More Federal money for ObamaCare?

[fast4522]

Consider anytime socialist programs enacted jobs suffer for 25+ years. Markets will fluctuate but jobs will increase inside the United States faster than any place in the world, our economy is and always should be the most resultant in the world.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by fast4522

In 2018 the ACA will be repealed completely, the influx of jobs as a result of tax reform will be constant.

I'll book that bet. Both sides of the aisle answer to the same masters that wanted the ACA for their own nefarious purposes, with bleeding the middle class as a prime objective.

The influx of jobs from tax reform will be offset by the trillion in new debt issued to pay for the tax cut.

Single payer doesn't fix the problem, it just makes the high prices more consistent. Enforcing anti-monopoly laws and cutting the paper-pushing jobs that don't provide any care is the way to fix costs. But that won't happen, 'cause nobody in .GOV is on board with that approach.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by fast4522

In 2018 the ACA will be repealed completely

Not going to happen. Repeal of the individual mandate happened because it was part of a tax bill that could not be stopped by a Senate filibuster.

Repeal of ObamaCare can be stopped by a filibuster. This is an election year, and both parties are heavily pandering to their bases. No Dem is going to risk reelection by voting in favor of any further changes to ObamaCare.

Dems also have the edge on this because Trump ran on a platform of "repeal and replace". Neither Trump nor the GOP Congress has proposed any replacement, and it will not be repealed unless there is a replacement that the Dems can live with.

[zico20]

Looks like Britain's single payer healthcare is in trouble due to immigration. If Democrats had their way the USA would be next.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/0...against-public

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Not going to happen. Repeal of the individual mandate happened because it was part of a tax bill that could not be stopped by a Senate filibuster.

Repeal of ObamaCare can be stopped by a filibuster. This is an election year, and both parties are heavily pandering to their bases. No Dem is going to risk reelection by voting in favor of any further changes to ObamaCare.

Dems also have the edge on this because Trump ran on a platform of "repeal and replace". Neither Trump nor the GOP Congress has proposed any replacement, and it will not be repealed unless there is a replacement that the Dems can live with.

What you do not understand is that the filibuster's days are numbered. It does not matter who is in control, like turf runners when they move the fence the advantage goes to the better horses. Now this is a silly analogy but consider when either side has a majority nothing can be done and on both sides provide cover so the middle class takes it up the you know. Count on when the GOP has all ducks in a row for the filibuster's neck is sliced and they pick off all that has to be done thus having upchuck Schumer balling his eyes out saying no fair no fair.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You don't take something broken, break it even worse, then get to claim a success.

You do if the children are still attached to it... at some point one can only hope they will see it in it's true light and show it to the curb.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

You do if the children are still attached to it... at some point one can only hope they will see it in it's true light and show it to the curb.

I don't consider being too inept to come up with a solution, screwing over people on premiums, and costing taxpayers more money "teaching the kids a lesson."

Nor a success.

[fast4522]

Premiums are what they are because of nuclear medicine and what doctor does not want to be rich at retirement. There is NO solution to that, a very real threat to hospitals are the new co-ops opening at a fraction of the cost of your city hospital.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by fast4522

What you do not understand is that the filibuster's days are numbered.

That is not relevant. Too many Republicans are opposed to just killing the program without a replacement, and they have no replacement. Trump promised to repeal and replace, and he doesn't have a replacement either. And he isn't going to repeal it until there is something that at least vaguely looks like a replacement.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Clocker

That is not relevant. Too many Republicans are opposed to just killing the program without a replacement, and they have no replacement. Trump promised to repeal and replace, and he doesn't have a replacement either. And he isn't going to repeal it until there is something that at least vaguely looks like a replacement.

I would not bet on that if I were you, when jobs roar better than Y2K it might be all there is.

[Parkview_Pirate]

The number of uninsured now on the rise. Shocker.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-am...lth-insurance/

The reasons for the increase are varied and still a bit speculative, said Sara Collins, Commonwealth vice president for health care coverage and access.

Here's a hint - it's too damn expensive, and the penalties aren't enforced.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...verage-erosion

The uninsured rate among working-age people — that is, those who are between 19 and 64 — is at 15.5 percent, up from 12.7 percent in 2016, meaning an estimated 4 million people lost coverage (Tables 1 and 2). Rates were up significantly compared with 2016 among adults with lower incomes — those living in households earning less than 250 percent of poverty (about $30,000 for an individual and $61,000 for a family of four).

The finger-pointing has begun, but it's pointless, pun intended. The one positive aspect that Obamacare supporters could hang their hat on was more people, especially those poor folks, were getting coverage. Now that the squeeze is on, and the economy isn't performing even close to the standard propaganda MSM stream (dig into those employment numbers), folks are having to make choices. And in a country where rule of law is not what it used to be, it's an easy choice to make.

I predict the estimate of 5% of people who drop coverage next year when the individual mandate is dropped is way, way too low. Probably triple it to 15% will be more like it.

And then the debate will begin anew - throw more federal money after bad, or maybe, just maybe, try to cut health care costs via other means....

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

...

The issue is really quite simple to understand.

Sick people can buy insurance which raises premiums.

Healthy people are forced to buy insurance to offset. (Mandate)

Now healthy people don't have to buy insurance so they don't... premiums go up... less people buy insurance because of cost... overall fewer people have insurance... and the death spiral begins.

Until of course States and Regulators step in to bailout insurance companies and the taxpayer suffers.

[chadk66]

everybody has insurance. some have a policy they can hold in their hands others don't. bottom line is the tax payers insure everybody in some way shape or form.

[mrhorseplayer]

Since when should a government be allowed to force its citizens to purchase a product they may or may not need?