Some facts for the Obama haters
Comments
-
if they can even afford it nowrgambs said:
Yeah, I think the people who have chronic health problems that no longer face lifetime limits and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions will deny it pretty convincingly.BS44325 said:After today nobody can deny that Obamacare was anything other then an epic fail.
0 -
Nobody but the very richest people can afford the treatments and meds needed for most chronic conditions and everyone can afford Obamacare, if you can't, then you don't have to pay.pjalive21 said:
if they can even afford it nowrgambs said:
Yeah, I think the people who have chronic health problems that no longer face lifetime limits and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions will deny it pretty convincingly.BS44325 said:After today nobody can deny that Obamacare was anything other then an epic fail.
It is only the people who had their cake and were eating it too that are upset with the ACA. The people who weren't lucky enough to have good employer subsidized healthcare plans aren't pissing and moaning because this hasn't effected us much.
In case you didn't know, that group includes the vast majority of small business owners that the opponents of Obamacare pay lip service to but know nothing about.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
LOL!Smellyman said:By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
ACA is kicking the middle class right in the balls. It has been an unmitigated failure. Exchange is opening with 1/5 the choices and a 25% premium increase. In many locations people are down to a choice of 1 provider. Those with no income really benefit. Otherwise, people are priced out. I have employer provided insurance, although I pay for my spouse. The plan has become very expensive, very high deductibles/co-pays. Have to shell out several thousands of dollars before they even start contributing. I used to be able to use my insurance. I no longer can afford to. For the majority of insureds, Obamacare is currently a clusterfuck, and even Bill Clinton agrees. Since this was supposed to be Obama's legacy, I'm not surprised he and his administration downplay the need for massive reform. I'm looking forward to President Clinton fixing this mess.rgambs said:
Nobody but the very richest people can afford the treatments and meds needed for most chronic conditions and everyone can afford Obamacare, if you can't, then you don't have to pay.pjalive21 said:
if they can even afford it nowrgambs said:
Yeah, I think the people who have chronic health problems that no longer face lifetime limits and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions will deny it pretty convincingly.BS44325 said:After today nobody can deny that Obamacare was anything other then an epic fail.
It is only the people who had their cake and were eating it too that are upset with the ACA. The people who weren't lucky enough to have good employer subsidized healthcare plans aren't pissing and moaning because this hasn't effected us much.
In case you didn't know, that group includes the vast majority of small business owners that the opponents of Obamacare pay lip service to but know nothing about."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
im with you...i believe there should be something out there for people, but Obamacare wasn't thought out long term...they assumed young people would be paying into the system and they are not...they need to revisit the whole process and make it better or allow you to go across state lines and have competitive insurancergambs said:
Nobody but the very richest people can afford the treatments and meds needed for most chronic conditions and everyone can afford Obamacare, if you can't, then you don't have to pay.pjalive21 said:
if they can even afford it nowrgambs said:
Yeah, I think the people who have chronic health problems that no longer face lifetime limits and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions will deny it pretty convincingly.BS44325 said:After today nobody can deny that Obamacare was anything other then an epic fail.
It is only the people who had their cake and were eating it too that are upset with the ACA. The people who weren't lucky enough to have good employer subsidized healthcare plans aren't pissing and moaning because this hasn't effected us much.
In case you didn't know, that group includes the vast majority of small business owners that the opponents of Obamacare pay lip service to but know nothing about.
0 -
Oh they get coverage but the question is whether they can find a doctor who is willing to accept their coverage. That number is shrinking every day.rgambs said:
Yeah, I think the people who have chronic health problems that no longer face lifetime limits and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions will deny it pretty convincingly.BS44325 said:After today nobody can deny that Obamacare was anything other then an epic fail.
https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/major-chicago-hospitals-not-in-2017-obamacare-plans/f55d6c23-d9b1-452f-8c75-73635bd83d07?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Web-Share0 -
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:
0 -
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.jeffbr said:
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:0 -
Hundred percent agree with your first sentence, and the inverse as well (as some people are unwilling to concede that this isn't the panacea that the Obama Administration paints it as). Rising costs are nothing new, but lack of choice certainly is, and the rate of the rising premiums is new. Also, most plans have changed dramatically in the past few years, and more closely resemble what used to be considered catastrophic coverage, with high deductibles. The difference is that catastrophic coverage usually came with a lower premium. Now we're paying more for much less coverage.Go Beavers said:
You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.jeffbr said:
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:
I'm definitely for changing things up. I don't like that health insurance has somehow historically been tied to employers. I don't like that some can't afford medical coverage. I don't like that many people, both with and without insurance, can't get proper health care without bankrupting themselves. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of a single payer solution. The money we currently pay toward premiums with our health insurance providers could go toward this with little to no negative financial impact to individuals. My only concern is the ineptness of bureaucracies in D.C. They couldn't even successfully launch a website for the ACA and had to call in private sector industry experts to bail them out. So whatever solution is floated next, I hope that the president does proper due diligence and doesn't hire the usual inept Washington D.C. insiders to try to make it happen. There is a lot of intellectual inbreeding inside the beltway, and they seem to drink each others' Kool Aid.
Edit: And I also wanted to address your initial false premise that I wanted it to be a failure. I didn't. My now wife had no insurance when I met her, and only through the ACA was she able to afford insurance. So I was happy for Obamacare and the opportunity she had to get insurance. Unfortunately, once I married her, we both were screwed. My costs went up since my employer doesn't cover her premiums, but she no longer qualified for her subsidies because of our household income. It sucked that we had to have a conversation about whether or not we should even get married, with healthcare costs (under the ACA) being the big argument against getting married.Post edited by jeffbr on"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
You need a president and congress that are willing to repeal and replace with a more market based approach. Clinton will move you towards single payer which north of the border results in reduced access, increased wait times, and a hole blown through every provincial budget. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until Clintoncare takes hold.jeffbr said:
Hundred percent agree with your first sentence, and the inverse as well (as some people are unwilling to concede that this isn't the panacea that the Obama Administration paints it as). Rising costs are nothing new, but lack of choice certainly is, and the rate of the rising premiums is new. Also, most plans have changed dramatically in the past few years, and more closely resemble what used to be considered catastrophic coverage, with high deductibles. The difference is that catastrophic coverage usually came with a lower premium. Now we're paying more for much less coverage.Go Beavers said:
You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.jeffbr said:
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:
I'm definitely for changing things up. I don't like that health insurance has somehow historically been tied to employers. I don't like that some can't afford medical coverage. I don't like that many people, both with and without insurance, can't get proper health care without bankrupting themselves. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of a single payer solution. The money we currently pay toward premiums with our health insurance providers could go toward this with little to no negative financial impact to individuals. My only concern is the ineptness of bureaucracies in D.C. They couldn't even successfully launch a website for the ACA and had to call in private sector industry experts to bail them out. So whatever solution is floated next, I hope that the president does proper due diligence and doesn't hire the usual inept Washington D.C. insiders to try to make it happen. There is a lot of intellectual inbreeding inside the beltway, and they seem to drink each others' Kool Aid.
Edit: And I also wanted to address your initial false premise that I wanted it to be a failure. I didn't. My now wife had no insurance when I met her, and only through the ACA was she able to afford insurance. So I was happy for Obamacare and the opportunity she had to get insurance. Unfortunately, once I married her, we both were screwed. My costs went up since my employer doesn't cover her premiums, but she no longer qualified for her subsidies because of our household income. It sucked that we had to have a conversation about whether or not we should even get married, with healthcare costs (under the ACA) being the big argument against getting married.0 -
The only market based thing that's been proposed is competition across state lines. Sorry but that doesn't get my juices flowing. Maybe there's some other ideas I've missed.BS44325 said:
You need a president and congress that are willing to repeal and replace with a more market based approach. Clinton will move you towards single payer which north of the border results in reduced access, increased wait times, and a hole blown through every provincial budget. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until Clintoncare takes hold.jeffbr said:
Hundred percent agree with your first sentence, and the inverse as well (as some people are unwilling to concede that this isn't the panacea that the Obama Administration paints it as). Rising costs are nothing new, but lack of choice certainly is, and the rate of the rising premiums is new. Also, most plans have changed dramatically in the past few years, and more closely resemble what used to be considered catastrophic coverage, with high deductibles. The difference is that catastrophic coverage usually came with a lower premium. Now we're paying more for much less coverage.Go Beavers said:
You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.jeffbr said:
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:
I'm definitely for changing things up. I don't like that health insurance has somehow historically been tied to employers. I don't like that some can't afford medical coverage. I don't like that many people, both with and without insurance, can't get proper health care without bankrupting themselves. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of a single payer solution. The money we currently pay toward premiums with our health insurance providers could go toward this with little to no negative financial impact to individuals. My only concern is the ineptness of bureaucracies in D.C. They couldn't even successfully launch a website for the ACA and had to call in private sector industry experts to bail them out. So whatever solution is floated next, I hope that the president does proper due diligence and doesn't hire the usual inept Washington D.C. insiders to try to make it happen. There is a lot of intellectual inbreeding inside the beltway, and they seem to drink each others' Kool Aid.
Edit: And I also wanted to address your initial false premise that I wanted it to be a failure. I didn't. My now wife had no insurance when I met her, and only through the ACA was she able to afford insurance. So I was happy for Obamacare and the opportunity she had to get insurance. Unfortunately, once I married her, we both were screwed. My costs went up since my employer doesn't cover her premiums, but she no longer qualified for her subsidies because of our household income. It sucked that we had to have a conversation about whether or not we should even get married, with healthcare costs (under the ACA) being the big argument against getting married.0 -
wait times over bankruptcy. It would be hard to choose one over the other.0
-
Wait times in canada don't effect any illness that can cause permanent risks to your health. Yes, sometimes you have to wait a little longer for knee surgery than in the US, but you wont go poor because of it. Heart trouble? Lung issues? Cancer? You get immediate treatment. Not sure why this is such a big deal to tour average american. My daughter has ulcerative colitis, and her care is covered 100% (its $5,000 every 6 weeks for her infusions, and hundreds more for her daily meds). I cant imagine dealing with that in the US. Yeah, universal health care is so fucking evil.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Yeah, we sure hate our universal healthcare up here....BS44325 said:
You need a president and congress that are willing to repeal and replace with a more market based approach. Clinton will move you towards single payer which north of the border results in reduced access, increased wait times, and a hole blown through every provincial budget. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until Clintoncare takes hold.jeffbr said:
Hundred percent agree with your first sentence, and the inverse as well (as some people are unwilling to concede that this isn't the panacea that the Obama Administration paints it as). Rising costs are nothing new, but lack of choice certainly is, and the rate of the rising premiums is new. Also, most plans have changed dramatically in the past few years, and more closely resemble what used to be considered catastrophic coverage, with high deductibles. The difference is that catastrophic coverage usually came with a lower premium. Now we're paying more for much less coverage.Go Beavers said:
You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.jeffbr said:
But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.Go Beavers said:
Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.lukin2006 said:
Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....Smellyman said:
I'm definitely for changing things up. I don't like that health insurance has somehow historically been tied to employers. I don't like that some can't afford medical coverage. I don't like that many people, both with and without insurance, can't get proper health care without bankrupting themselves. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of a single payer solution. The money we currently pay toward premiums with our health insurance providers could go toward this with little to no negative financial impact to individuals. My only concern is the ineptness of bureaucracies in D.C. They couldn't even successfully launch a website for the ACA and had to call in private sector industry experts to bail them out. So whatever solution is floated next, I hope that the president does proper due diligence and doesn't hire the usual inept Washington D.C. insiders to try to make it happen. There is a lot of intellectual inbreeding inside the beltway, and they seem to drink each others' Kool Aid.
Edit: And I also wanted to address your initial false premise that I wanted it to be a failure. I didn't. My now wife had no insurance when I met her, and only through the ACA was she able to afford insurance. So I was happy for Obamacare and the opportunity she had to get insurance. Unfortunately, once I married her, we both were screwed. My costs went up since my employer doesn't cover her premiums, but she no longer qualified for her subsidies because of our household income. It sucked that we had to have a conversation about whether or not we should even get married, with healthcare costs (under the ACA) being the big argument against getting married.
Poll: Canadians are most proud of universal medicare
The online survey of 2,207 respondents by Leger Marketing found universal health care was almost universally loved, with 94 per cent calling it an important source of collective pride -- including 74 per cent who called it "very important."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/poll-canadians-are-most-proud-of-universal-medicare-1.10529290 -
BS might be a republican a bot. Singing the praises of US republican policy, while supposedly living in Canada and lamenting Canada's general awfulness. Very strange.
Can't be real. Can it?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help