Replacing the Affordable Care Act

My life is on the line every day of every moment. I will die if I do not take the medicine I am taking. And this medicine is required until a cure can be found.

But to use CPAC logic, you were too poor and not smart enough to obtain the insurance I have. Not my problem, yours.

 

Yes, I subsidize you.

I don't get a subsidy so I have to accept less for more money.

 

Unfortunately between the influence of the insurance lobby and the tendency of people not to want to pay more toward anything in their best interest, this issue will continue be a political football for our elected reps to toss back and forth between the parties.

IMHO

 

If I am paying $800 a month and Alwayssa is paying a lot less (and brags about it), who should have better coverage?

“It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.” ― Murray Rothbard

 

For all its shortcomings, nationalized RomneyCare is here to say, and most Americans are opposed to its being repealed, as they are Medicare.

I expect that those whose ideological dogma prevents them from considering the alternative national plans that cover everyone at half the cost will just keep kvetching and offering no practicable alternative.

 

What should happen is way for you to get a better cost closer to Alwayssa. Unless the coverages are that different...

 

Really? Do you really think I didn't try? My god!

 

Not blaming you, criticizing the system that led to it.

 

Alwayssa is subsidized by people paying full ticket price while we who pay full ticket price have to accept less for more money. Then they have the nerve to gloat. It's just welfare at the cost of other people.

 

My health insurance is not subsidized on the Market exchange. It is, for all purposes, a Cadillac plan. Yes, I pay out the nose for premiums, but I also know what I am getting as well in return.

 

When is the capitalist of the right going to announce public policies that will solve our economic problems?

 

LOL, obviously the left can't.

 

A Cadillac plan is any plan that costs more than $10,200 a year for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, including both employee and employer contributions to flexible spending and health savings accounts, but not including vision and dental benefits.

Congressional lawmakers are gaining traction in a bid to get a two-year delay a tax on expensive employer health plans, a levy known as the “Cadillac tax.” The tax that was part of the 2010 health law is a big money maker for the federal government.

So you're subsidized by your employer?

 

Mine does and it was part of my original employer. The thing is, I was able to keep said insurance when I left said employer. so, in other words, I am paying both sides and yes, it does cost a hell of a lot more than your plan does.

 

i believe we already have. it merely requires a moral of goodwill toward men, for free. Even the semi-Religious right, cannot help us.

 

Fine, then ensure that working Americans have enough compensation in wages and benefits so that they can afford to pay their medical bills. The majority of those benefiting from Obamacare aren't "welfare slackers" but instead are hard-working Americans that can't afford to pay their bills to begin with.

What a concept. People actually being able to live off the income from their job so they don't need government assistance.

 

That's not the way it works, dude. You earn what you are worth, no less and no more. If that's enough to pay your bills for your necessities and toys then great! If it isn't then too bad, time to grow up, economize, and face reality. Nanny Government can't afford to give all these slackers what they want just because they think they are worth more. If they were they would be paid more. Before long we will see a lot more robots in the work force and guess what? Robots don't need health care.

 

So the only answer you have is all this smoke and mirrors about "ideological dogma". You never did tell me why anybody including the government should have to pay anybody else's medical bills, and you never could make yourself admit that Obamacare was rammed down our throats using a pack of dirty lies! LIES! That's all these Democrat socialists do is LIE everytime they open their mouths. And brother, wait until you see what healthcare premiums are going to go up to next year. But by then your messiah will be out playing golf and leaving taxpayers stuck with huge rising costs. Sure, Obamacare is popular. Free stuff is always popular with a bunch of worthless slackers and moochers and that's what most Democrats are.

 

Actually they do. My brother fixes commercial washing machines (those big front loading boys you see in laundromats) and he makes serious dosh doing it.

But yeah, you make what you are worth. If you don't, then you hand in your letter of resignation and go get paid what you are worth somewhere else. The left, of course, does not see it like that. They think they are worth a living wage because they breathe.

They have to be excused for not understanding simple economics. They are socialists, and we all know that socialists don't understand much of anything. Nothing of history, nothing of economics, and certainly nothing of reality.

 

The GOP (and all others) are free to propose a new plan.

The only direction that is absolutely NOT OK is killing the system we have without having a new system plus a transition plan.

This is just one fundamental reason that the GOP "kill the ACA" slogan has been no more than a stupid partisan rant going NOWHERE.

 

My premiums for the year were $5,500

 

Well it would pretty stupid for someone to not use their network provider.

 

Apparently you have no concept of market compensation because it's not based upon what the person's labor is worth. Market compensation is based upon how easily the employer can secure another person to fill the position and not what the actual productivity of the person is worth. If compensation was based upon productivity then the median compensation for employment today would be double what it was when compared to 1970.

 

Once again that is false and we can use the example of the commercial washing machine in a laundromat as an example.

The laundromat derives income from that washing machine and let's assume, for the example, that the washing machine generated $1/hr in revenue. If it breaks the laundromat is losing $1/hr and assuming the business is open 12 hours per day, seven days a week, that's $4,380/yr that's lost if the machine isn't working. Also assuming that the laundromat owner would pay up to 10% of that annual income (i.e. $43 to repair the machine then if there's only one repair man in town that's how much fixing the commercial washing machine is worth to the laundromat owner. Of course if there are ten commercial washing machine repair men then the laundromat owner is going to shop around and find someone that will fix it for less that what the "actual value of the labor" to fix the washing machine is worth. They can probably get one of the ten to fix it for $400, perhaps $300, or perhaps even less.

The "value" of the actual repair hasn't changed but the cost to the laundromat owner keeps going down based upon how many people are qualified to repair the commercial washing machine. If there are a thousand repair men then none of them will be paid for the actual value of their labor when they fix the washing machine.

 

Not for anything but there would be a better chance of passing something along the lines of Singapores 3M plan, than single payer. The insurance lobby has too much influence over our elected reps.

IMHO