Republicans Trying One Last Time to Replace ObamaCare Before the 9.30.2017 Deadline.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: seasonal

20%..wow, and people shell out on top of that, in Canada single payer costs us 11% and of course there are some costs paid by the user as well in some cases.

Medical Industry lobby groups are very powerful here, VonClod. In Canada, your politicians probably have more integrity overall, and loyalty to the populace.

a reply to: carewemust

I agree the medical lobby is very powerful and self serving in the U.S., as for the politicians..maybe a bit better..but not by much, they can only play around so much, if they weren't constrained by the way it's set up here they would be exactly the same.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: carewemust

I agree the medical lobby is very powerful and self serving in the U.S., as for the politicians..maybe a bit better..but not by much, they can only play around so much, if they weren't constrained by the way it's set up here they would be exactly the same.

No kidding? My friend who moved from Michigan (USA) to Montreal 20 years ago, says that Canadian politicians have more loyalty to the voters, than U.S. politicians do. But you're saying they are FORCED to be that way? OK... the end result is what matters.

a reply to: carewemust

Hmm, forced might not be the right word..I think just some human nature involved in the U.S., the opportunities are there to cash in..so to speak. If the same opportunities were here..I don't know that it would be much different in due time.
There are definitely self serving politicians and party's here. I would yes there in general might be a bit more integrity in Canadian politics..the NDP are an example of the peoples party..but even they will cave to the unions, who throw a fair bit of money their way.

I think most probably start out well meaning..I would hope anyway.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: carewemust

I don't think they argue too much over big defense spending.

I just said that. They only debate on the Hill, on the porch and in the media when they don't want to spend the money.

So they have more for 'defense'.

Hey.. good point! Repealing ObamaCare is all about spending LESS taxpayer money...hence, all the arguments.

Well then, the government should LOVE Bernie Sander's Medicare-for-all proposal. At $3 Trillion a year, it would spit out far more government money than the $120 billion taxpayer dollars spent on ObamaCare every year.

Health 'Care' is going to suck, no matter what they call it.

a reply to: the owlbear


Its almost like the more responsible you are the more the government punishes you. Since ACA my insurance went up, my deductible went threw the roof and when its all said and done I still have to pay 20 percent.
Someone needs to work on why a small kit that contains Kleenex, toothbrush, and toothpaste cost $125.00 and that was years ago. That is what they charged my uncle. I don't think they are working on the right problem.

a reply to: carewemust

We will see if Lindsey Graham's little buddy McCain will vote with him, or just continue his mandate to screw Trump at every turn. John, it's time to retire. Go home, nobody wants you here anymore.

a reply to: carewemust

I must admit that I don't understand why healthcare has to be provided federally? What is so bad about individual States creating and adjusting their own healthcare laws? I mean so many states already have many variations in laws and regulations enacted from State legislation, why should healthcare be different? It would seem if one state perfected such a successful system, other states would copy it. Just look at the medical/recreation legislation that started with one state and now has grown exponentially across the nation, state by state. I would think that individuals would have more say regarding state legislation over federal.

Edit Add:

There are numerous implications here for public policy. First of all, the usual lack of international context often blinds us to the fact that individual states could easily fund their own individual welfare states without the need of a federal-level redistribution programs. This is significant because the justification for the New Deal, and for national welfare programs today, relies partially on an argument among policymakers that it is necessary for the federal government to redistribute wealth from the wealthier states to the poorer states. While I'm not in favor of welfare states, I'd be in favor of immediate decentralization of the American welfare state.

Even the poorest American states have the GDP necessary to fund welfare states similar to those in Southern and Eastern Europe. We're constantly being told how great and humane those are, so let's let cut the poorer states loose to do it on their own. The wealthier states, of course, can afford gold-plated Cadillac-level welfare states such as those we're told exist in Northern Europe.

Check out the source links multi-image comparisons of how your state stacks up compared to other nations in the world! I truly do think healthcare legislation should be legislated by the States and not federally! 

How US States Compare Foriegn countries size and GDP

What I really want to know is why people are falling for the con job of turning to socialism (and socialistic principals) to solve problems while ignoring the problems of socialism?

As for Obamacare Repeal and Replace garbage, the solution to get it through is to let people know that they have the power of the pen and can petition their governor to Recall and Replace the two senators or face being dragged from the governor's mansion and kicked to the curb some night.

Even the most ignorant and laxidasical middle manager understands the order to "fire these two clowns or be fired yourself". And that is the difference between America and these socialist utopias, the people have the power as people and not the chattel of modern feudalism.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: carewemust

I must admit that I don't understand why healthcare has to be provided federally? What is so bad about individual States creating and adjusting their own healthcare laws? I mean so many states already have many variations in laws and regulations enacted from State legislation, why should healthcare be different? It would seem if one state perfected such a successful system, other states would copy it. Just look at the medical/recreation legislation that started with one state and now has grown exponentially across the nation, state by state. I would think that individuals would have more say regarding state legislation over federal.

But could you imagine how expensive it would be for the pharmaceutical/insurance/medical companies to buy off 50 separate groups of state governments compared with today where there is a one stop shop that is our federal government?

Why, there might be states that even said NO and were loyal to the citizens by not whoring themselves out for money. We couldn't have that, especially if the medical system returned to sanity in those non corrupted states. It would set an example of what could happen if these vampires are kicked out.

For me, I would just like to see a price menu for all medical locations. Simply publish your prices and honor those prices. Every other company does this except for the medical field. Why are they allowed to get away with it?

Just imagine if people could compare prices? This system is so bloated and corrupted that even a glimmer of truth would cause it to go up in flames. POOF.

originally posted by: Abysha
... if executed properly.

And there is the rub. This bill accomplishes the Trump/GOP primary goal: erase any and everything Obama.

But then they kick the responsibility of healthcare to the States. So ultimately, it will depend on where you live. Let's use a current example. Both Nevada and Massachusetts voted to legalize cannabis in the last election. NV opened their retail outlets July 1st --- 6mos later. MA had their first meeting of the regulatory board last week. MA legalized medicinal cannabis in 2014. Very few dispensaries have been allowed to open as the State figures out how best to get their hands deep into the pockets of the cannabis industry. Same issue, different state, different outcome.

originally posted by: the owlbear

If basic health needs were met. No overcrowding emergency rooms for the flu or five stitches. More urgent care, more nurse practitioners able to take care of small ailments. Two check ups per year with blood screens. I'd pay the government a couple of grand from my check. With the ACA, the cheapest plan was $260/mo for me. With a $5k deductible for everything health related before I could even see a penny back. Meanwhile I still had to pay that sum. Which, with out a major catastrophe, it didn't make sense. Still doesn't.

We are only talking about 10% of the country that is in your predicament of either making too much for medicaid or who do not get health insurance through their place you work. There should be some way to add that 10% to an existing plan without costing trillions...lol

If anyone looks at ACA as anything other than catastrophic insurance they are fooling themselves. But then people pay 1000 or more per month to get that 30 buck copay, so 260 per month is not as bad as you think even when you pay the first 5000. A week in the hospital can rack up quickly, add in a operation and you could get a 250,000 bill...that 5000 would not seem so bad then.

In perspective I pay 4000 per year for car insurance to get my 200 deductible...

a reply to: the owlbear

Your situation is something where you should direct your anger at your state government. They're the ones who refused to expand Medicare specifically so that you wouldn't be covered, so that they could save some money.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: the owlbear

Its almost like the more responsible you are the more the government punishes you.

When the Obama administration was in power, that's EXACTLY how this country started operating. The poorer you can actually, or artificially keep yourself, the better you were treated.

If you started making over $50,000 the government thought you were "rich" enough to pay $700 a month for your health insurance, and $7,400 out of your own pocket each year for your medical care. No problem for you, rich guy/gal!

If your business started prospering, government rules and regulations ramped up to keep you from being able to hire new people, and expand even further.

President Trump is doing his best to turn things around via Executive Orders, but this is America. The Republican majority in Congress have to care about Citizens too. So far, they don't seem to give a damn.

The best solution is single payer. Every country except America has single payer.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: carewemust

We will see if Lindsey Graham's little buddy McCain will vote with him, or just continue his mandate to screw Trump at every turn. John, it's time to retire. Go home, nobody wants you here anymore.

Senator McCain coming to realize his fate, and is facing it maturely. He said last week that his brain cancer is the most vicious type in existence....and that we all have to leave here at some point.

On the Graham-Cassidy repeal-replace, John McCain says that he is firmly behind his buddy's (Lindsey's) plan. His only request is that the Senate follow "regular order". I'm not sure what that means.

a reply to: carewemust

What exactly is regular order? I've never heard of this term before. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with his brain cancer.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Your belief and analysis is the PRIMARY REASON why the Graham-Cassidy Repeal/Replace has so much backing from Governors all across the country.

Financially and Legislatively empowering each state in America to set the rules for health insurance, is exactly how it operated BEFORE 2010, when ObamaCare became law. The only difference was that the money sent to each state for covering the "uninsurable" and "the poor", was much less than what Graham-Cassidy will allocate.

The people who advocate being able to buy across state lines wouldn't get any satisfaction, but pretty much every other group can appreciate states charting the course for their citizens.

originally posted by: trutel
a reply to: carewemust

What exactly is regular order? I've never heard of this term before. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with his brain cancer.

The term is as common as the Sun in the Daytime.

Regular Order in Congress

originally posted by: Ahabstar
What I really want to know is why people are falling for the con job of turning to socialism (and socialistic principals) to solve problems while ignoring the problems of socialism?

Those are a minority of people. They just happen to be really loud, like Bernie.