The primary thing I didn't like about ACA was that it forced people to be covered by health insurance, even if they didn't want it. It looked like an assault on independent people.
Yes, perhaps it did, however I think it was intended to protect them when the needs for doctors or emergency is needed so they supposedly don't go bankrupt. The thing is some people are still filing bankruptcy due to medical bills and what nots, so clearly has a long ways to go, either that maybe Universal Care?The primary thing I didn't like about ACA was that it forced people to be covered by health insurance, even if they didn't want it. It looked like an assault on independent people.
It's not that I'm interested or invested in the narrative that Trump and his allies lost another case. It's that Trump and his allies lost another case. Like, that's an incontrovertible fact.It's not irrelevant. It's the core of my point. It seems that you are so interested in the narrative that Trump lost, that it doesn't matter if Trump's interest appears on both sides of the argument.
Furthermore, you could sue your own mother for more electoral votes for Trump, be denied, just to add another tick to the scorecard--because that's "what Trump wants".
It was a shit-show when it began, and somehow it has gotten worse.
Further reinforcement of the term "ally" being used arbitrarily.
I'm sorry you were personally affected in a negative way by Obamacare, assuming that's what happened for a moment, and my intention is not to minimize your experience or pain, but a lot of these anecdotes end up being that people were happy with their plans that no longer existed because they were dirt cheap, and they were dirt cheap because the plans didn't meet the most basic requirements for what a health insurance plan should cover. Was that possibly the case?Well, now that is a load of BS. I lost a good insurance plan because of it and the selections of health plans disappeared after ACA passed, so I was then stuck with the "only" insurance plan available and it sucked. Now, however there are options and the coverage is much better.
Suppose ACA may have a play in this, if it did, doesn't change that people may have lost the plan that they liked, because of it.
I also didn't like the individual mandate, but there were a lot of good reasons for it.The primary thing I didn't like about ACA was that it forced people to be covered by health insurance, even if they didn't want it. It looked like an assault on independent people.
With the exception I already described, there was nothing about the Obamacare law that caused people to lose their plans. Health insurance plans were in flux long before Obamacare was passed, and they will be in flux long after. The single exception is when a plan didn't meet extremely basic requirements for what health insurance should be, since these so-called plans were arguably health insurance in name only. If you want to count the end of these ineffective plans as "people losing the health insurance they liked," then I will agree with you that Obamacare displaced some people, but the Obama administration always acknowledged this, it wasn't a bad thing, and it accounts for a very small minority of people.https://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/reality-confronts-obamas-false-promise/
I can kind of see why you think someone talking back to you would be wasting their time.
It's almost as if customers were better off picking a plan that actually addresses their needs as opposed to buying into an expensive spaghetti factory. Might save you $5K a year.One example: PBS Newshour interviewed a woman from Washington, D.C., who was a supporter of the health care law and found her policy canceled. New policies had significantly higher rates. She told Newshour that the only thing the new policy covered that her old one didn’t was maternity care and pediatric services. And she was 58.
"The chance of me having a child at this age is zero. So, you know, I ask the president, why do I have to pay an additional $5,000 a year for maternity coverage that I will never, ever need?" asked Deborah Persico.
Yea, like remember when we didn't have $5billion to pay for wall construction on our borders, but now we have $700billion to give away overseas? Even to those who aren't our allies like Pakistan? For frivolous bullshit like "gender studies"?Taxation is already a big issue. People aren't allowed to delegate what their taxes are used for. During Obama's regime, the taxes that civilians paid, paid for Obama's bombing of a hospital and Afghan wedding.
*Snip*
I can't believe people still buy the "you can keep your doctor" line, the new HHS regulations pushed insurers to cancel plans that deviated from the new standards even slightly, the administration forced their hand. It was even PolitiFact's Lie of the Year in 2013. We don't know how many plans were cancelled outright, analysts estimate it was around 4 million. 2% of the insured population, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but it wasn't "exceedingly rare" either.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
It was obviously a lie from the get-go, which is why the list of caveats only kept growing each time it was mentioned.
perhaps sunk cost fallacy? idk, just shooting in the darkWhy do people keep acting as if there isn't better healthcare outside the USA?
All the posts that remained in the thread are, in my eyes, compliant with the rules of the board, but you're welcome to use the report button if you think something was missed. As for "believing the lie", it's a well-documented fact that this happened to millions of people, so it's not even a conversation worth having.I can't believe people still try to push the lie that they were forced to change doctors. You also missed one of tabzers little smart ass comments during your "clean up".
It's funny how it's Obamacare when the program is getting praise, but Romneycare when it's being criticised. All optics, no substance. You are correct though, it is a band-aid on a fundamentally broken system that does need to be completely dismantled.Not sure how we got on the topic of ACA, aka Romneycare, but let's not forget: Joe Lieberman (a DINO if ever there was one) was the deciding vote that killed single-payer and/or the public option. And that's what Obama was actually pushing for. Leaving the US healthcare industry be was not an option, as it was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and even the occasional headache would disqualify you from receiving healthcare coverage. It was unsustainable, and the ACA may be too small a bandaid to fix that entirely. Now let's watch for the next four years as any attempts to improve the program are obstructed by Republicans.
except all the "off-topic" posts, but I'll go back under my rock before you look into that too much.....All the posts that remained in the thread are, in my eyes, compliant with the rules of the board
So VP Pence wins and it counts for a loss against "Trump and his Allies".
Most Republicans use "Obamacare" with negative connotations without even understanding that it's the same thing as the ACA. But it's always been Romneycare, as it was implemented in Utah long before it went national. It's the one and only healthcare plan Republicans have managed to devise over the last several decades or even centuries, so of course they preferred it to single-payer or the public option when it came time to vote.It's funny how it's Obamacare when the program is getting praise, but Romneycare when it's being criticised. All optics, no substance. You are correct though, it is a band-aid on a fundamentally broken system that does need to be completely dismantled.
"No point in discussing reality, Mr. Un-Reality is here!"No point in discussing any future plans Biden might have as he won't be inaugurated.