who wants better healthcare? Not us!

Better healthcare? Like the kind Barry provided? At least everyone got to keep their doctor, right?

---

Any candidate who has you and FBT sweating has to be worth voting for - right?

And you who support a crook and con man in the White House pretending to care about Gillum's ethics. Come on - Trumpettes may be gullible, but the rest of us not so much.

Vote for the Boy from Fox? The Trump Lap Dog? No thanks.

But you did hit most of the Fox talking points. Socialism! Mob, mob,mob. Sanctuary cities! Brown people attacking - run for cover!

As Malabar pointed out, do you think the white boy millionaires who run the Legislature are going to let any of that happen? 

I just think it will be a lot of fun to see the powers that be have to deal with something different. Time for a change!

Lol I sure hope you still don't pretend to be a republican. You can't seriously tell me your pick is Gillum but your a "republican". Gillum is the most extreme of left open socialism embracing canidates out there. He's to left for many Democrats.

No need to go all Drama Queen. Don't let Fox scare you with Socialism, Socialism, Socialism! (That's what the kids will be wearing for Halloween.)

Anyway - DeSantis is a nationalist, right? That's what Donald is - and DeSantis is attached at the hip with Donald. So I guess that Republican/Democrat is so old school.

The Millionaire's Club that is the leadership in the Legislature is going with the same old same old. Somehow I think they'll stick to continuing a policy of corporate welfare rather than socialism. You have nothing to worry about. The world is not about to end - no matter what StroudDub would have you believe.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

who wants better free healthcare? Not us!

We already have the best healthcare. 

It gets worse when you make it free.

---

who wants better healthcare? Not us!

I have great healthcare, and it used to be cheaper until government tried to "fix" it.

I don't agree with you on most things but I'm 100% with you on this.

Regarding who to vote for, it sounds like you guys are screwed as neither one looks competent for the job. Kind of like our last presidential election.

---

I have great healthcare, and it used to be cheaper until government tried to "fix" it.

I don't agree with you on most things but I'm 100% with you on this.

Regarding who to vote for, it sounds like you guys are screwed as neither one looks competent for the job. Kind of like our last presidential election.

Most? But I'm such an agreeable person!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

who wants better free healthcare? Not us!

We already have the best healthcare. 

It gets worse when you make it free.

why are your health stats and life expectancy so poor in comparison then?
Oh you mean best for the richest? Cool I'm glad the board is full of 1percenters.

Get the average man to vote in favour of the richest people what a system.

---

We already have the best healthcare. 

It gets worse when you make it free.

why are your health stats and life expectancy so poor in comparison then?
Oh you mean best for the richest? Cool I'm glad the board is full of 1percenters.

Get the average man to vote in favour of the richest people what a system.

Yea, only the rich are entitled to affordable healthcare. And by rich, I mean those who are actually employed.

As far as those whom aren't employed, Obama made it impossible for them to afford healthcare AND even penalized them for not being able to do so.

The loser Democrat cronies are pounding the healthcare drum again because it just now occurred to them that their message the past 2 years has been "We hate Trump".

---

As far as those whom aren't employed, Obama made it impossible for them to afford healthcare AND even penalized them for not being able to do so.

No, the state legislatures and governors that refused to expand Medicaid made that impossible.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As far as those whom aren't employed, Obama made it impossible for them to afford healthcare AND even penalized them for not being able to do so.

No, the state legislatures and governors that refused to expand Medicaid made that impossible.

Medicaid is not the cure, Florida's State budget would take a 500 million per year hit that would grow larger each year for substandard medical care. Scott made the right call on the ACA flim flam.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, the state legislatures and governors that refused to expand Medicaid made that impossible.

Medicaid is not the cure, Florida's State budget would take a 500 million per year hit that would grow larger each year for substandard medical care. Scott made the right call on the ACA flim flam.

right or wrong, expanding Medicaid was the solution to the problem that Stroud crowd describes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Medicaid is not the cure, Florida's State budget would take a 500 million per year hit that would grow larger each year for substandard medical care. Scott made the right call on the ACA flim flam.

right or wrong, expanding Medicaid was the solution to the problem that Stroud crowd describes.

Lol, if it was wrong it was not a solution, it was a mistake.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

right or wrong, expanding Medicaid was the solution to the problem that Stroud crowd describes.

Lol, if it was wrong it was not a solution, it was a mistake.

Getting back to the original complaint, StroudCrowd complained that
"It's impossible for the unemployed to afford healthcare."  It was impossible before Obamacare as well, but, expanding Medicaid would have helped some people afford it.
"Obamacare punished them for not buying something they couldn't afford." This is not exactly true.  People with low incomes were never charged any penalty at all.  The penalty started small and scaled up with income.  And in any case, some of them would have been able to afford it, if the state had done its part.

Whether or not expanding Medicaid would have made sense from the state budget perspective is sort of changing the subject from StroudCrowd's complaint, which is focused on poor or unemployed people.  It's not as if Obamacare intended to ignore such people.  Some problems are hard.  Complaining about Obama's solution without being able to put forward your own solution is not principled, it is whining.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol, if it was wrong it was not a solution, it was a mistake.

Getting back to the original complaint, StroudCrowd complained that
"It's impossible for the unemployed to afford healthcare."  It was impossible before Obamacare as well, but, expanding Medicaid would have helped some people afford it.
"Obamacare punished them for not buying something they couldn't afford." This is not exactly true.  People with low incomes were never charged any penalty at all.  The penalty started small and scaled up with income.  And in any case, some of them would have been able to afford it, if the state had done its part.

Whether or not expanding Medicaid would have made sense from the state budget perspective is sort of changing the subject from StroudCrowd's complaint, which is focused on poor or unemployed people.  It's not as if Obamacare intended to ignore such people.  Some problems are hard.  Complaining about Obama's solution without being able to put forward your own solution is not principled, it is whining.

The solution is not allowing government any role in health care. AT ALL.

---

Getting back to the original complaint, StroudCrowd complained that
"It's impossible for the unemployed to afford healthcare."  It was impossible before Obamacare as well, but, expanding Medicaid would have helped some people afford it.
"Obamacare punished them for not buying something they couldn't afford." This is not exactly true.  People with low incomes were never charged any penalty at all.  The penalty started small and scaled up with income.  And in any case, some of them would have been able to afford it, if the state had done its part.

Whether or not expanding Medicaid would have made sense from the state budget perspective is sort of changing the subject from StroudCrowd's complaint, which is focused on poor or unemployed people.  It's not as if Obamacare intended to ignore such people.  Some problems are hard.  Complaining about Obama's solution without being able to put forward your own solution is not principled, it is whining.

The solution is not allowing government any role in health care. AT ALL.

Congratulations on not being a whiner.
I'm guessing that, when you discuss health care policy, you don't say simple things like, "it's not working because unemployed people can't afford it."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Getting back to the original complaint, StroudCrowd complained that
"It's impossible for the unemployed to afford healthcare."  It was impossible before Obamacare as well, but, expanding Medicaid would have helped some people afford it.
"Obamacare punished them for not buying something they couldn't afford." This is not exactly true.  People with low incomes were never charged any penalty at all.  The penalty started small and scaled up with income.  And in any case, some of them would have been able to afford it, if the state had done its part.

Whether or not expanding Medicaid would have made sense from the state budget perspective is sort of changing the subject from StroudCrowd's complaint, which is focused on poor or unemployed people.  It's not as if Obamacare intended to ignore such people.  Some problems are hard.  Complaining about Obama's solution without being able to put forward your own solution is not principled, it is whining.

The solution is not allowing government any role in health care. AT ALL.

I'm old enough to remember healthcare prices that were determined by the doctor, before Medicare sent them skyrocketing. The pre-ACA prices were already badly inflated because of government meddling.

Obamacare may have covered a few more people who didn't have a job, but the changes in our insurance cost us $4500 more in the first year after Obamacare.

Getting government out of health care entirely is 100% the right answer for lowering costs. (of course our rulers would never let that happen)

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The solution is not allowing government any role in health care. AT ALL.

I'm old enough to remember healthcare prices that were determined by the doctor, before Medicare sent them skyrocketing. The pre-ACA prices were already badly inflated because of government meddling.

Obamacare may have covered a few more people who didn't have a job, but the changes in our insurance cost us $4500 more in the first year after Obamacare.

Getting government out of health care entirely is 100% the right answer for lowering costs. (of course our rulers would never let that happen)

I do believe we should have a safety net of some sort, there is definitely a place and interest for us to protect the vulnerable and thereby protect the public health. We still absolutely do not have a health care problem, we have a health care financing problem, and that kind of problem only gets worse when the government gets involved. The best way for this to imprvoe is to realign the market incentives to create a robust individual market and allow the private sector to provide for all customers, not just large groups, but that will never be the intentions of the government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Getting back to the original complaint, StroudCrowd complained that
"It's impossible for the unemployed to afford healthcare."  It was impossible before Obamacare as well, but, expanding Medicaid would have helped some people afford it.
"Obamacare punished them for not buying something they couldn't afford." This is not exactly true.  People with low incomes were never charged any penalty at all.  The penalty started small and scaled up with income.  And in any case, some of them would have been able to afford it, if the state had done its part.

Whether or not expanding Medicaid would have made sense from the state budget perspective is sort of changing the subject from StroudCrowd's complaint, which is focused on poor or unemployed people.  It's not as if Obamacare intended to ignore such people.  Some problems are hard.  Complaining about Obama's solution without being able to put forward your own solution is not principled, it is whining.

The solution is not allowing government any role in health care. AT ALL.

Obamacare was a lazy, half-witted "solution" to a problem that needed more complex thinking. There were two right answers:
1. State-centralized universal healthcare
2. Complete removal of government from healthcare except in cases of Medicare and Medicaid

The half-baked scheme of government subsidies and tax penalties was doomed to failure from the start.

---

I'm old enough to remember healthcare prices that were determined by the doctor, before Medicare sent them skyrocketing. The pre-ACA prices were already badly inflated because of government meddling.

Obamacare may have covered a few more people who didn't have a job, but the changes in our insurance cost us $4500 more in the first year after Obamacare.

Getting government out of health care entirely is 100% the right answer for lowering costs. (of course our rulers would never let that happen)

I do believe we should have a safety net of some sort, there is definitely a place and interest for us to protect the vulnerable and thereby protect the public health. We still absolutely do not have a health care problem, we have a health care financing problem, and that kind of problem only gets worse when the government gets involved. The best way for this to imprvoe is to realign the market incentives to create a robust individual market and allow the private sector to provide for all customers, not just large groups, but that will never be the intentions of the government.

What you just described is literally what the Obamacare health care marketplace does for anybody who earns 133% of poverty level or higher.  It creates an individual market for health care where the private sector is the only player.
The market incentives were realigned such that none of the insurers get to look at pre exisiting conditions, and very few conditions could be excluded.
It did all this while making minimal changes to large group employer coverage and Medicare.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't agree with you on most things but I'm 100% with you on this.

Regarding who to vote for, it sounds like you guys are screwed as neither one looks competent for the job. Kind of like our last presidential election.

Most? But I'm such an agreeable person!

---

I do believe we should have a safety net of some sort, there is definitely a place and interest for us to protect the vulnerable and thereby protect the public health. We still absolutely do not have a health care problem, we have a health care financing problem, and that kind of problem only gets worse when the government gets involved. The best way for this to imprvoe is to realign the market incentives to create a robust individual market and allow the private sector to provide for all customers, not just large groups, but that will never be the intentions of the government.

What you just described is literally what the Obamacare health care marketplace does for anybody who earns 133% of poverty level or higher.  It creates an individual market for health care where the private sector is the only player.
The market incentives were realigned such that none of the insurers get to look at pre exisiting conditions, and very few conditions could be excluded.
It did all this while making minimal changes to large group employer coverage and Medicare.

[BLEEP]!

Obamacare put many many restrictions on what must be covered, making the insurance a lot more expensive. The pre-existing requirement made insurance a lot more expensive to cover people who just put off buying insurance until they needed it. The fine for not buying insurance was nominal, and there was no enforcement mechanism so that was not an incentive to be covered earlier.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies raised their rates or their deductibles (usually both) punishing everyone who already had insurance through their jobs.

 If it were just a matter of making insurance an individual choice like car insurance, rather than a corporate perk, there were better and simpler ways to do that, such as making insurance 100% tax deductible.

A safety net was already essentially in place, since hospitals are required to accept anyone who showed up at the emergency room, insurance or not. Obamacare just transferred the cost onto the people who were trustworthy enough to already have insurance.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"