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.


Americans prefer Obamacare to GOP replacement by 2 to 1

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:18 AM
Why don't they wait till they can read it before they make claims??????? Poor never went without healthcare and thats a fact. Working poor went without

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 02:24 PM
a reply to: allsee4eye

Talk to the custodian at my office who had health insurance prior to the PPACA implementation. The only things that have changed in his life in the past six years is that he can no longer afford health insurance--same job, same company, same everything. Now, though, he can't afford it. I would definitely consider him poor (hasn't had his car in nearly a year because he has to make monthly payment on a $600 repair).

He wishes that the PPACA never existed. What about him?

Also, when you start a thread on a poll that doesn't have a "neither one" option to see who actually doesn't want either plan, it's tainted from the start and has about as much validity Jesus' resurrection to an atheist.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 02:31 PM

originally posted by: IxAmxDarkness
I have always wondered why the poor GOP constituents cheer for major tax cuts to the rich when it is they who will suffer?

Why do they continue to vote against themselves?

Maybe they understand that the federal government isn't akin to an Oprah Christmas special, just to hand out "free" things. Maybe they have enough self worth to understand that anything that they may want out of life, they should work hard to achieve or possible go without.

Maybe they realize that America's tax dollars don't go into a cookie jar where anyone and everyone can just reach in and take what they want or what society tells them that they "need."

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:28 PM

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Well for starters, all the protections are not carried over. 50+ folks and sick people can be charged WAY more than they can under the ACA.

So, you mean they might actually have to pay the full cost for their possibly ailing health? Interesting...

The cheap junk plans will appeal to young healthy folks and that makes sick and older people have to pay even more because the pools will be split between healthy/young and sick/old.

So you advocate the idea that young people who can't even afford their student loans should continue to subsidize the cost of other people's healthcare/insurance. Interesting...

Insurance rates for both individual and employer plans will go up.

This is conjecture, akin to Obama's claims that the average premium under the PPACA would decrease by $2,500/year. Care to explain why one conjecture holds more validity than the other at the time that it's not provable?

If someone has a junk plan and gets sick, their insurance will not really cover it. It will cause bankruptcy and death.

You still did not cite where in the proposed bill that this is fact. Furthermore, you are speaking in hyperbole, only citing the worst-case scenario that will affect a minute amount of people. But keep in mind, these are the same young people who, before the PPACA was passed, opted out of health insurance altogether, so it's not exactly like it's a big deal when compared to before--and I don't really see the massive piles of bodies from the 2000s and before that are attributed to young people who didn't have insurance. Can you show me those, or will you admit that you're over-exaggerating this talking point?

Please look at the data and analysis yourself and see what you think.


Here's one of the two problems (the second problem being that this is an oped from the LA Times): You don't need to compare the two bills, you need to accept the fact that neither one is very good. Period.

The average American's health insurance and healthcare doesn't need to be manipulated by the federal government. If they want to create an optional insurance for low- or no-income people as a option, that's fine (and it already exists, to a point), but dicking with everyone's just to benefit a relatively low portion of Americans is irresponsible at the federal level.

There are subsidies but far less of them and a lower cut off for receiving them.

Good...the criteria that needs met in order to suckle from the teet of the American taxpayer needs to be tightened...but the process also needs to be fair and efficient for those truly in need. Right now, the criteria are too loose and the administration too inefficient.

So, healthy people can buy illusory security for less, but if they get sick they will need to wait six months to purchase a plan that will cover them assuming they don't lapse fore than 63 days in their coverage or it will be a pre-existing condition and they will not be covered for it. (Note: this keeps changing - not sure where current law stands - this has changed sonsee below for current info. I'm leaving my mistake here as pre-existing conditions are still a concern. )

I agree that the issue of pre-existing conditions is a tough one, but I stand firm in believing that not everyone should be forced to share the cost of someone's medical condition. Pre-existing conditions, as handled now by the PPACA, are causing a heavy strain on the insurance industry. If you want to see the downfall of the insurance industry (and, honestly, I kind of do, but not for the sinister reasons as that makes it sound), then by all means, mandate that they keep covering these people in unaffordable ways for the providers.

Cuts to Medicaid are a massive part of this bill.

Probably because usurping control via mandates to the insurance industry is expensive. Expanding Medicaid in lieu of the creation of the PPACA is what should have been the goal in the first place, assuming the true goal was to get those who cannot afford it insured.

The health industry gained jobs under the ACA through hospital expansions and the higher level of people with quality insurance seeking care. These gains are projected to become losses when the factors that drove the increase are removed.

A large majority of those jobs were in order to administer the PPACA mandates and insurance information correctly. My mom was the one person in charge of teaching everyone how to use the new national healthcare database, and there were a LOT of new hires just to deal with that. She then go a promotion to lead compliance officer for the hospital, and the amount of compliance with the PPACA is something that she had never seen before in her entire more-than 35-year career in the medical field (the bulk of which being an RN).

Yes, jobs were created, but not only because of the reasons that you imply or state.

Also, Congress has exempted themselves from their own legislation. I leave you with that thought.

Red herring--Congress exempts themselves from reality.

Young and healthy people will opt for those plans, leaving those with pre-existing conditions in their own, much more costly, market. In the end, the effect is the same as if companies could just outright discriminate against those with serious health problems.

It is absolute bullsh*t to refer to this as "discrimination"--it is not the job of Joe or Jane American to subsidize those with costly medical issues by force using their own personal health insurance as the means to do so. If that's the role of the federal government--to mandate such a thing--they need to grow a pair and just specify that as a line item in the next budget.

But, let's just look at my state of residence and see how the PPACA is doing for hospitals here:

Kentucky hospitals losing money under PPACA: 8 things to know

Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky

I can't find the really good one that I cited on ATS a while ago, but it went really in depth into the average profit margin of KY hospitals, how many have closed and why, etc. The PPACA has definitely not been all bells and whistles, and the most negatively affected areas in KY have been in the poorer rural areas.

I stand by my belief, 100%, that ANY usurping of the health insurance/care industry by the federal government will always lead to a very bad result in the end.

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:52 AM
I would love to see and Obama vs Trump election.

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: joshysway

Well...we just had one. obama lost

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in