Danny Bateman Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Tangentially related, because a storyline that some red states will look to expand Medicaid now that the ACA is secure has cropped up recently... Congratulations to cartoon caricature of a Republican, Sam Brownback. Vetoed Medicaid expansion his red-dead state legislature voted for. Great guy. Link to comment
zoogs Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I think Sam Brownback is confused. When most of us talk about "prioritizing the vulnerable", we mean prioritizing them as help recipients. Not as targets. 1 Link to comment
Rusty Shackleford Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 what a jerk tyring to get rid of the unaffordable care act Link to comment
NM11046 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Yeah, those 150,000+ people are probably grateful that they have zero coverage now. Link to comment
zoogs Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Unaffordable for whom? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-obama-caused-massive-tax-increase-middle-/ "Almost certainly, yes, taxes have gone up for lower- and middle-income people," said Roberton Williams, a fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "But have they gone up a lot? Probably not." "I certainly agree Obamacare has increased taxes on the middle class," said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eric Zold. "But it is not clear that the middle class as a group are not better off by the combination of Obamacare costs and benefits." "It's fair to say that under Obama, for the most part, taxes have decreased for lower-income people and increased for upper-income people", Williams said. "And it's a mixed bag for the middle class." It's nice that we are all concerned with the relative and marginal tax burdens of the financially secure -- but again, priorities. Link to comment
deedsker Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I will just drop this here. Long read, but what do you think? http://prospect.org/article/hidden-monopolies-raise-drug-prices-0 Link to comment
Rusty Shackleford Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Unaffordable for whom? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-obama-caused-massive-tax-increase-middle-/ "Almost certainly, yes, taxes have gone up for lower- and middle-income people," said Roberton Williams, a fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "But have they gone up a lot? Probably not." "I certainly agree Obamacare has increased taxes on the middle class," said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eric Zold. "But it is not clear that the middle class as a group are not better off by the combination of Obamacare costs and benefits." "It's fair to say that under Obama, for the most part, taxes have decreased for lower-income people and increased for upper-income people", Williams said. "And it's a mixed bag for the middle class." It's nice that we are all concerned with the relative and marginal tax burdens of the financially secure -- but again, priorities. i never said nething about taxes. if obama wanted to force healthcare on everyone he should have ensured the bastards woulndt inflate the rates to the point its unafordable. and mixed bag is an interesting way of putting it. one year my return was a thousand back and the next it was a thousand in and nothing changed. mixed bag my fanny. it hurt the middle class in more than just taxes. Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (link) Great article, BRB. The good news is that the GOP’s healthcare debacle shows that this is palatable to an extremely small number of Americans. Most of us can accept that some people can’t buy a 5,000 square foot house or own four cars. But when they’re face to face with it, almost everyone recoils from a system in which those without enough money can’t afford life. It's a very perverse definition of 'freedom' that has gripped some of these pols. What's too bad is that we really had to come face to face with it. Such is the sway of this ideology. Link to comment
Redux Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan. I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government! Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan. I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government! I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role? Link to comment
Redux Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan. I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government! I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role? a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird! b) ask Canada Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 The name "Affordable Care Act" is one big friggen hoax. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan. I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government! I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role? a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird! b) ask Canada Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t. In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA. So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend. Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan. I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government! I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role? a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird! b) ask Canada Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t. In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA. So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend. Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone. Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph? Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted. Link to comment
Recommended Posts