Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lostone said:

I agree with you.  Unfortunately lately it has been blind ideology.  I will abolish the IRS.  I will remove the EPA.  Then when you prove deregulation caused the financial crisis its crickets or meaningless rebuttals 

It's primary season.  It's all about ideology right now.  

Unchecked greed caused the financial crisis.  And frankly, the government was complicit.  You have two entities that but nearly all the mortgages in this country.  They farm out their underwriting.  That's completely ******* stupid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, lostone said:

I agree with you.  Unfortunately lately it has been blind ideology.  I will abolish the IRS.  I will remove the EPA.  Then when you prove deregulation caused the financial crisis its crickets or meaningless rebuttals 

The one's wanting to abolish the EPA are ignorant. For one, it was a Republican initiative, Nixon started the program. If they realized that, maybe they'd try to understand why it was created in the first place. For two, it clearly has Republican ideology at it's core, being a policy meant to protect the public from the harms big business can cause if left unmanaged. For three, disagreeing with certain things a program does is not justification to abolish it, it's justification to refine and improve it.

I have a real problem with many of the people representing the Republican party. I think most would see me as being far to the right if I voiced all of my opinions without explaining them. But that's another big problem with the right today, they can't articulate why they hold certain positions and it comes across as wanting the public to suffer while the rich get richer. I can't get behind the Democrats because I don't believe what they stand for, at all. Honestly, they want to change America towards a European-type of government. Move to freaking Europe if that's what you want. This country led the entire world moving to more freedom for citizens, many followed our example loose ing their own oppressive governments, and Democrats want to move us towards following in European footsteps. It's frustrating because I have no voice to shake the living crap out of either side.

Socialized or Federal medicine leads to 0 private investment for medical R&D. I don't care what country ranks where when it comes to medicine, because it's ********. The US has improved the healthcare of the entire world. The American Diabetes Foundation, with billions of private dollars, increased the lifespan of diabetics from almost no viability for children to the equivalent of non-diabetics. And those advancements have been given to the entire world, improving their citizen's health availability. I'll admit ours has problems, but no other country is raising private capital for R&D that has managed if not essentially cured diabetes, Ebola, AIDS,  among advancements in many surgical procedures on the heart, brain, etc. Too many to list. 

The next time somebody wants to tout medicine in other countries, I'm going to just ask them if they know a diabetic, and how old they are. And then explain to them that they wouldn't know them for very long if it wasn't for American medicine. Take a look at how much other countries invest in trying to find cures for victims of disease or failure of health. Then tell me you want America following their example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lostone said:

It's kind of sad really.  Without the ability to gain something, no cures will be made.  It's interesting to see the state of our society.  We have sold the selfish mindset for the past 30-40 years and its culminated in what we have today.

It's not a societal thing. It's a global thing. The only time I read about a government investing heavily in medicine was Hitler's Germany. If there isn't a revenue PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL, private individuals are not willing to PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL investment towards advancing it. 

If medicine doesn't stay privatized, we'll do exactly what every other country does. We'll focus on delivering medicine as cheaply as possible while waiting for others to find new cures. And when we get struck by an epidemic, we would be hoping for relief from other countries to help us like we currently do for them.

P.S. This is also why the US public school system sucks while we have the best private institutions of education in the world. Our private institutions do the R&D that goes into other country textbooks. People from other countries move to the US for higher learning opportunities. People resent the capitalist profiteering model, but it is a proven model for progress. It requires regulation from abuse, but going further than that with programs of government dependency are proven to slow that progress. The possibility of profit is the foundation of us being a leader on a global scale. People can curse it all they want, but the fact remains, it is the reason we have food surplus that gets handed to the poor while other countries poor actually do starve to death at alarming rates, and why even poor people have things considered as a luxury in many other countries such as electricity and air conditioning. The model works, as long as the government focuses on regulating abuse in pursuit of profit, and stays away from socializing too much of it. Some things should stay socialized such as emergency response, things individuals cannot control that impedes their ability to pursue happiness. A child cannot influence their parents ability to provide them a foundational education, so I have no hesitation of believing this as a Republican value that should be invested in by the government. It's also why I would have no qualms with a policy that provides life-sustaining medication at affordable prices. But without believing in this deliniation, our government goes way too far with programs such as the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a well articulated point and I appreciate the response.  You aren't saying this, but it feels like people want unchecked unregulated capitalism.  My issue is, if I were to look inwardly only, I would want less taxes.  But as I look broadly, I feel that would be detrimental.  We are so focused on ourselves now that we can't see our neighbors hurting and in need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pzummo said:

It's not a societal thing. It's a global thing. The only time I read about a government investing heavily in medicine was Hitler's Germany. If there isn't a revenue PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL, private individuals are not willing to PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL investment towards advancing it. 

If medicine doesn't stay privatized, we'll do exactly what every other country does. We'll focus on delivering medicine as cheaply as possible while waiting for others to find new cures. And when we get struck by an epidemic, we would be hoping for relief from other countries to help us like we currently do for them.

P.S. This is also why the US public school system sucks while we have the best private institutions of education in the world. Our private institutions do the R&D that goes into other country textbooks. People from other countries move to the US for higher learning opportunities. People resent the capitalist profiteering model, but it is a proven model for progress. It requires regulation from abuse, but going further than that with programs of government dependency are proven to slow that progress. The possibility of profit is the foundation of us being a leader on a global scale. People can curse it all they want, but the fact remains, it is the reason we have food surplus that gets handed to the poor while other countries poor actually do starve to death at alarming rates, and why even poor people have things considered as a luxury in many other countries such as electricity and air conditioning. The model works, as long as the government focuses on regulating abuse in pursuit of profit, and stays away from socializing too much of it. Some things should stay socialized such as emergency response, things individuals cannot control that impedes their ability to pursue happiness. A child cannot influence their parents ability to provide them a foundational education, so I have no hesitation of believing this as a Republican value that should be invested in by the government. It's also why I would have no qualms with a policy that provides life-sustaining medication at affordable prices. But without believing in this deliniation, our government goes way too far with programs such as the ACA.

Yet we have a hangup by a lot of people about privatizing things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lostone said:

That was a well articulated point and I appreciate the response.  You aren't saying this, but it feels like people want unchecked unregulated capitalism.  My issue is, if I were to look inwardly only, I would want less taxes.  But as I look broadly, I feel that would be detrimental.  We are so focused on ourselves now that we can't see our neighbors hurting and in need.

Thanks. The people that want unchecked and unregulated capitalism are either ignorant or greedy. It leads to monopolistic business practices that are anticompetitive and oppressive for the people. 

As far as taxes go, I don't think they should be raised or lowered until our government becomes fiscally responsible. Neither side wants to reduce funding for their programs because it takes money out of the pockets of their biggest sponsors. But the reality is we have a spending problem on both sides, and if we can't be responsible with tax dollars functioning within a budget that is not constantly borrowing, we sure as **** shouldn't give them more money so they can borrow more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pzummo said:

Thanks. The people that want unchecked and unregulated capitalism are either ignorant or greedy. It leads to monopolistic business practices that are anticompetitive and oppressive for the people. 

As far as taxes go, I don't think they should be raised or lowered until our government becomes fiscally responsible. Neither side wants to reduce funding for their programs because it takes money out of the pockets of their biggest sponsors. But the reality is we have a spending problem on both sides, and if we can't be responsible with tax dollars functioning within a budget that is not constantly borrowing, we sure as **** shouldn't give them more money so they can borrow more. 

The conservative wing, the non establishment wing now understand that regulation through government lobbyist and money have created an unholy alliance between big business, walls street and DC. The monolithic embrace started slow and now through government rule, the winners have been chosen and the people are no longer represented by our representatives. 

No one will argue for a total deregulation of business. We will argue to disband the IRS, the EPA, the Dept. of Education as they are prime examples of government intrusion, corruption and failed systems. Only when you deregulate the accumulated powers in washington, k street and wall street will real opportunity return to America. 

1 prime example of a failed overregulation - Nafta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

The conservative wing, the non establishment wing now understand that regulation through government lobbyist and money have created an unholy alliance between big business, walls street and DC. The monolithic embrace started slow and now through government rule, the winners have been chosen and the people are no longer represented by our representatives. 

No one will argue for a total deregulation of business. We will argue to disband the IRS, the EPA, the Dept. of Education as they are prime examples of government intrusion, corruption and failed systems. Only when you deregulate the accumulated powers in washington, k street and wall street will real opportunity return to America. 

1 prime example of a failed overregulation - Nafta. 

This is a prime example of over-reacting and letting emotion cloud judgment, which is exactly what I referred to when referencing Dems overreaching with the ACA. They made policy decisions feeding off of emotion without regard for what "should" be done to "fix" the problems.

You don't disband the EPA. If you disband a government entity, it invalidates every decision they've made. It's similar to letting criminals go free that were prosecuted by a DA that got proven of corruption, even if he was not corrupted in their cases.

The EPA is necessary to ensure businesses do not contaminate our water sources, our land, our air, and do things to our environment that harm the public in pursuit of profit. The EPA should not be disbanded. Are they making some decisions that do not have the public's best interest in mind? Yes, as is every government program in place, and those are the problems that should get fixed. You don't hit the detonate button when there are bad apples manipulating, exploiting, and abusing the power behind their responsibility. You remove the bad apples, overturn bad policies, and close the hole they exploited with tighter regulation of the entity.

Disbanding is saying we don't need those government systems in place at all, which is either foolish or way too trusting and idealistic of human nature when motivated by profit. Those programs need to be overhauled, but they are absolutely necessary mechanisms for the government to protect it's citizens from things beyond their control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

An anecdote, but a nice letter none the less

http://qz.com/630806/thank-you-for-serving-me-when-i-didnt-vote-for-you-a-republican-writes-the-president-after-obamacare-saved-his-life/

 

Quote

The White House on Thursday published a letter that Brent Brown, a Republican from Wisconsin, wrote to president Barack Obama in June.

 
 

 

Brown, who has voted Republican his entire life, wrote that he had been “very vocal” in his opposition to Obama—especially on healthcare.

 
 

 

That was before he got treatment for a serious autoimmune disease through the Affordable Care Act.

 
 

 

“I am so very sorry,” Brown writes. “Put simply to not take up too much of your time if you are in fact taking the time to read this: I would not be alive without access to care I received due to your law.”

 
 

 

Brown’s letter was released ahead of Obama’s appearance in Milwaukee today to recognize the city for signing up 89,000 people for health coverage through the ACA. The White House also published a more recent message from Brown. “Before the Affordable Care Act, I was unable to pay for an incredibly expensive drug that helps to stabilize my condition,” Brown wrote. Afterward, “I was finally able to receive the quality of care that had eluded me for years.”

 
 

 

Read Brown’s full letter to the president below:

 
 

 

To My President,

 
 

 

I sincerely hope that this reaches you, as far too often praise is hard to come by. Apologies to people who deserve it perhaps even less so.

 
 

 

I did not vote for you. Either time. I have voted Republican for the entirety of my life.

 
 

 

I proudly wore pins and planted banners displaying my Republican loyalty. I was very vocal in my opposition to you–particularly the ACA.

 
 

 

Before I briefly explain my story allow me to first say this: I am so very sorry. I understand written content cannot convey emotions very well–but my level of conviction has me in tears as I write this. I was so very wrong. So very very wrong.

 
 

 

You saved my life. I want that to sink into your ears and mind. My President, you saved my life, and I am eternally grateful.

 
 

 

I have a ‘pre-existing condition’ and so could never purchase health insurance. Only after the ACA came into being could I be covered. Put simply to not take up too much of your time if you are in fact taking the time to read this: I would not be alive without access to care I received due to your law.

 
 

 

So thank you from a dumb young man who thought he knew it all and who said things about you that he now regrets. Thank you for serving me even when I didn’t vote for you.

 
 

 

Thank you for being my President.

 
 

 

Honored to have lived under your leadership and guidance,

 
 

 

Brent Nathan Brown

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One guy is happy (maybe a few more people) while the majority of people are getting fugged.  Listen, it is okay to admit the ACA is a failure, many democrats even agree,  Hopefully, whomever the GOP candidate that becomes POTUS will either repeal this piece of shyt legislation or severely fix the mother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostone said:

WFW will believe whatever he wants.  He will pick the data that satisfies his own view.  We all do. I can find whatever data I want to satisfy whatever view I want.  

 

I just do not see this as a good plan , but for a few who have benefited from it.  We will just have to disagree on this subject.  No harm no foul.  I think we can do a whole lot better than what this law gave us.  But until we do this is what we have to deal with good (as you say) and bad (as I say). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

is the goal to get people insurance or to make sure people have access to affordable healthcare?

because the people who are still supporting this seem to ignore any other factor other than the uninsured rate

What you say is true.  We could go into the litany of issues of why this law is bad but, we've already done that in a multitude of threads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could make such a better plan for the lower income people without destroying the good healthcare median income families enjoyed before.  Just by nature the area I live in doesn't have many people in that income bracket.  Yet, I know some.  Yes, some are the younger generation of family members that their careers are just getting started.  

Staying on until 26 not a bad idea

Preexisting conditions not a bad idea

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

We could make such a better plan for the lower income people without destroying the good healthcare median income families enjoyed before.  Just by nature the area I live in doesn't have many people in that income bracket.  Yet, I know some.  Yes, some are the younger generation of family members that their careers are just getting started.  

Staying on until 26 not a bad idea

Preexisting conditions not a bad idea

 

On preexisting conditions, you prevent companies from rejecting coverage because of them.  Okay, so how do you stop people from waiting until they get sick and only then sign up for coverage?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

On preexisting conditions, you prevent companies from rejecting coverage because of them.  Okay, so how do you stop people from waiting until they get sick and only then sign up for coverage?  

I said ait was a good idea.  People should never lose or be able to get coverage for preexisting conditions.  I do not see how you could stop them, but you could preempt that by saying it may cause a fine or a higher fee if they do not sign up without a condition.  Basically, it is similar to a mandate.  Pay me now or pay me later.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WhenFalconsWin said:

I said ait was a good idea.  People should never lose or be able to get coverage for preexisting conditions.  I do not see how you could stop them, but you could preempt that by saying it may cause a fine or a higher fee if they do not sign up without a condition.  Basically, it is similar to a mandate.  Pay me now or pay me later.  

So basically, the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I said ait was a good idea.  People should never lose or be able to get coverage for preexisting conditions.  I do not see how you could stop them, but you could preempt that by saying it may cause a fine or a higher fee if they do not sign up without a condition.  Basically, it is similar to a mandate.  Pay me now or pay me later.  

As Andras said, that's almost exactly what the ACA does.  It prevents people from gaming the system - which could actually destroy the health care marketplace - by requiring them to have insurance or to pay a fine.  It's just that instead of a fine or fee at the moment they get insurance, it's a fine each year.

Also, no fine is going to offset the huge costs this would pose to the health insurance companies.  Imagine...someone goes 10 years without insurance.  Then they get cancer.  So they sign up for a policy, which can't charge higher rates or refuse coverage because of their illness.  They pay $500 fine for not having insurance, but the insurance company has to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment.  Not a good enough deterent to convince people to get insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Andras said:

So basically, the ACA.

Similar, but not the using policies of the ACA.   The way to get more people insured is to open up competition among insurers allowing it to be more affordable for the masses.  It is not that complicated really.  Like I said before keeping students on until their older, selling catastrophic policies, and the ability to get and keep insurance with preexisting conditions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...