Obama Kills Health Insurance For Creative Class — Page 2

Right, they got theirs, that is all they care about.

---

It's been 3 years since the ACA has been signed into law. All the Republicans have done in those 3 years is try to repeal it. They haven't done a single thing to try to improve it. Nothing! Zip! Not one piece of legislations has been passed to improve this law. They've wanted this bill to fail since it was first introduced and nothing has changed.

Do you think for one minute if there was legislation that actually improved this bill that it wouldn't have gotten support from the Democrats?

Why "reach out" when you know your hand is going to be bitten?

---

The Republicans should just stop trying to block ACA. Let it collapse under its own weight. This way the Democrats can take the blame including Obama as this is their baby. If it works they get the credit. When it fails they takes the blame . Is it coincidental that Obama delayed the employer mandate for a year until after the midterm elections?

Max Baccaus one dem senator who crafted the bill is retiring saying ACA will be a train wreck.

---

The Republicans tried before it became law to give their input and work with the Democrats. They were rebuffed at every turn.

---

"There is currently no country that has a workable universal healthcare plan. There is no workable model. "

And we have one of the least efficient system of all the advanced economies. So ours is not exactly a workable model either. It's BROKEN...it cost more and we get less for the money than nearly every other country.

Take a look at this spreadsheet and look at where we rank...look at the cost per capita and look at the where other countries ranks and their cost per capita. Compare the efficiency of the other systems. The USA ranks LOWER than the Dominican Republic! Nice!

There's never going to be a perfect model for a healthcare system, so therefore we're just supposed to leave ours as is? That seems to be the Republican idea of how to fix it. Because they sure as hell haven't offered up much in the way of options.

Here's a link to the Bloomberg Article:

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2013/08/28/Bloomberg-ranks-the-worlds-most-efficient-health-care-systems

And here's a link to the spread sheet that went along with it.



Spreadsheet

---

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 12:06 AM

And rather than do their job & try to improve it they'd rather just symbolically repeal it

Nice try, but the Republican ideas were never going to be accepted anyway. The Democrats always want it there way and never want to compromise.

---

"Nice try, but the Republican ideas were never going to be accepted anyway."

Individual mandate IS a Republican idea.

"There is currently no country that has a workable universal healthcare plan. There is no workable model. "

You must be joking, right ?

Those touting single payer should go overseas where almost 1/2 of a persons income is taken to pay for the "free" health care.

There is currently no country that has a workable universal healthcare plan. There is no workable model.

That's just blatantly ignorant. Sweden is an absolutely workable model. Yep. Around 35-40% of our income goes to taxes. It pays for our health care (and I have received FAR better care with much less of a wait than when I was in the US), roads, police, fire protection, unemployment, environmental protection, preschool, education through doctorates, nutritious school meals, 16 months of parental leave per child, a monthly stipend per child, regardless of income, excellent sick leave and long term benefits, retirement, reimbursement for miles traveled to doctor visits, long-term programs and facilities for those living with disabilities, excellent elderly facilities and assisted living communities, programs for immigrants and refugee programs. Those are just the benefits I can come up with off the top of my head. It's not 50% for health care. Not even close.

The government health care covered the conception of my daughter, my wife's two week hospital stay and monitoring, her cesarean, all of her after care, my daughter's two week hospital stay when diagnosed with multiple tumors, three sedated MRIs, groundbreaking treatments that saved her life, the medicine that would cost us $700 a month without coverage and her monthly specialist follow-ups. Not once did we even have to break a sweat about the cost of the procedures. That is not something afforded to most in the US. Universal health care is fantastic when done correctly.

---

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 04:05 AM

"If there is one major aspect within this bill requested by the Republicans, I am not aware of it."

Democrats removed the public option from the early version of the bill in an attempt to get Republicans on board. They bent over backwards to accomodate Republicans and Republicans would have none of it. From the very beginning, all they tried to do is to prevent this bill from passing so as to undermine Obama. This whole plan is based on the plan from the Heritage Foundation, individual mandate and all. So to say that Republicans were rebuffed at every turn is to rewrite history.

"And we have one of the least efficient system of all the advanced economies. So ours is not exactly a workable model either. It's BROKEN...it cost more and we get less for the money than nearly every other country."

And yet, in a Gallup Poll in 2007, 57% of Americans were satisfied with their health coverage.

"Despite ever-increasing healthcare costs and widespread dissatisfaction with the U.S. healthcare system, a majority of Americans remain satisfied with what they pay for their own healthcare, the quality of the healthcare they receive, and their healthcare coverage."



Gallup

"I wonder how the people who are unable to afford or qualify for healthcare here in the US feel about their "healthcare coverage". Is there a poll with the answer to that question? "

I think the more important question is, if 56% of Americans were satisfied with their healthcare, then why create a government program that sucks EVERYONE into it (including that 56%)?
The estimates ran from 30 million to 46 million people in the USA who did not have health INSURANCE (not healthCARE). So why not create a program that deals with those people and leaves everyone else with the system they like?
The answer is that Obamacare is not about healthcare. The fact that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 30 million Americans will remain uninsured under the program is a huge clue. Obamacare is about acquiring POWER. It is not about healthcare at all.

" I think the more important question is, if 56% of Americans were satisfied with their healthcare, then why create a government program that sucks EVERYONE into it (including that 56%)?"

You mean 56% of the people who actually had Healthcare were satisfied...which means there were 44% of people who had healthcare who weren't. And we have no idea of if the people without Health Insurance were satisfied with their care or not, because they weren't polled, or weren't receiving Health CARE.

Tell the people who don't have Health Insurance now, but will be able to receive Health Insurance because of ACA...that it's all about Power. Power to do what? It's a nicely manufactured talking point that is totally meaningless to people that haven't been able to afford or qualify for Health Insurance and the CARE that comes with it, but will now be able to do so.

---

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 01:31 PM

"You mean 56% of the people who actually had Healthcare were satisfied...which means there were 44% of people who had healthcare who weren't."

From the poll: "These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,004 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 11-14, 2007."

It did not say they were only sampling Americans with health insurance.
Also, the poll indicated that 39% were not satisfied, not 44%.