It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Trump calls for repealing Obamacare without replacing it

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, yes they would!

And, with a smile on their face the whole time! Now, there is an element of QC here which would need to be addressed but this is done far more easily than most imagine.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, yes they would!

And, with a smile on their face the whole time! Now, there is an element of QC here which would need to be addressed but this is done far more easily than most imagine.


I'm sure they would be willing to meet and exceed any FDA standards...



edit on 2-7-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I hear you, but honestly everything from the business side is fixable with the ACA, but the real issue is that it is a political football and they are playing with our freaking lives no matter which side of the issue you are on.

The problem with cheap insurance is that it provides an illusion of safety until one actually gets very sick and then - WHAM - medical bankruptcy.

Most bankruptcies were due to extreme medical costs, including underinsured people, not just those without any coverage.

I don't want the bad old days to return. And I don't want the government making it impossible for me to care for my son.


Your points are more right on than virtually any comment on here. ACA mandated that limits could not be put on policies. As a result, the costs went way up for policies because they made sure the policies had to pay out if patients became very ill. What the ACA did not do is attack the root causes of high costs, these include but are not limited to;
1. High medical school tuition which could be reduced by forcing schools to use more of their endowments to reduce tuition.
2. High new building costs incurred by tax exempt hospitals who use too much of their tax exemption for building projects rather than providing the free-care they are supposed to.
3. Fraud
4. Cost standardization.

The employer mandate should be done away with. There should be a loosening in the types of policies allowed with clear guidelines on disclosures. Then in particular, the cost issues outlined above should be addressed. But, 1 and 2 in particular attack some very influential people. Therefore, it will never happen since it may keep some rich folks from getting richer at the expense of the rest of us.

I am agreeing with everything you said. I am just enumerating the issues inherent in your comments that should be addressed. Fix these things and a lot of people in this country will be a lot happier. The only people that will be less happy will be university and hospital presidents who will be forced to do the right thing instead of building monuments to their legacies at the expense of the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Here's a recent thread about the House passing a bill to limit Malpractice damage awards.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Cancer, lots and lots die from not being able to go for early detection. But why do you care. The Inquisition party is in charge and you will get your purges.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

Cancer, lots and lots die from not being able to go for early detection. But why do you care. The Inquisition party is in charge and you will get your purges.


I think you are under a chicken little scenario. The sky is not falling no matter what the left says on a daily bases. I take that back there is one sky is falling scenario and that is ACA as it fails in a death spiral. So we can do nothing and ACA fails all on its own, or we can work to fix it and stop the left propaganda that will say it is bad no matter what.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
or we can work to fix it



So, fix it, then replace it.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
They should implement free market health care. Those who have the money to pay for it get health care. Those who don't need to get off their bums and contribute more to society to earn money to pay for healthcare. There is no need for anymore welfare as it is.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
They should implement free market health care. Those who have the money to pay for it get health care. Those who don't need to get off their bums and contribute more to society to earn money to pay for healthcare. There is no need for anymore welfare as it is.


And there is the problem...when you add those pesky humans into a perfect plan they total F it up every time. If a person doesn't need to get off their bums they will not do it. If the state provides just enough to live on many millions will adopt that crappy lifestyle over working for a better one. There is a real human nature involved in all this that we see play out with ever increasing socialized and subsistence programs, entitlement attitudes, ever growing Government... and so on.

This just keeps getting bigger and bigger until one day we are like Greece...



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: riiver

And that is where we are at with our health care system, a moral issue. Is it a right or a privelege. Doctors and hospitals won't treat without payment. That system has failed too many and that is bad for the nation.

Not true. In fact, that's not true at all. If it were, there would be no medical bill-induced bankruptcies that pro-universal healthcare folks regurgitate like it's tainted oysters.

Here's a moral issue for you: Is it morally just to take from others, with the threat of imprisonment, to give to other people someone's private property? Income is a quid-pro-quo for my labor--for my efforts, knowledge, time, and skill. Nobody has a right to have any of that.

Pursue your happiness--fight for what you want that will make you happy, but don't demonize others who disagree with you simply because you're not getting your way. Those of us differing in our opinion over your version of how the healthcare system should be are not immoral people.

But again, I ask you, why is it moral to allow call for a government to take my private property (compensation for my work--my income) and give it to other people without my direct consent and for a purpose that has relatively zero direct effect on me personally? Where is the morality in that?

The moral thing to do would be to call out for donations of time, money, labor, skill, etc., on behalf of the healthcare industry to aid the industry's treatment of those who cannot afford it. But, to expect that the federal government should forcefully (or with the threat of force) take that which I might willingly give, and then to advocate for that while lecturing about morality, seems pretty disingenuous.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
They should implement free market health care. Those who have the money to pay for it get health care. Those who don't need to get off their bums and contribute more to society to earn money to pay for healthcare. There is no need for anymore welfare as it is.


Does that include those disabled to the point that "getting off their bums and contributing" is nearly impossible? Cancer patients at stage 4? Black lung patients? Paraplegic? Mentally incapable?

Do you honestly think, given the choice these peole WOULDN'T rather be able?

Some of you people man....



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Does that include those disabled to the point that "getting off their bums and contributing" is nearly impossible? Cancer patients at stage 4? Black lung patients? Paraplegic? Mentally incapable?

Do you honestly think, given the choice these peole WOULDN'T rather be able?

Some of you people man....


And so the stray man cometh...

Lets start with the first 50 million that are healthy of mind and body...hehe



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You have chosen your side.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey



The moral thing to do would be to call out for donations of time, money, labor, skill, etc., on behalf of the healthcare industry to aid the industry's treatment of those who cannot afford it. But, to expect that the federal government should forcefully (or with the threat of force) take that which I might willingly give, and then to advocate for that while lecturing about morality, seems pretty disingenuous.


It would be great if we had more of these systems than welfare handouts.
edit on 3-7-2017 by AkontaDarkpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Before 2008 Americans must have been dying in droves with zero medical coverage... Man, I'm sure how we lived these past 200 plus years without medicaid and ACA....


No. 'Back in the day' employers carried as much as 100% of health insurance for workers. Until very recently I never held a job where I didn't have at least 80% covered by employers.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

POST REMOVED BY STAFF


I don't know how to fix it because the problem is really with insurance and big pharma that neither side want to touch. The left say EVERYONE gets cake!! Knowing full well we can not afford that under the current system as we are seeing with ACA that is dying on the vine and they knew it would die too. The Right is saying this is what we might be able to afford but everyone can not be equally covered...Both are wrong since both will not address the real issue and with BOTH all people will not be fully covered. The only difference is the left lie about it as part of their platform and to make the right look bad.
edit on Tue Jul 4 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508

No. 'Back in the day' employers carried as much as 100% of health insurance for workers. Until very recently I never held a job where I didn't have at least 80% covered by employers.


Well today my company of 1400 people pays 100% healthcare coverage for everyone who works there . I pay about 30 bucks on copays. It use to be 20 bucks but ACA made it more expensive. My friend with only seven employees sill paid a good chunk for his employees through a co-op, but he had to put everyone on ACA..had no choice.

Most companies still pay big numbers unless you are a contractor.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You have chosen your side.

Absolutely--I side with state governments on down dealing with private industry, and the federal government sticking to that for which it was designed.

Your attempt at ominously categorizing me as a side chooser doesn't matter in this discussion--as if your opinion of my "side" is a relevant point is discussion. If you would like to continue to discuss pertinent points relative to the topic at hand (repealing and replacing the PPACA), I'll continue; if you prefer to continue the option of pointing out when people have "chosen a side," then debating this with you is tantamount to watching paint dry and grass grow, and being concerned about which one will win.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Are you insane? That was the main reason that many of the GOP AND Trump were elected was because the people couldn't stand obamacare and what it's doing to healthcare in America.

Jaden







 
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join