done through legislation, it was private business.
nothing has to be brought back, those companies are there, they still have clients buying their product through means other than the ACA, and those companies are going to be more than willing to write a fair policy for anyone that needs or wants one.
Not sure you have a complete grasp on how these things work.
We had private companies that sold policies with pages and pages of fine print that would cap your policy at lifetime payouts, kick you off whenever they felt you are getting too expensive and lock out people with pre-existing conditions. And people with low income could never afford health insurance unless their employer covered it. All of this while medical costs and healthcare spending in general was spiraling out of control for 30 years.
This is your "worked really well"? What you are saying is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.
