It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Democrat freakshow Leadership on the Warpath

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:47 PM
a reply to: marg6043

I for some reason always thought it decreased the medicaid program in favor of the ACA. thanks for making a point of that, I guess every now and then the MSM drivel does get the best of me no matter how hard i fight it.

posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:50 PM
The republicans are sweeping I'm not surprised about this response

When the dems came in and swept we had the same sort of thing from rep side

It's expected

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:14 AM
a reply to: marg6043

Since apparently anecdotes are proof of something when it comes to the ACA... I didn't have insurance before the ACA due to a preexisting condition. I pay for my own insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid despite making very little. So where's your proof that the majority of people that now have insurance are simply people now on Medicaid?

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:37 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I think the pre-existing clause is one that needs to stay no matter what happens.

But why can't we find a better plan that doesn't hurt most hard working Americans? The pre-existing can be added to the new one. Picking one small thing that helps and putting it above all the bad that ACA does is not the proper way to look at this.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: Martin75

And where will the money be coming from that allows the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions? The reason the insurance companies didn't want to cover preexisting conditions in the first place is because they end up losing money on those plans. That's why we have the mandate. It helps the insurance companies recoup their losses from covering preexisting conditions.

So if we scrap everything except the preexisting condition clause that leaves the insurance companies with three options. They operate at a loss. That's not going to happen. They jack up everyone's premium. That's just making the main problem everyone has with the ACA worse. Or they jack up the premiums for only those people with preexisting conditions. At which point their more or less being priced out of having insurance which makes the whole preexisting condition clause pointless.

It's all well and good to say let's just take the good parts of the ACA while leaving the bad. The truth is that it's impossible to separate one part from the rest.

Like I said early on in the thread, the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it. But just repealing it with no replacement will make things worse. And so far the only replacement I've heard proposed, Trump's, does nothing to benefit the working class.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:41 AM

originally posted by: crazyewok

The reason they brought in Obamacare was because US healthcare was unaffordable and a joke in the first place.

Second place, not first place. The healthcare system it replaced was caused by government interference during WWII that turned healthcare into a marketable commodity. The system before that wasn't perfect, either, but it was more closely coupled to market rates, which helped keep the costs (comparatively) manageable.

Once the customer stops paying for the service they receive, the service provider no longer needs to keep the costs within the customer's ability to pay.

Tort reform should really underpin any attempt to move forward. A big chunk of what you pay is actually going to the doctor's insurance costs for the hundred-and-one pointless lawsuits from chancers looking for a payout.

Pay out of pocket for day-to-day stuff, catastrophic insurance for the big stuff - which, incidentally, was closer to the older model. Doctors are business people too - a no-hassle $20 paid today is better than spending months arguing and jumping through ridiculous hoops to get maybe $30 later. When the money is coming out of the customer's own pocket (and the doctors don't have ridiculous overheads to meet) they will price their services accordingly.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:47 AM

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Martin75
Like I said early on in the thread, the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it. But just repealing it with no replacement will make things worse. And so far the only replacement I've heard proposed, Trump's, does nothing to benefit the working class.

"The working class"? You mean the people who have been disproportionately priced out of the market already and get fined for their misfortune of not being "poor enough"?

How exactly are things going to get worse for them? Are the fines being doubled? They've already increased for 2016 and are set to increase again for 2017. It's not like their life is full of roses under Obamacare.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:03 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Check the CBO, Predictions back in 2012.

CBO 2016, CBO Misses Its Obamacare Projection by 24 Million People

Breakdown of health care reform pros and cons and failures

Key Facts about the Uninsured Population

Sep 29, 2016

The first look at the coverage was seen as a benefit for uninsured poor people falling in certain categories.

The true, they were able to get into the expanded Medicaid this is the part the government plays out as a success under

Decreasing the number of uninsured is a key goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which extends Medicaid coverage to many low-income individuals in states that have expanded and provides Marketplace subsidies for individuals below 400% of poverty

Pre existing conditions clause is probable the only good thing from ACA, but that is for those that were able to pay for insurance but could not because of existing health problems.

In the past, gaps in the public insurance system and lack of access to affordable private coverage left millions without health insurance. Beginning in 2014, the ACA expanded coverage to millions of previously uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. Data show substantial gains in public and private insurance coverage and historic decreases in uninsured rates in the first and second years of ACA coverage. Coverage gains were particularly large among low-income people living in states that expanded Medicaid. Still, millions of people—28.5 million in 2015— remain without coverage.

Still ACA failed to control cost, when it comes to insurance premiums, most people now that do not have insurance will increased by 2022, due to still insurance becoming unaffordable.

The main reason uninsured workers give for not taking up an offer of coverage is that the coverage is unaffordable.7 From 2006 to 2016, total premiums for family coverage has increased by 58%, and the worker’s share has increased by 78%, outpacing wage growth.

At the end the reason ACA seems to be doing well under the Uninsured before ACA is due to the expanded Medicaid in the sates that opted for the expansion, at the expenses of the tax payers and those that are bound to have mandatory insurance that now is increasing their rates

Who remains uninsured?

• In 2015, nearly three quarters of the uninsured (74%) had at least one full-time worker in their family, and an additional 11% had a part-time worker in their family (Figure 4).
• Individuals below poverty are at the highest risk of being uninsured (the poverty level for a family of three was $19,078 in 2015). In total, over eight in ten of the uninsured are in low- or moderate-income families, meaning they have incomes below 400% of poverty (Figure 4).
• While a plurality (45%) of the uninsured are non-Hispanic Whites, people of color are at higher risk of being uninsured than Whites. People of color make up 41% of the nonelderly U.S. population but account for over half of the total nonelderly uninsured population (Figure 4). The disparity in insurance coverage is especially high for Hispanics, who account for 20% of the nonelderly population but nearly a third (32%) of the nonelderly uninsured population. Hispanics and Blacks have significantly higher uninsured rates (17.2% and 12.2%, respectively) than Whites (8.1%).14

The government is not going to tell that the uninsured numbers will increase as premiums keep raising.

Obamacare subsidies do not go to the people but to the insurance companies, Obamacare is not a government insurance plan either, that is why premiums will keep increasing for those mandated into buying insurance,

Now that it's clear enough, however, that Obamacare is basically an expensive Medicaid expansion coupled with 2,400 pages of liberty-sapping mandates, it's time for a winning Obamacare alternative to emerge, one along the lines of what Ed Gillespie almost rode to victory in the Virginia Senate race. Such an alternative should address the longstanding inequity in the tax code—between employer-based and individually purchased insurance—while adhering to four basic notions:

If expansion of Medicaid was the desirable result to keep the poor insured and to have pre existiongs conditions a none factor, they have done just that, at the expenses of more taxes to the working class for expansion, still millions of poor and now working class still have not insurance.

Obamacare failure

edit on 5-1-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:09 AM
a reply to: Martin75

Pre existing conditions ban, expansion of Medicaid is ok, but the mandatory clause for the working class that were already insured needs to go in order to make the insurance companies compete.

Right now without competition for the working class will only increase the uninsured, as predicted by 2022, premiums will keep rising against the wages, the government will keep raising the fines as in taxes to give the credits to the same insurance companies that are gouging the working class under the mandate.

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You just said a whole lot of what actually needs to be fixed .. much of it was Obama's platform for election. He did basically none of it.

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 08:03 AM

originally posted by: marg6043
Petosi and Smuck, what a dynamic duo, the only problem is that anything they say means crap because both of them are nothing this days but crap.

Hard to be heard if you are any of those two, unless is CNN the one doing the listening.

Lol. Oscar Wilde like wordplay.
edit on 7-1-2017 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in