Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Are these the same professors that told us Obamacare would save us 2500 dollars a year and we could keep our doctors?

or

Are these the ones that said Hillary would win in a landslide?

Quote:Are these the same professors that told us Obamacare would save us 2500 dollars a year and we could keep our doctors?

or

Are these the ones that said Hillary would win in a landslide?

Be quiet and listen to your betters. They're sure they are right this time.

What is the cost to repeal the ACA in new debt? I get that it is flawed. But what is the cost associated with what it looks like will ultimately happen? I have heard numbers, but want someone else to confirm. I'm no accountant.

Quote:What is the cost to repeal the ACA in new debt? I get that it is flawed. But what is the cost associated with what it looks like will ultimately happen? I have heard numbers, but want someone else to confirm. I'm no accountant.

Below is the most thorough explanation of full repeal and partial repeal I have seen. The numbers are not out of thin air like a lot of the politically connected figures you see floating around. These estimates are based on factual Congressional Budget Office numbers.

 

http://crfb.org/papers/cost-full-repeal-...e-care-act

Quote:Below is the most thorough explanation of full repeal and partial repeal I have seen. The numbers are not out of thin air like a lot of the politically connected figures you see floating around. These estimates are based on factual Congressional Budget Office numbers.

 

http://crfb.org/papers/cost-full-repeal-...e-care-act

 

Hey member that time the Congressional Budget Office told us that Obamacare would save us Billions of dollars? I member! Posting any accounting estimates from an organization that is 20 trillion dollars of debt is about as useful as taping toilet paper to the computer screen.  

Hmmmm.. these numbers are actually better than others I've heard floated. Still ridiculous. And what's it being replaced with? Single payer? Will that be better coverage? If so, why? Will it still help people with pre existing conditions annd make deductibles more affordable?

What we had before was better.

 

Good riddance.

Quote:What we had before was better.


Good riddance.

Is that why so many were uninsured or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions? Where is your proof it was better? Better in what way?

Quote:Hey member that time the Congressional Budget Office told us that Obamacare would save us Billions of dollars? I member! Posting any accounting estimates from an organization that is 20 trillion dollars of debt is about as useful as taping toilet paper to the computer screen.  

Feel free to post what you got then. You lost credibility when you state the CBO is an organization with $20 trillion of debt. 

Quote:Is that why so many were uninsured or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions? Where is your proof it was better? Better in what way?

 

People are uninsured because the system attributes responsibility for providing coverage to employers instead of individuals. People with pre-existing conditions should have a consequence for that condition, or else they aren't buying insurance at all. Insurance against risk is very different from financing against fact, and buying a policy to pay for treatment for an existing condition is a losing proposition for the payer. Insurers are also the problem when they drop subscribers who end up with an expensive illness, they violate the spirit of the concept of insurance all the time. Finally, the current system cut reimbursement to providers to subsidize the poor under the ACA. The hospital associations agreed to that contingent on the expansion of Medicaid and a forecast of a significantly higher number of the insured to virtually eliminate the issue of the uninsured. Now that those 2 things have bombed, the hospitals want their payment cuts restored. It's going to be a bad time for everyone when the uncertainty in Washington starts to clear. The free market could solve all these problems, but no one is willing to turn it loose. Instead we're chasing the failing socialist models in other places where, not long from now, bankruptcy and forced suicide will be the problem and solution of the day.

What needs to be understood is that we are just seeing the groundwork needed to repeal and replace. It has already been stated that a gap in coverage should be minimal and that the new program will be somewhere in the middle of what currently exists and what is being newly introduced. Most likely we will see the good like "preexisting conditions" carried forward. My hope is that there is more freedom of choice and expanded competition among providers. With that said, a sad byproduct to the change is that the numbers of uninsured will rise, simply because a population will now be responsible for seeking out healthcare without someone holding their hand. Not sure that is as dramatic as it may appear. The current numbers don't tell the whole truth. Just because you are registered and counted as having insurance doesn't necessarily mean that it is feasible and usable.  Many are insured, but not covered. This is the problem with the current ACA.

Quote:What needs to be understood is that we are just seeing the groundwork needed to repeal and replace. It has already been stated that a gap in coverage should be minimal and that the new program will be somewhere in the middle of what currently exists and what is being newly introduced. Most likely we will see the good like "preexisting conditions" carried forward. My hope is that there is more freedom of choice and expanded competition among providers. With that said, a sad byproduct to the change is that the numbers of uninsured will rise, simply because a population will now be responsible for seeking out healthcare without someone holding their hand. Not sure that is as dramatic as it may appear. The current numbers don't tell the whole truth. Just because you are registered and counted as having insurance doesn't necessarily mean that it is feasible and usable. Many are insured, but not covered. This is the problem with the current ACA.

Source?


No one holds your hand picking plans in the Marketplace. Have you actually been on the website?

Quote:Source?

No one holds your hand picking plans in the Marketplace. Have you actually been on the website?

Source for what? Unless you live under a rock you've heard the same I've heard. Yes, I've seen the marketplace. Point? A large number of folks would have never visited if a penalty didn't loom large. The affordable plans look useless as far as coverage goes unless you can afford a large deductible.

Quote:Is that why so many were uninsured or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions? Where is your proof it was better? Better in what way?

 

Better in almost every way.

 

Costs went up for everyone, and for no good reason.  People lost coverage for no other reason than the asinine bill.  We were lied to and people could not keep the plans and doctors they liked.

 

Sensible coverages disappeared.

 

I lost the ability to buy catastrophic coverage only, and was forced out of the marketplace due to overpriced premiums with ultra high deductibles.  My family was put in danger of financial ruin were something had happened.  Guess that's ok in your mind, since I'm white.  Maybe you thought my so-called "privilege" wouldn't have put me and my family in that kind of risk, did you?

 

It is illegal for the government to force any citizen to participate in any form of commerce - to force people to buy anything.

 

What we had was better, and it's not close.

 

The only thing that needed the attention was those few, specific cases.

 

Instead, nutjobs who knew nothing about the system in which they meddled, force passed a bill on purely partisan vote without being given the chance to even read the bill before deciding.

 

That's not the way things work.  It's why the fool's legacy bill imploded... because it sucked and was never well devised.

 

That's why it's necessary to go back to a better time before it was forced on the public.  "Snap back" (the petulant in chief liked that phrase when applied to his fake sanctions on Iran) to what was before... making only the necessary changes where needed, like pre-existing options.

 

Anyone with common sense can see the basic flaws in what was done.  It's why many of the monsters who forced this on us have been rejected at the polls.

 

Poor leadership lead to this abortion of a law.  Like a cancer, it must be removed before it kills the patient.

My daughter chose an inexpensive plan on the ACA marketplace and it was almost useless. Communication with the issuer was made as difficult as possible and payment had to be made over an automated phone line. As long as it satisfied the minimum required coverage rule, the government left her alone and the fly-by-night companies cleaned up. It was clearly a scam.

Quote:Feel free to post what you got then. You lost credibility when you state the CBO is an organization with $20 trillion of debt. 

They are the governments accounting office. My credibility is fine tyvm.

I keep seeing that they want to repeal and replace...I'm fine with that...I thinks it's a great thing to do, but I havent seen anything about what they are going to replace it with yet

Liberals are upset about repealing a tax. That is what the ACA is. The United States Supreme Court says so.

Quote:They are the governments accounting office. My credibility is fine tyvm.

Um, ok.

The replace part comes later. It has to be done this way.


 

This was strictly a political solution, since that was the only one available. If the ACA was still in effect, any plan put forth by the Pub majority would have been filibustered by the Dems in the Senate. This puts the ACA repeal in a filibuster-free spending bill. A replacement in the spending bill is not allowed. Congress then has two years to come up with a replacement. The belief is that there will be at least a few Dems choosing to vote for the replacement rather than just letting things go back to where they were before ACA.


 

Yes, it's a despicable way of running things, but that's government for you. At least the Conservatives and Libertarians on this board recognize that government is the problem, and the more power you give to the government, the bigger the problem.