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.
Senate GOP Effort to Repeal Obamacare Fails - 'Skinny Repeal'
page: 4share:
originally posted by: 2gd2btru
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
John McCain waved his finger at the people of Arizona. We are a state with a lot of early retirees. Many of us were forced into low wage jobs (AHCCCS lobbied for no increase in minimum wage) or early retirement. We own our homes yet cannot scrape together enough money for rising healthcare insurance. Medicaid or no healthcare becomes our only two options. Medicaid gives our children's inheritance to the State through TEFRA leins. No healthcare gets us penalized. We lose no matter what. There are more of us in this category than most realize. It was us he flipped off last night.
Your premiums would have gone up another 20% beyond what they already have if the skinny bill passed.
Congress needs to fix the ACA, some of which they (Reps) are breaking themselves, on purpose, knowingly. That was the real bird they flipped you - and then they lied and said it was Obamacare's fault.
(Or they need to come up with something better from scratch but NOT something worse!)
Last night was a hopeful thing - we might get something better rather than the crap fest they were trying to pass.
McCain gave the finger to McConnel and actually stood up FOR the people of AZ.
edit on 28-7-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)
a reply to: AboveBoard
20% higher for same coverage not less coverage. I want less coverage. I don't appreciate taking care of myself for over 60 years and then told I need to pay for more than what I need to cover those who make poor health choices. Rand Paul is right. Many of us are being forced into Medicaid because we can't afford the policies the law requires. There could be cheaper options for many that would protect their assets.
You talk about risk. In AZ they place a lein on assets.
Do you live in AZ? John McCain lied to the people of AZ. He flipped us off. No doubt about it.
20% higher for same coverage not less coverage. I want less coverage. I don't appreciate taking care of myself for over 60 years and then told I need to pay for more than what I need to cover those who make poor health choices. Rand Paul is right. Many of us are being forced into Medicaid because we can't afford the policies the law requires. There could be cheaper options for many that would protect their assets.
You talk about risk. In AZ they place a lein on assets.
Do you live in AZ? John McCain lied to the people of AZ. He flipped us off. No doubt about it.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: xuenchen
What does that have to do with my post. Murkowski is a representative of the people of Alaska. The people of Alaska said they didn't want a repeal. Murkowski voted against repeal. She did her job. End of story.
You can show us all the facts supporting your claims of "a representative of the people of Alaska" right?
Your very first claim is the problem.
How do you know the majority there wants to keep O'care ?
a reply to: Kettu
Some good news for once. Pretty much since the ACA passed the GOP has promised to replace it with something better - less cost for better coverage (i.e. better health care) for more people.
Pretty much since the ACA passed, every single "attempt" by the GOP to do this has resulted in proposals that would cover fewer people with crappier coverage for substantially more cost. In other words, they have failed of their stated goal.
I put "attempt" in quotes above because it is my opinion that they have been lying through their teeth the whole time - they don't care about better coverage for more people for less cost, that is the shiny stuff they use to distract people. They care about lower taxes and increased profits for their owning demographic, and that's it.
Good health care for everybody at a reasonable cost is not that hard. The US has several excellently working examples around the world to draw from. If this was the real intent, it would be done. But politicians in general and the GOP in particular don't care about that, they only care about improving the profits of their owners.
I've been covered by the ACA in two ways - at work and on my own, in the individual marketplace. The plan used by my employer basically sucked... the deductibles were so high I might as well have not had insurance at all. Now that I'm in the individual marketplace, I have good coverage for a decent price and the deductible is also reasonable. The myth that ACA is universally miserable is a myth. I have zero doubt the employer provided insurance could have been good as well, they simply chose to instead hose the employees.
Good on John McCain. Maybe his recent diagnosis is giving him a fresh perspective.
Some good news for once. Pretty much since the ACA passed the GOP has promised to replace it with something better - less cost for better coverage (i.e. better health care) for more people.
Pretty much since the ACA passed, every single "attempt" by the GOP to do this has resulted in proposals that would cover fewer people with crappier coverage for substantially more cost. In other words, they have failed of their stated goal.
I put "attempt" in quotes above because it is my opinion that they have been lying through their teeth the whole time - they don't care about better coverage for more people for less cost, that is the shiny stuff they use to distract people. They care about lower taxes and increased profits for their owning demographic, and that's it.
Good health care for everybody at a reasonable cost is not that hard. The US has several excellently working examples around the world to draw from. If this was the real intent, it would be done. But politicians in general and the GOP in particular don't care about that, they only care about improving the profits of their owners.
I've been covered by the ACA in two ways - at work and on my own, in the individual marketplace. The plan used by my employer basically sucked... the deductibles were so high I might as well have not had insurance at all. Now that I'm in the individual marketplace, I have good coverage for a decent price and the deductible is also reasonable. The myth that ACA is universally miserable is a myth. I have zero doubt the employer provided insurance could have been good as well, they simply chose to instead hose the employees.
Good on John McCain. Maybe his recent diagnosis is giving him a fresh perspective.
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic
The only solution to ACA is single payer. Problem is the wealthy dont want to have to suffer increased taxes to pay for it.
Id hope that after 2020 progress will be made to single payer.
The only solution to ACA is single payer. Problem is the wealthy dont want to have to suffer increased taxes to pay for it.
Id hope that after 2020 progress will be made to single payer.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes
It's more like circumstances are different for different people. People should stop pretending like their situation is everyone's situation. That is the lesson I tried to impart there.
If you look at the data, more often than not, insurance costs have increased dramatically.
originally posted by: 2gd2btru
a reply to: AboveBoard
20% higher for same coverage not less coverage. I want less coverage. I don't appreciate taking care of myself for over 60 years and then told I need to pay for more than what I need to cover those who make poor health choices. Rand Paul is right. Many of us are being forced into Medicaid because we can't afford the policies the law requires. There could be cheaper options for many that would protect their assets.
You talk about risk. In AZ they place a lein on assets.
Do you live in AZ? John McCain lied to the people of AZ. He flipped us off. No doubt about it.
Rand Paul is one of the few senators which would actually bring in a system that works. However, he isn't going to get his way so it's a moot point.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic
The only solution to ACA is single payer. Problem is the wealthy dont want to have to suffer increased taxes to pay for it.
Id hope that after 2020 progress will be made to single payer.
Single payer is crap. Why should people pay more for less?
It works out like this. I'll use grades to illustrate. Let's say we socialize grades in a classroom. It's not fair that some kids don'e get good grades, so the teacher decides to socialize the grades on the next test. She has 10 students. The grades they earn look like this: 95, 90, 86, 87, 83, 72, 74, 66, 62, 34.
Clearly, three of her kids aren't passing, but arguably, four of her kids easily have grade to spare.
So she decides to "spread the wealth."
After averaging, everyone in class gets a 74.9% on their test! It works! Everyone passes with a few percentage points to spare since 70% is the threshold for C. It's a great system. But, the kids don't like it.
The kids who worked really hard to get the A grades are ticked off to get knocked down to Cs. So, the next time, this is what the grades look like: 85, 86, 84, 85, 80, 73, 70, 63, 60, 0. The top performers don't try as hard and just make up the difference by doing lots of extra credit on their own time. And the kid on the bottom figured that since he was getting a good grade anyhow, he wouldn't even bother, so he turned in a blank paper.
Now this is what she gets: 68.6% and everyone is below that 70% pass threshold, but the kids who decided to make up the difference with extra credit will be OK and the kid who was on bottom may still shrug and decide this system is better than he had before because it's still higher than what he was making. It's the ones in the middle who don't have the initiative to do a ton of extra work on the side who are going to be screwed now.
This is basically how socialism works in real life too.
originally posted by: Throes
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes
It's more like circumstances are different for different people. People should stop pretending like their situation is everyone's situation. That is the lesson I tried to impart there.
If you look at the data, more often than not, insurance costs have increased dramatically.
You planning on posting that data that you've apparently looked at?
a reply to: ketsuko
Pure socialism does not seem to work any better than pure capitalism, humans being the greedy bastards they are. Based on results, the best setup appears to be a balanced mix of socialism and capitalism. Crony capitalism, or Oligarchism, which is what is currently in place in the US, is one of the worst models, in terms of the health and happiness of the citizenry.
If the situation in real life actually followed your example, the results would probably track those in your example. However, in the real world, hopefully the teacher would have the resources to give the underachievers some extra input, additional studies or possibly an entirely different approach. The basic flaw in your example is the assumption that all underachievers are that because they are screwing off and not really trying. And of course, more than zero of them are just screwing off. However, the majority of underachievers are actually trying, and are just not as capable as the high achievers.
To follow that into the health care realm, the basic flawed assumption of the GOP approach to health care (besides the fact that the GOP exists to further enrich itself and its owners) is that anybody who is sick has led an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore "deserves what they get". And of course, more than zero have, especially in the US where decent food can be very hard to come by, the working environment of many jobs is very unhealthy, and far too many people just do not have the information they need to make good health choices (aka ignorance. Ignorance can be cured.)
Single payer is not crap. It works, and works very well, in multiple countries in the world, who are more advanced than the US in terms of creating a healthy environment for the populace. Far too many people in the US are stuck on "low taxes!". The real question should be the value returned for taxes paid. We could have a tax system that is equitable across the economic spectrum, where anybody that has health care needs could go to any doctor or hospital they wanted to, and get high quality care for an affordable cost. But instead, our taxes go for absurd military adventurism that is doing nothing other than making our situation worse.
Pure socialism does not seem to work any better than pure capitalism, humans being the greedy bastards they are. Based on results, the best setup appears to be a balanced mix of socialism and capitalism. Crony capitalism, or Oligarchism, which is what is currently in place in the US, is one of the worst models, in terms of the health and happiness of the citizenry.
If the situation in real life actually followed your example, the results would probably track those in your example. However, in the real world, hopefully the teacher would have the resources to give the underachievers some extra input, additional studies or possibly an entirely different approach. The basic flaw in your example is the assumption that all underachievers are that because they are screwing off and not really trying. And of course, more than zero of them are just screwing off. However, the majority of underachievers are actually trying, and are just not as capable as the high achievers.
To follow that into the health care realm, the basic flawed assumption of the GOP approach to health care (besides the fact that the GOP exists to further enrich itself and its owners) is that anybody who is sick has led an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore "deserves what they get". And of course, more than zero have, especially in the US where decent food can be very hard to come by, the working environment of many jobs is very unhealthy, and far too many people just do not have the information they need to make good health choices (aka ignorance. Ignorance can be cured.)
Single payer is not crap. It works, and works very well, in multiple countries in the world, who are more advanced than the US in terms of creating a healthy environment for the populace. Far too many people in the US are stuck on "low taxes!". The real question should be the value returned for taxes paid. We could have a tax system that is equitable across the economic spectrum, where anybody that has health care needs could go to any doctor or hospital they wanted to, and get high quality care for an affordable cost. But instead, our taxes go for absurd military adventurism that is doing nothing other than making our situation worse.
a reply to: ketsuko
Except in every case of single payer I can think of private insurance still exists. If you want more comprehensive coverage, or sooner appointments, or you just don't want to interact with the peasants those options still exist.
The only difference is that all of those peasants also now have health coverage. Meaning less sick days taken. Meaning greater efficiency and productivity. Meaning greater profits.
Except in every case of single payer I can think of private insurance still exists. If you want more comprehensive coverage, or sooner appointments, or you just don't want to interact with the peasants those options still exist.
The only difference is that all of those peasants also now have health coverage. Meaning less sick days taken. Meaning greater efficiency and productivity. Meaning greater profits.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Throes
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes
It's more like circumstances are different for different people. People should stop pretending like their situation is everyone's situation. That is the lesson I tried to impart there.
If you look at the data, more often than not, insurance costs have increased dramatically.
You planning on posting that data that you've apparently looked at?
www.forbes.com...[editb y]edit on 28-7-2017 by Throes because: (no reason given)
Hilarious. The Maverick comes through again. Way to go McCain!
Those clowns manage to get the WH, the senate, and the house, and they don't seem capable of negotiating their way out of a wet paper bag--much to the relief of the millions of Americans who were going to lose their insurance as a result of the latest right-wing scheme to make rich people richer.
Now I guess they'll have to move on to the rest of their lovely agenda: more tax breaks for the rich, environmental gang rape, giveaways to Wall Street, and probably another war or three....
Those clowns manage to get the WH, the senate, and the house, and they don't seem capable of negotiating their way out of a wet paper bag--much to the relief of the millions of Americans who were going to lose their insurance as a result of the latest right-wing scheme to make rich people richer.
Now I guess they'll have to move on to the rest of their lovely agenda: more tax breaks for the rich, environmental gang rape, giveaways to Wall Street, and probably another war or three....
originally posted by: Throes
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Throes
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes
It's more like circumstances are different for different people. People should stop pretending like their situation is everyone's situation. That is the lesson I tried to impart there.
If you look at the data, more often than not, insurance costs have increased dramatically.
You planning on posting that data that you've apparently looked at?
www.forbes.com...
I see your link and raise you this link with this data (I sure hope you know what a derivative is, because I'm not going to explain it):
The truth about healthcare premiums: They'd be a lot higher without Obamacare
edit on 28-7-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)