GOP Repealing ObamaCare ---- WHY?

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Accepted, but this is preferable to those people being uninsured which can cost the entire system more in write-offs (etc.)

As for the remaining 14 million, it's unclear how many became insured because of the subsidies, versus how many decided to get insurance because of the penalties.

I don't really see why that distinction matters if the result is the same?

It's well known, for instance, that many, especially young adults, in the pre-Obamacare era decided (fairly rationally) that they could take a gamble on not having health insurance at all, or taking out cheap "catastrophic injury or illness" policies that would have covered them only in the event of serious accidents, etc. The imposition of penalties may have changed that calculus.

It's a gamble that many couldn't afford, which passed on the cost to the insured.

We also have to remember that the population of the United States is around 320 million, so this touted number of 20 million is only about 6.25 percent of the population.

Agreed, but it's crazy to look at the decrease in uninsured since the ACA came in. 8.6% uninsured at the end Q12016

And for the average family of four, the difference between what Obama promised them would happen (a reduction of $2,500 a year in premiums) and what actually happened (an increase of over $3,600) is $6,100 annually. You're correct that this is offset by subsidies for some, but many are feeling the full brunt of the hikes.

That hike of 25% (approx) only effects less than 0.5% of people in the US, less than 2m people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/25/obamacare-has-some-problems-heres-how-we-can-fix-them/?utm_term=.eddf3a31f357

As many Americans see it, the Democrats grossly misrepresented the costs of Obamacare, and so we do have to question whether the benefits are actually worth it, rather than getting swayed by emotional appeals (what proponents of the law are now putting forward).

I think that the Obama administration underestimated the number of people with serious illnesses that would sign up to health insurance for the first time - which is a damning indictment for a first world country; let alone the most powerful country on Earth.

My point is that, there are plenty of people out there with ideas to fix the ACA, by bettering the exchanges, by expanding Medicare, by creating a true public option... not to mention by actually giving the insurance companies time to react to this new model.

The free market dictates that if premiums keep increasing, people will drop insurance levels or switch providers; this is bad for the individual company, so we have to let this market play out to find equilibrium OR force the hand to ensure that it find this.

I'd rather go for the prior given my (our) views on interference in the market and the fact that the premium hikes cause damage to a relatively small amount of the populous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Cartouche wrote: »

For starters they hate poor people. Most Obamacare folks would fall into that category

Certainly the Republicans do seem to have a real lack of interest at best if not outright contempt for poor people. As for them mostly being Obama voters some sure but nowhere near the numbers you think. Roughly 47% of the US electorate did not bother to vote in the last election. The turnout rate in Obama's best year in 2008 still left 43% of Americans not voting. In midterm years the numbers are even higher with the numbers not voting in the last mid terms reaching 67%.

eire4

If the Democrats were smart here they would be not be pulling out all the stops to block the repeal of the ACA. It is not popular and really is just a patch with some good aspects on a still broken health care system with costs running out of control still.

Instead knowing that ultimately they do not have the votes to stop repeal they should be screaming from the rooftops that now is the time to expand medicare and make it medicare for all. Ask seniors what they think of medicare. They love it.

vetinari

Manic Moran wrote: »

Obamacare was well-intentioned, but was a very loose band-aid which is starting to unravel. The problem with the healthcare system in the US isn't the root cause that some people can't afford it, but that the whole system costs way too much to begin with. With prices being ridiculously high, those rates are being passed down to premiums, and some can't afford those premiums. ACA didn't, as far as I know, cut any prices, or reduce the costs of healthcare, it merely juggled who paid for it by a combination of the mandate and subsidies. If the costs of healthcare itself were to be reduced, it would become feasible for those who cannot currently afford 'private' premiums to afford reduced premiums.

In this, Trump is arguably looking in the right direction with his recent comments about the pharmaceutical industry. When the Epi-pen shot up in cost, or the HIV pill went from $13 to $500, that wasn't the health insurance companies doing it. But the health insurance companies have to pay them out, and their way of getting their money is through premiums. The root cost of healthcare in the US is out of control, that is what needs to be fixed, not the ACA solution. Now, if Trump's philosophy can be trickled down to the GOP lawmakers as to how this will be achieved, is another matter entirely.

The issue regards costs is definitely true. However the likes of Aetna and co have been perfectly happy to go along with the continued price increases up to now. They just pass it on to their customers. Aetna makes over 2 billion dollars in profits a year. For doing what exactly? The free market approach is clearly not working regards the controlling of costs.

eire4

vetinari wrote: »

The issue regards costs is definitely true. However the likes of Aetna and co have been perfectly happy to go along with the continued price increases up to now. They just pass it on to their customers. Aetna makes over 2 billion dollars in profits a year. For doing what exactly? The free market approach is clearly not working regards the controlling of costs.

Not at all and congress in bipartisan fashion is not helping. During the recent health votes there was a vote on allowing Americans to buy the same medicines that are much cheaper in Canada. The vote was a no with 13 Democrats voting along with the 52 Republicans top vote no.

Inquitus

To quote Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/16/donald-trump-may-have-just-destroyed-the-republican-effort-to-repeal-obamacare/?utm_term=.097a112a6f5d

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” …

“It’s not going to be their plan,” he said of people covered under the current law. “It’ll be another plan. But they’ll be beautifully covered. I don’t want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people,” he said Saturday.

B0jangles

Inquitus wrote: »

To quote Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/16/donald-trump-may-have-just-destroyed-the-republican-effort-to-repeal-obamacare/?utm_term=.097a112a6f5d

His spokesman Sean Spicer has already 'clarified' Trump's pledge:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/16/trump-spokesman-says-obamacare-replacement-will-harness-marketplace-competition/?utm_term=.6e17857a9a0b

A spokesman for Donald Trump sought Monday to elaborate on the president-elect’s plans to replace the Affordable Care Act, vowing that the new administration would lower health-care costs by infusing more competition into the marketplace, including by allowing insurers to sell health plans across state lines.
Trump’s goal is “to get insurance for everybody through marketplace solutions, through bringing costs down, through negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, allowing competition over state lines," Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, said during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show...


...Health insurance is regulated by states, and each state sets its own rules for health plans. Republicans have long favored the idea of selling insurance across state lines on the premise that this could lower prices. Opponents contend that it would deteriorate the quality of health plans, because insurance companies might choose to locate in the states with the weakest coverage requirements.

So classic weasel move; you'll be able to buy a cheap plan but it won't actually cover you for anything.

ECO_Mental

To quote Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.097a112a6f5d

Quote:
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” …

“It’s not going to be their plan,” he said of people covered under the current law. “It’ll be another plan. But they’ll be beautifully covered. I don’t want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people,” he said Saturday.





Just something I've noticed (noting to do with Obamacare) but I do think that Trump thinks of everything as a golf course or hotel.

I mean who describes a health insurance policy as beautiful? but he says it all the time for everything its like he cant get hotels and golf course out of his mind "oh its beautiful golf course" is ok but you will be "beautifully covered with your health insurance" I don't think so :rolleyes:

Anyway continue on.... there are other threads for this stuff :P

eire4

B0jangles wrote: »

His spokesman Sean Spicer has already 'clarified' Trump's pledge:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/16/trump-spokesman-says-obamacare-replacement-will-harness-marketplace-competition/?utm_term=.6e17857a9a0b



So classic weasel move; you'll be able to buy a cheap plan but it won't actually cover you for anything.

Agreed. I was expecting that move. It sounds great competition in the market place. But this is peoples health and lives we are talking about not something which should be at the whim of how much money some CEO can make. There are all sorts of levels of regulations or lack thereof depending on the state in question and the kind of plans available say in a weak regulation state like Texas simply would not be allowed to be sold in somewhere like California. This will basically result in a race to the bottom which will not be good for Americans chances of actually getting good quality affordable health care.

MightyMandarin

Rand Paul made this presentation a few weeks back but I think it's relevant and I think he's spot on.

I don't agree with him on a lot of issues. Being a progressive, I think govt. can be an object of good, not bad. But this man shows balls to go against the party narrative, call them out on their bs, and even accept that getting rid of Obamacare as hastily as the GOP is doing is a bad thing, even though he wants rid of it anyway. The current GOP will add $10trillion to the debt, and like he says, he doesn't want anything to do with it.

Like I said, I think Govt. can do more good than bad, but what he says about getting rid of the Dept. of Commerce for example, makes sense. There's tons of waste in the US Govt. but that is just as much the fault of the GOP as the Democrats. Just like he said, Obama almost doubled the natl. debt, but George Bush did the exact same thing.

The ACA is an imperfect system, which does leave a lot of people with expensive premiums they can't really afford. What direction we go in after accepting that state is key.

Do we say 'well get rid of people's insurance and then they won't have the damn premiums to worry about', or do we say 'let's subsidise their premiums even more'? Personally I want a single payer program, as the ACA doesn't go far enough at all, but more subsidies is the best option imo. The problem with the ACA is that it's a Republican-made program, implemented first by Romney in Massachusetts. In its current form it's flawed. That however is the fault of the GOP, not Obama or the Democrats.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You don’t purchase medical insurance – therefore passing the costs for your care onto the rest of us in the form of increased premiums, you don’t pay the fine, yet you go to a college who’s cost are listed at in-state residency of $28,314, and out-of-state residency of $47,296, per year.

Have you ever heard of something called a part-time job?

Well first of all, you're completely out of order. Second of all, I have a job. Third of all, what PT job do you suppose has a salary in excess of $28,314 a year? Taking talking points from your ass again?

As for health insurance it's a case of not being subject to a mandate to buy it. So I don't. Trump and his zombies would call that "smart". True enough, my bills equate to less than annual premiums plus any associated costs incurred under my experiences.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well first of all, you're completely out of order. Second of all, I have a job. Third of all, what PT job do you suppose has a salary in excess of $28,314 a year? Taking talking points from your ass again?

As for health insurance it's a case of not being subject to a mandate to buy it. So I don't. Trump and his zombies would call that "smart". True enough, my bills equate to less than annual premiums plus any associated costs incurred under my experiences.

Yeah, I was a bit harsh on you. I apologize for that. And I know you will be paying off ludicrous college loans probably for decades.

But from my perspective I know it can be done. I worked full time at 45 hours a week on average, while raising a family and paying for medical insurance, all while going to college full time (24 credits a year). Got both a BA & MBA. I paid my way in life and didn't stiff anyone, or make anyone pay for me.

Wanderer78

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, I was a bit harsh on you. I apologize for that. And I know you will be paying off ludicrous college loans probably for decades.

But from my perspective I know it can be done. I worked full time at 45 hours a week on average, while raising a family and paying for medical insurance, all while going to college full time (24 credits a year). Got both a BA & MBA. I paid my way in life and didn't stiff anyone, or make anyone pay for me.

wouldnt it be nice, if your children and grandchildren didnt have to work similar hours just to get by in life? wouldnt it be nice if they didnt have the burden of debt on their shoulders for much of their lives? wouldnt it be great if they could spend more time with you and your partner?

Amerika

Wanderer78 wrote: »

wouldnt it be nice, if your children and grandchildren didnt have to work similar hours just to get by in life? wouldnt it be nice if they didnt have the burden of debt on their shoulders for much of their lives? wouldnt it be great if they could spend more time with you and your partner?

It would be nice if we all found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. That was my decision in life. And I made plenty of time to be with my family... I'm freakin' Superman. And my kids will be fine... The majority of them actually better off than me.

Wanderer78

Amerika wrote: »

It would be nice if we all found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. That was my decision in life. And I made plenty of time to be with my family... I'm freakin' Superman. And my kids will be fine... The majority of them actually better off than me.

there effectively is pots of gold around, we need to fundamentally change our economic and financial systems to distribute wealth more evenly. many younger generations are and will be much worse off due to rising debt, we need to make major changes to rectify this.

Amerika

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there effectively is pots of gold around, we need to fundamentally change our economic and financial systems to distribute wealth more evenly. many younger generations are and will be much worse off due to rising debt, we need to make major changes to rectify this.

The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

Wanderer78

Amerika wrote: »

The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

why not print your own money, banks do it all the time!

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

I don't think I'll ever understand why there seems to be just an empty spot in your brain when it comes to the eco-political spectrum that it goes:
Capitalism->*Blank Space*->Socialism->Communism

It's like the ideas of 'social democracy' or 'European-style capitalism' don't even exist; that the only alternative to American-style capitalism is full-on socialism. There is just no middle ground.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I don't think I'll ever understand why there seems to be just an empty spot in your brain when it comes to the eco-political spectrum that it goes:
Capitalism->*Blank Space*->Socialism->Communism

It's like the ideas of 'social democracy' or 'European-style capitalism' don't even exist; that the only alternative to American-style capitalism is full-on socialism. There is just no middle ground.

Oh come on, the United States is already a semi-socialistic nation. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicad, SNAP, and much more is already in place and will eventually bankrupt us. If democrats had their way we would be Greece in no time.

Wanderer78

Amerika wrote: »

Oh come on, the United States is already a semi-socialistic nation. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicad, SNAP, and much more is already in place and will eventually bankrupt us. If democrats had their way we would be Greece in no time.

:eek:

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote:

Oh come on, the United States is already a semi-socialistic nation. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicad, SNAP, and much more is already in place and will eventually bankrupt us. If democrats had their way we would be Greece in no time.

You heard it right there folks, the US is a semi-socialistic state.

I'm sorry you've never heard of a little thing called "wealth inequality" and that right now there's millions working 50-60hrs a week for $10.50 who can barely survive, yet a handful of billionaires make more in a year than entire countries do.

But yeah, you're right, the US is basically half-way to Venezuela if you think about it....

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You heard it right there folks, the US is a semi-socialistic state.

I'm sorry you've never heard of a little thing called "wealth inequality" and that right now there's millions working 50-60hrs a week for $10.50 who can barely survive, yet a handful of billionaires make more in a year than entire countries do.

But yeah, you're right, the US is basically half-way to Venezuela if you think about it....

We could tax the "rich" at 75% and it would have a trivial effect on overall income inequality, and would do nothing to pay for the debt of our social ills. Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich.... ya'll sound like some broken record. Newflash: Taxing the rich can't cure everything, amigo.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

We could tax the "rich" at 75% and it would have a trivial effect on overall income inequality, and would do nothing to pay for the debt of our social ills. Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich.... ya'll sound like some broken record. Newflash: Taxing the rich can't cure everything, amigo.

Did I say anything about taxing the rich? Hardly a broken record when nothing's playing there, amigo.

I merely pointed out how there's glaring inequality in your country, yet is 'half-way to socialism' according to you, nothing more.

All I'll say is, I've learned to realise there exists more people on this planet than myself, and while I'm not near the elite, there's a hell of a lot of people below me through no fault of their own. Now I'm not going to live like a monk and give up all my worldly possesions out of guilt, but you can be damn sure that I'll do my best to make the world a fairer place for all for as long as I live on this earth. Why? Not just because I'm a christian, but because it's the right f*ckin thing to do imo.

Unfortunately, despite (presumably going by your examples from your personal life I've read) being many years older than me, you haven't yet reached this stage of maturity and remain stuck in the 'this is mine, mine, mine and f*ck anyone who wants an fair share' mentality. I pity you and people like you, since you make the world a much ****ter place than it should be.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Did I say anything about taxing the rich? Hardly a broken record when nothing's playing there, amigo.

I merely pointed out how there's glaring inequality in your country, yet is 'half-way to socialism' according to you, nothing more.

All I'll say is, I've learned to realise there exists more people on this planet than myself, and while I'm not near the elite, there's a hell of a lot of people below me through no fault of their own. Now I'm not going to live like a monk and give up all my worldly possesions out of guilt, but you can be damn sure that I'll do my best to make the world a fairer place for all for as long as I live on this earth. Why? Not just because I'm a christian, but because it's the right f*ckin thing to do imo.

Unfortunately, despite (presumably going by your examples from your personal life I've read) being many years older than me, you haven't yet reached this stage of maturity and remain stuck in the 'this is mine, mine, mine and f*ck anyone who wants an fair share' mentality. I pity you and people like you, since you make the world a much ****ter place than it should be.

You know nothing about me or what I do for those less fortunate on a regular basis. I work full time and have a part time on weekends at another job. I figured I could join a gym and pay them, or take on a physical part time job and have them pay me. The part time job company is having a massive restructuring and will be laying people off. I went into HR last weekend and told them I don't really need this job and if it will help someone from losing their job who really needs the money, I am willing to resign immediately. My charity is my choice, and don't feel someone needs to dictate to me what I should be doing in that manner. So please save your pity and lecture someone else.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

You know nothing about me or what I do for those less fortunate on a regular basis. I work full time and have a part time on weekends at another job. I figured I could join a gym and pay them, or take on a physical part time job and have them pay me. The part time job company is having a massive restructuring and will be laying people off. I went into HR last weekend and told them I don't really need this job and if it will help someone from losing their job who really needs the money, I am willing to resign immediately. My charity is my choice, and don't feel someone needs to dictate to me what I should be doing in that manner. So please save your pity and lecture someone else.

That's noble of you, but the ironic thing is none of that would even need to happen if you lived in a fairer society.

Ireland is far from rosey, but ask Irish people would they rather our country be run like yours, and see how many say yes.

Overheal

How can social security bankrupt the country if the country is borrowing money from it? Bet a dollar that's the major reason they want to shut it down, just to erase the debt owed back to it.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

How can social security bankrupt the country if the country is borrowing money from it? Bet a dollar that's the major reason they want to shut it down, just to erase the debt owed back to it.

You’ve heard of the old saying… Rob from Peter to pay Paul (or in this case Congress robbed from OASI to pay DI)? Why do you think they keep upping the age before you can start to receive the money you’ve paid into Social Security? Even the Democrats are finally admitting SS is in dire straits. It will reach a shortfall by 2034. And Social Security is already running a huge deficit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year. Social Security, according to the system's own actuaries, is now $32 Trillion in the red. Congress will have to do something, but what? Where do you think they’ll come up with $32 Trillion? And we haven’t even talked about our debt. We’re at $20 Trillion right now and will probably be at $30 Trillion in less that 10 years. And interest rates will be rising. At some point the interest on our debt will approach $1 Trillion per year. Total federal tax receipts are only at $3.3 Trillion annually. How will we ever be able the pay for everything? Our defense spending will probably be made up of sticks and stones, Education will be left up to you mom's and dads, Medicare and Health will be home remedies. Veterans, housing, transportation... forget about it. Sorry Overheal, but the future is very dismal for you in the US. So consider moving after you graduate. And both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

We could tax the "rich" at 75% and it would have a trivial effect on overall income inequality, and would do nothing to pay for the debt of our social ills. Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich.... ya'll sound like some broken record. Newflash: Taxing the rich can't cure everything, amigo.

Historically the top tax rate used to be as high as 91% and the kind of income inequality we see today simply did not exist in the 1950s when the top tax rate was around that 90% mark. The explosion in income inequality we are seeing today began during the 1980's when Regan dramatically reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% and all the presidents since then have done little to change that situation in terms of the top marginal tax rate although it has increased somewhat.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Historically the top tax rate used to be as high as 91% and the kind of income inequality we see today simply did not exist in the 1950s when the top tax rate was around that 90% mark. The explosion in income inequality we are seeing today began during the 1980's when Regan dramatically reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% and all the presidents since then have done little to change that situation in terms of the top marginal tax rate although it has increased somewhat.

Tax the rich at 100% then. It will still accomplish nothing.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

Tax the rich at 100% then. It will still accomplish nothing.

You are right there Amerika (i just puked:) ) i dont beilve in over taxing the rich but you cant under tax them either!!!!! What is wrong with some one who is working two jobs paying the same tax as some one who earns millions? Everybody pays their share is fair isnt it?

Problem is in the states ye seem to have different priorities in how you want to spend money. You have no problem in spending TRILLIONS in your milltary and in wars but have a massive problem with spending a couple of million in womens health because you have moral issues with family planning....thats f**ked up.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry Overheal, but the future is very dismal for you in the US. So consider moving after you graduate. And both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.

That's the second time in this thread you've been condescending.

Mr.Micro

ECO_Mental wrote: »

You are right there Amerika (i just puked:) ) i dont beilve in over taxing the rich but you cant under tax them either!!!!! What is wrong with some one who is working two jobs paying the same tax as some one who earns millions? Everybody pays their share is fair isnt it?

Problem is in the states ye seem to have different priorities in how you want to spend money. You have no problem in spending TRILLIONS in your milltary and in wars but have a massive problem with spending a couple of million in womens health because you have moral issues with family planning....thats f**ked up.

Indeed. Billions on weapons and bombs to destroy other countries. When it comes to looking after its on needy, there is no money. The British are the same billions for arms and then a big deal the to fund the NHS and Social Security.

BabyCheeses

In order to make a profit from health insurance you require low risk, high cost situations. This means that there is no profit from providing sick people insurance. ACA forced insurance companies to take on unprofitable people. This meant people weren't making as much profit as they could, hence it is bad. It did have problems but this is what happens when you try to mix profit and people's health together.

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, I was a bit harsh on you. I apologize for that. And I know you will be paying off ludicrous college loans probably for decades.

But from my perspective I know it can be done. I worked full time at 45 hours a week on average, while raising a family and paying for medical insurance, all while going to college full time (24 credits a year). Got both a BA & MBA. I paid my way in life and didn't stiff anyone, or make anyone pay for me.

You are aware that the whole point of insurance is for others to pay for something that would otherwise not be affordable for one person right? If you got sick people would be paying for you and when others get sick you pay for them.

Tony EH

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Indeed. Billions on weapons and bombs to destroy other countries. When it comes to looking after its on needy, there is no money. The British are the same billions for arms and then a big deal the to fund the NHS and Social Security.

Spent a little bit of time in San Francisco and the amount of people on the streets would make your skin crawl. EVERY single street corner. I was informed that many of them were there because the probably couldn't afford bills of some sort, or were suffering from some sort of mental disorder, and their lives fell apart. No State run institutions or support, so it's the streets.

It's a disgusting indictment, especially on a country that has no problem spending obscene amounts of money to start wars around the globe.

Someone once said you judge a country on its ability (or willingness) to look after her most vulnerable. On that measure, America is a very sad picture indeed.

Mr.Micro

Tony EH wrote: »

Spent a little bit of time in San Francisco and the amount of people on the streets would make your skin crawl. EVERY single street corner. I was informed that many of them were there because the probably couldn't afford bills of some sort, or were suffering from some sort of mental disorder, and their lives fell apart. No State run institutions or support, so it's the streets.

It's a disgusting indictment, especially on a country that has no problem spending obscene amounts of money to start wars around the globe.

Someone once said you judge a country on its ability (or willingness) to look after her most vulnerable. On that measure, America is a very sad picture indeed.

When people are poor in America, they are poor. It's a full time job stretching the dollar and virtually impossible to get out of it. Something that has always irked me in life, is the Money spent on arms, often for foreign wars and intervention, yet needy people, healthcare and all the other social issues are treated like the lowest of the low. If a fraction of the arms budgets was spent on bettering social situations for people it might make a massive difference for many, but no better to spend it on the likes of a dozens of smart bombs that cost $500 each. I cannot see that policy changing anytime soon, so the poor will stay poor.

FreudianSlippers

Smart bombs cost a hell of a lot more than $500 each.

#JustSayin'

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Indeed. Billions on weapons and bombs to destroy other countries. When it comes to looking after its on needy, there is no money. The British are the same billions for arms and then a big deal the to fund the NHS and Social Security.

Funny, I find it ironic that a lot of people that complain about our defense spending are the first to call 911america when bad things happen.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

Funny, I find it ironic that a lot of people that complain about our defense spending are the first to call 911america when bad things happen.

Seems to be a very gross oversimplification of geopolitics (no surprise). Are you not sure it isn't the US who wants to police the world and requires constant intervention to justify excessive military spending.

This assertion I hear a lot from the blue collar, uneducated people in the US; a misconception that everyone in the world is crying for the US to come and save them.

WWII was a long time ago, maybe move on?

Tony EH

Amerika wrote: »

Funny, I find it ironic that a lot of people that complain about our defense spending are the first to call 911america when bad things happen.

The vast, vast majority of people aren't calling that number.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Funny, I find it ironic that a lot of people that complain about our defense spending are the first to call 911america when bad things happen.

Not sure what you mean there. Defence spending? To wage war or conflict in another country? It's big business and that is all it is. Nothing to do with defence. Weapons mean destruction and as such are counter productive to the advance of mankind. Spending money on health, education, social issues, public services would be far more effective in the advancement of mankind. I have never bought the phoney war on terror story.

eire4

Mr.Micro wrote: »

When people are poor in America, they are poor. It's a full time job stretching the dollar and virtually impossible to get out of it. Something that has always irked me in life, is the Money spent on arms, often for foreign wars and intervention, yet needy people, healthcare and all the other social issues are treated like the lowest of the low. If a fraction of the arms budgets was spent on bettering social situations for people it might make a massive difference for many, but no better to spend it on the likes of a dozens of smart bombs that cost $500 each. I cannot see that policy changing anytime soon, so the poor will stay poor.

When I read comments like that I am reminded again and again about President Eisenhower's famous farewell speech in 1961 when he said to bewary of:
"unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Sadly the idea that a permanent ruling class encompassing the Pentagon and its corporate suppliers could control much of the US government and its budget has come to pass just as Eisenhower warned against. What is worse still this has lead to much suffering around the world due to US military actions and much suffering in the US as the military budget sucks up so much of the US budget. The 2015 estimate of the US budget puts the military spending at 54% of the overall budget. Roughly 100 years prior to that as World War 1 began in 1914 the US military spending was only 1% of the overall budget. That is a stunning change in 100 years.

Valord

eire4 wrote: »

Not at all and congress in bipartisan fashion is not helping. During the recent health votes there was a vote on allowing Americans to buy the same medicines that are much cheaper in Canada. The vote was a no with 13 Democrats voting along with the 52 Republicans top vote no.

Actually, several Republicans crossed over to vote for that one, even Ted Cruz, which is why the Democrats who voted against it are taking so much flack.

I'm reading that Obamacare has had premiums go up by 25% and I'm not contesting that, but (at least according to Obama himself) they had been going up at even higher rates prior to Obamacare being passed. Is that not true? I understand it's a far cry from the lofty goal of lowering costs for the consumers, but if it is true, it still seems like it's more appealing than the previous alternative.

Also, what are the possible alternatives Trump could have to Obamacare? Assuming the Republican Congress will reject any increased spending on subsidies or a public option. Even Obama himself is not incredibly happy with the current version of the law, but like many on the left, his solutions to the problem are the opposite of what the Republicans want. So what are the Republicans looking at doing?

rockonollie

I'd love to share some proof of the 25% increases in premiums.....but it did not take me long to crumple up and toss the letter that informed me that my premium was going from $327 per month in 2016 to $468 per month in 2017.
The major problem that is being ignored is the shameless over charging of hospitals, which kill the bottom lines of insurance companies, and in turn leads to the high premiums. Looking at an itemized US hospital bill is terrifying and infuriating.

mariaalice

The only solution is to make health insurance mandatory. Trump could spin it as personal responsibility, why should the insured have their premiums increased because of the unpaid bill of the uninsured bla bla, of course if Obama had made it mandatory it would be big government :pac:

Tony EH

Making something "mandatory" doesn't mean it becomes affordable. The problem remains price gouging by groups who consider only their bottom line.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Valord wrote: »

Actually, several Republicans crossed over to vote for that one, even Ted Cruz, which is why the Democrats who voted against it are taking so much flack.

I'm reading that Obamacare has had premiums go up by 25% and I'm not contesting that, but (at least according to Obama himself) they had been going up at even higher rates prior to Obamacare being passed. Is that not true? I understand it's a far cry from the lofty goal of lowering costs for the consumers, but if it is true, it still seems like it's more appealing than the previous alternative.

Also, what are the possible alternatives Trump could have to Obamacare? Assuming the Republican Congress will reject any increased spending on subsidies or a public option. Even Obama himself is not incredibly happy with the current version of the law, but like many on the left, his solutions to the problem are the opposite of what the Republicans want. So what are the Republicans looking at doing?

Thanks for the correction on that vote. I had the wrong info there. Who knows what the Republicans will do with health in the US. Other then making sure it remains very much a for profit industry who knows. They have been screaming about it for years but have never clearly articulated what they would do instead.

B0jangles

Looks like repealing the ACA could leave large numbers of Americans with far worse coverage than before it was enacted.

Authors:
David Himmelstein is a professor of public health at the City University of New York at Hunter College, a Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Steffie Woolhandler is a professor of public health at the City University of New York at Hunter College, a Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

For more than 30 years, we have studied how death rates are affected by changes in health-care coverage, and we’re convinced that an ACA repeal could cause tens of thousands of deaths annually.

The story is in the data: The biggest and most definitive study of what happens to death rates when Medicaid coverage is expanded, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for every 455 people who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year. Applying that figure to even a conservative estimate of 20 million losing coverage in the event of an ACA repeal yields an estimate of 43,956 deaths annually...

...

Although Aaron has a rosy view of a likely Republican plan, much of what they — notably House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who is Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Heath and Human Services, which will be in charge of dismantling the ACA — have advocated in place of the ACA would hollow out the coverage of many who were unaffected by the law, harming them and probably raising their death rates. Abolishing minimum coverage standards for insurance policies would leave insurers and employers free to cut coverage for preventive and reproduction-related care. Allowing interstate insurance sales probably would cause a race to the bottom, with skimpy plans that emanate from lightly regulated states becoming the norm. Block granting Medicaid would leave poor patients at the mercy of state officials, many of whom have shown little concern for the health of the poor. A Medicare voucher program (with the value of the voucher tied to overall inflation rather than more rapid medical inflation) would worsen the coverage of millions of seniors, a problem that would be exacerbated by the proposed ban on full coverage under Medicare supplement policies. In other words, even if Republicans replace the ACA, the plans they’ve put on the table would have devastating consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-than-43000-people-annually/?utm_term=.0189a57dfbef

Tony EH

B0jangles wrote: »

Looks like repealing the ACA could leave large numbers of Americans with far worse coverage than before it was enacted.

Would anybody be really surprised at that?