Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
bosoxs45

Why are Republicans trying to push this health care bill and repeal Obamacare?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheFanatic said:

Honestly, I haven't looked at the new plan at all. And while I have no confidence in the current holders of power actually fixing it, I can't imagine it making the situation any worse. I can't imagine how paying an extra house payment a month for insurance I couldn't use is anything else but rock bottom. That being said, I'm not for making a change just to make a change because it can't get any worse. But something has to change. All the numbers about health care got cheaper, in my eyes are (and personal experience) are a bunch of spin. My burden was increased to an almost crushing state. 

What do you mean, "insurance you can't use"?  If you're dianosed with cancer tomorrow, you think you wouldn't be able to use your insurance, and you'd immediately be bankrupted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanFouts said:

I've kind of lost the will to fight anymore. Bill won't effect me really, but probably gash a lot of rural, poor people. Hell, if they don't care and they voted for these trump idiots, then why should I? Let them feel the pain of their own stupidity. 

I kind of feel that way too but I just wonder what will happen if I lose my job and can't afford insurance. This could be life or death to a lot of people. I'd sleep better if the thing dies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, proninja said:

Is this supposed to be a defense for the utter heartlessness of the Republican party? 

When you shove through a crappy plan by lying to the people, what kind of response do you expect from the people that were lied to?  Don't see how any Obama supporter has any room to point a finger at a bad healthcare bill.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You can keep your health plan and doctor if you want.  :thumbup:

"I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

11:38 AM - 7 May 2015"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Who said anything about evil? 

Me. If someone has no regards for the quality, affordability and longterm sustainability of health care and only wants to strip health care from poor so the rich can be richer (which I thought you implied) than they are an evil person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, proninja said:

Not could be. Is. 

I bet more of them voted republican too. 

At least in my state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

What do you mean, "insurance you can't use"?  If you're dianosed with cancer tomorrow, you think you wouldn't be able to use your insurance, and you'd immediately be bankrupted?

As in we had a baby one year and it cost us more than $9,000 out of pocket. No major issues. Baby spent a day in the NICU but it was precautionary. Three years earlier, it cost less than a thousand. And the best part, we never met our deductible after shelling out $9K out of pocket and paying an extra house payment every month. We were crushed with copays that don't go to the deductible. I got lucky to have some side income, but that's a pretty significant chunk of change in a 12 month span. 

I went in to get new glasses. My vision insurance gave me an eye exam (still had to pay a partial copay) and 15% off frames and glasses. The prices of glassesa re so artificially inflated due to the insurance subsidy that when that subsidy is removed, it is not worth dropping $800 for a new pair of specs. So I got a few boxes of contacts to get me through to the new insurance I currently have.

To answer your question. I think if I were to have gotten cancer on that insurance that it would've indeed bankrupted me, particularly if it weakened me so that I couldn't do the side work. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I kind of feel that way too but I just wonder what will happen if I lose my job and can't afford insurance. This could be life or death to a lot of people. I'd sleep better if the thing dies. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

When you shove through a crappy plan by lying to the people, what kind of response do you expect from the people that were lied to?  Don't see how any Obama supporter has any room to point a finger at a bad healthcare bill.  

Ironic that these two posts are back to back, as they seem to encapsulate the current arguments fairly well:

Guy #1: "I worry about the ramifications of the health insurance law for me and my family going forward."

Guy #2: "Obama, and crappy lying Obamacare. No Obama supporter should say anything."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

As in we had a baby one year and it cost us more than $9,000 out of pocket. No major issues. Baby spent a day in the NICU but it was precautionary. Three years earlier, it cost less than a thousand. And the best part, we never met our deductible after shelling out $9K out of pocket and paying an extra house payment every month. We were crushed with copays that don't go to the deductible. I got lucky to have some side income, but that's a pretty significant chunk of change in a 12 month span. 

I went in to get new glasses. My vision insurance gave me an eye exam (still had to pay a partial copay) and 15% off frames and glasses. The prices of glassesa re so artificially inflated due to the insurance subsidy that when that subsidy is removed, it is not worth dropping $800 for a new pair of specs. So I got a few boxes of contacts to get me through to the new insurance I currently have.

To answer your question. I think if I were to have gotten cancer on that insurance that it would've indeed bankrupted me, particularly if it weakened me so that I couldn't do the side work. 

 

My brother's MIL is on year three of treatments.  She has no savings left because of the high deductibles and the co-pays you mention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

 

Ironic that these two posts are back to back, as they seem to encapsulate the current arguments fairly well:

Guy #1: "I worry about the ramifications of the health insurance law for me and my family going forward."

Guy #2: "Obama, and crappy lying Obamacare. No Obama supporter should say anything."

Neither of those statements are incorrect.  The ACA raised the costs for a lot of people.  Not just the "wealthy" either but normal every day families.  It should have never been sold that you could keep your current plan/doctor because it was never a true statement.  That hurt people too just like this bill will hurt people.

Want to know when healthcare will have a decent solution?  When the public forces Congress to use the same plans that the rest of us do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The General said:
2 hours ago, belljr said:

This one doesn't affect me now but it would have I think.

tl;dr version

Father in law had a mental disorder and poor health.  He didn't work because of his conditions.   When he was eligible at 65 he applied for Medicaid and received it.

We were able to find a home for him that would treat his mental conditions and physical ailments.  They fixed his eye sight, had heart surgery to save his life and even fixed his hip.

All paid for by medicaid.   Eventually succumbed to Alzheimer's.  Which they cared for him in the home until he passed.

 

There is no way we could have afforded to get him help and or have some one care for him 24/7 if not for medicaid.

Sad that people like him won't get to live "comfortable" in their final days.

 

Make no mistake, this was not some 4 star nursing home.  It was basically a crappy hospital that he had a roommate.   But he was able to live out his life under a roof with care and family visiting

Man that's rough, glad he got to have some treatment for at least some of his life.

There are millions of stories like this on both sides of this debate. The clowns making all the decisions now I don't trust to do it right. Probably always been this way but I only have this small window that I have been around for.

This country has so much and people should have some low base level care they can receive that doesn't bankrupt them. They may have to wait and it won't be the best but it should be out there. Way too simplistic but got to be some way to get there.

Yep - it was a rough go for a long time.   Basically the 1000 a month or whatever he got from medicaid wen straight to the hospital/home and he got to keep $30.

That's not really that important.  The fact that he could being Bipolar/Paranoid schizophrenia - then dimensia - then alzheimers  over a (20 year span if not longer) get care and living quarters . he'd probably be dead on the street somewhere if not for it

Edited by belljr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, glvsav37 said:

not really...but in theory you are right. The problem is that Washington is a bigger machine then my local representative. You can put a 'good one' in but he will get overrun with the career politicians that have shaped the laws and regulations to benefit the old guard. 

IMO, party leadership on both sides don't want rouge, fiery people in their party who will shake things up b/c it will impact them. And there are a lot more of therm then not, so they band together and refuse to work with those 'good guys' 

IKD, I guess I don't have any faith in our current political system to actually change itself for the good of the country. Everyday you hear about another "Secret this" or "colored that" and when the doors finally open its nothing good. 

Perhaps governing and crafting legislation is a bit more complex than "common sense solutions" and "just doing what's right"?

Why does someone being "rouge and fiery" mean that they are good?  Leadership doesn't want clowns like that in leadership positions because this isn't an individual game like golf or tennis.  Governing and legislating requires teamwork, concession, temperance, and an ability to see the big picture.  

This idea that we simply need new people to get in there and "shake up" government is a big reason Trump is in office.  This isn't cartoons, it's real life.  

 

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Me. If someone has no regards for the quality, affordability and longterm sustainability of health care and only wants to strip health care from poor so the rich can be richer (which I thought you implied) than they are an evil person. 

What do you think about a bill that strips Medicaid of $880B while cutting taxes $765B tax, with 40% of that tax cut ($306B) going to the top 1%?  

Because that's what the house bill did.  The ACA essentially did the opposite - taxed the wealthy in order to expand Medicaid for the poor.

Think both parties are the same?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

I heard it was completed at their last supper.

You can keep your insurance plan for a mere thirty pieces of silver.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Perhaps governing and crafting legislation is a bit more complex than "common sense solutions" and "just doing what's right"?

Why does someone being "rouge and fiery" mean that they are good?  Leadership doesn't want clowns like that in leadership positions because this isn't an individual game like golf or tennis.  Governing and legislating requires teamwork, concession, temperance, and an ability to see the big picture.  

This idea that we simply need new people to get in there and "shake up" government is a big reason Trump is in office.  This isn't cartoons, it's real life.  

 

you couldn't be further from my point...maybe I used the wrong words when I said "Fiery and rouge" but what I meant was a unique political who isn't bought and sold and part of the old boys club that is Washington.

The statement I answered said basically that "its our fault b/c we keep voting the incumbents in, while we should be voting them out" and to my point was about even if you brought in an outside who wants change in Washington...they would be shunned and never get anything done because these people you claim to have "teamwork, concession and see the big picture" have set Washington up to benefit their own big picture, not ours. 

please....if you want to talk about teamwork, lets see it outside the party line. Falling in lockstep with your party just because is not teamwork leadership or compromise...as a matter of fact they are the exact opposite of that. 

Edited by glvsav37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Because under the democratic/obama regime healthcare costs skyrocketed??

 

Dems only have themselves to blame.

 

zero sympathy 

When does that flip and you have zero sympathy for the Republicans for coming up with a ####ty healthcare plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

As in we had a baby one year and it cost us more than $9,000 out of pocket. No major issues. Baby spent a day in the NICU but it was precautionary. Three years earlier, it cost less than a thousand. And the best part, we never met our deductible after shelling out $9K out of pocket and paying an extra house payment every month. We were crushed with copays that don't go to the deductible. I got lucky to have some side income, but that's a pretty significant chunk of change in a 12 month span. 

I went in to get new glasses. My vision insurance gave me an eye exam (still had to pay a partial copay) and 15% off frames and glasses. The prices of glassesa re so artificially inflated due to the insurance subsidy that when that subsidy is removed, it is not worth dropping $800 for a new pair of specs. So I got a few boxes of contacts to get me through to the new insurance I currently have.

To answer your question. I think if I were to have gotten cancer on that insurance that it would've indeed bankrupted me, particularly if it weakened me so that I couldn't do the side work. 

 

Having babies, especially ones that spend any time in the NICU is expensive.  

I'd guess that the plan you have via the ACA, while having higher deductibles than your previous plan, likely had a bunch of features that your previous plan didn't. Of course those benefits aren't as noticeable as the higher up front costs you had to come out of pocket for, so I can understand why you would feel the way you do.  Being out an extra $8k sucks, and it's hard to value to benefit of no lifetime caps for you or your baby, no pre-existing conditions penalities if you/her have an accident or contract a disease, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

What do you think about a bill that strips Medicaid of $880B while cutting taxes $765B tax, with 40% of that tax cut ($306B) going to the top 1%?  

Because that's what the house bill did.  The ACA essentially did the opposite - taxed the wealthy in order to expand Medicaid for the poor.

Think both parties are the same?

I never said they are same. Saying they share some similar traits does not make them equal. I am aware of these realities here and I am generally for lower taxes and reducing government spending. However, the way the tax cut are set-up is troublesome to me and and health care isn't an area we should be cutting.

I am still waiting for a conservative here to defend the new plan. There has to be some positive view on it, no? Pretty damning if there isn't. 

 

 

The other issue that is troubling with me and I guess it's part of a democracy (particularly one that is very split), the country lacks clear direction. Each eletion and administration seems to be destined to be built on undoing what the previous has done. If that continues. it's almost certainly a downward spiral destined to take us to the pipes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

you couldn't be further from my point...maybe I used the wrong words when I said "Fiery and rouge" but what I meant was a unique political who isn't bought and sold and part of the old boys club that is Washington.

The statement I answered said basically that "its our fault b/c we keep voting the incumbents in, while we should be voting them out" and to my point was about even if you brought in an outside who wants change in Washington...they would be shunned and never get anything done because these people you claim to have "teamwork, concession and see the big picture" have set Washington up to benefit their own big picture, not ours. 

please....if you want to talk about teamwork, lets see it outside the party line. Falling in lockstep with your party just because is not teamwork leadership or compromise...as a matter of fact they are the exact opposite of that. 

Here is the problem if we vote out massive numbers of incumbents and party politicians, it will make those that survive even more powerful because they become they only ones with the connections and the only ones that know how to get things done. Imagine the cluster#### if every sentator or house member had Trumps level of political experience. Here are some of my random thoughts on how major change happens:

A) a third party to form between moderate Dems and moderate GOP

B) MASSIVE protests and strikes to force Congress to enact laws that provide a separation from politicians and lobbyists, courts to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law when politicians and companies are found in violation and major campaign finance reform. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

By "rouge," are we trying to say "rough" or "rogue?" 

French commies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

you couldn't be further from my point...maybe I used the wrong words when I said "Fiery and rouge" but what I meant was a unique political who isn't bought and sold and part of the old boys club that is Washington.

The statement I answered said basically that "its our fault b/c we keep voting the incumbents in, while we should be voting them out" and to my point was about even if you brought in an outside who wants change in Washington...they would be shunned and never get anything done because these people you claim to have "teamwork, concession and see the big picture" have set Washington up to benefit their own big picture, not ours. 

please....if you want to talk about teamwork, lets see it outside the party line. Falling in lockstep with your party just because is not teamwork leadership or compromise...as a matter of fact they are the exact opposite of that. 

There are 535 members of Congress, each of them is from a different City/county in the United States, and they are elected to represent the varying interests of their constituents. I disagree with the idea that there is an old boys club in Washington that buys and sells everyone. In my opinion, what happens is that John Smith from his tiny district in Nebraska runs for office in his hometown promising to "use common sense to change Washington and bring down the evil ESTABLISHMENT!" - and lots of folks buy into it.  Then he gets to Washington and realizes that #### is complicated, and every time you legislate something, there will be winners and losers.  There is no "common sense solution" that magically fixes everything. The US is a broad country with diverse and competing interests. Most of the time, there is no easy black and white right or wrong position. And every decision means some folks are going to be losers, and those losers will have loud voices, which further the "WASHINGTON IS FULL OF CORRUPT AND EVIL POLITICIANS!" narrative.

 

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Insurance never wants to cover anything they just want to collect the money.

Then why are they paying out billions if not trillions of dollars each year in claims if they don't want to?

Edited by Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Insurance never wants to cover anything they just want to collect the money.

Obviously. I never want to pay my water bill, I just want to use the water. I never want to go to work, I just want to get my checks. Yet I pay my water bill, go to work as my contract demands and insurance companies pay for medical expenses as the plans require them to. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steve said:

Then why are they paying out billions if not trillions of dollars each year in claims if they don't want to?

Make a clam. They will raise your rates or try and drop you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mile High said:

Make a clam. They will raise your rates or try and drop you.  

That's never happened to me or anyone I know. Not saying it doesn't happen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanFouts said:

I've kind of lost the will to fight anymore. Bill won't effect me really, but probably gash a lot of rural, poor people. Hell, if they don't care and they voted for these trump idiots, then why should I? Let them feel the pain of their own stupidity. 

If a state gets a waiver and waives lifetime limits everyone is vulnerable. Everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

If a state gets a waiver and waives lifetime limits everyone is vulnerable. Everyone. 

Its ok.  Surely poor people can pay off their health bills working at walmart or bootstrap their way to a good job like working at an apple store. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Here is the problem if we vote out massive numbers of incumbents and party politicians, it will make those that survive even more powerful because they become they only ones with the connections and the only ones that know how to get things done. Imagine the cluster#### if every sentator or house member had Trumps level of political experience. Here are some of my random thoughts on how major change happens:

A) a third party to form between moderate Dems and moderate GOP

B) MASSIVE protests and strikes to force Congress to enact laws that provide a separation from politicians and lobbyists, courts to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law when politicians and companies are found in violation and major campaign finance reform. 

Modern Whig party is it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I never said they are same. Saying they share some similar traits does not make them equal. I am aware of these realities here and I am generally for lower taxes and reducing government spending. However, the way the tax cut are set-up is troublesome to me and and health care isn't an area we should be cutting.

I am still waiting for a conservative here to defend the new plan. There has to be some positive view on it, no? Pretty damning if there isn't. 

 

 

The other issue that is troubling with me and I guess it's part of a democracy (particularly one that is very split), the country lacks clear direction. Each eletion and administration seems to be destined to be built on undoing what the previous has done. If that continues. it's almost certainly a downward spiral destined to take us to the pipes. 

I'm frustrated by the current situation as well, but the results of the last decade have only strengthened my liberalism and support for the Democratic Party.  Currently we have two parties whose view on the problems and solutions differ greatly.  Republicans, in general, believe that the biggest problems faced by those who are struggling is that they already have too much, and thus don't have motivation to work harder and make their lives better off. So their solutions, in aggregate, entail cutting these demotiving benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, other social assistance programs) so that the money spent on those programs can go back into the pocket of those who already have the most.  Democrats, in general, believe that taxing those who have the most in our society in order to provide basic benefits for the poor (food, health care, etc.) not only is the right thing to do morally, but in the long run gives those folks the best opportunity to succeed and florish.  

Essentially, all of our arguments regarding economic and health care policy are at the margins, and you can define yourself politically by asking yourself one question:  Do you believe that in it's current state, the problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy have too little?  Your answer to that question should go a long way to which politicians and policies you support.

 

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

The ACA was a well intentioned effort to help poor people get insured and slow down the rate of growth for health care costs, largely by taxing the rich and those who could afford it.  As with any major legislation, there were kinks that needed to be ironed out and revised, but overall it was sustainable and working as planned. 

This GOP plan is essentially raiding health care for the poor in order to cut taxes for the rich.  There isn't any attempt to make the health care system better off.

Conflating the two and blaming both sides equally is bull#### and a large part of the political problem. Why should Republicans do anything worthwhile?  They can rob you blind right in front of your face like they're doing right now with this bill and you and others blame both sides equally.  

 

While I mostly agree with your post, this is not how you slow the rise in health care costs, and it's one of my major complaints about the ACA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I'm frustrated by the current situation as well, but the results of the last decade have only strengthened my liberalism and support for the Democratic Party.  Currently we have two parties whose view on the problems and solutions differ greats.  Republicans, in general, believe that the biggest problems faced by those who are struggling is that they already have too much, and thus don't have motivation to work harder and make their lives better off. So their solutions, in aggregate, entail cutting these demotiving benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, other social assistance programs) so that the money spent on those programs can go back into the pocket of those who already have the most.  Democrats, in general, believe that taxing those who have the most in our society in order to provide basic benefits for the poor (food, health care, etc.) not only is the right thing to do morally, but in the long run gives those folks the best opportunity to succeed and florish.  

Essentially, all of our arguments regarding economic and health care policy are at the margins, and you can define yourself politically by asking yourself one question:  Do you believe that in it's current state, the problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy have too little?  Your answer to that question should go a long way to which politicians and policies you support.

 

You forgot baby Jesus, guns, and hating on gays. Most Republicans have a special place in their hearts for those three things.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I'm frustrated by the current situation as well, but the results of the last decade have only strengthened my liberalism and support for the Democratic Party.  Currently we have two parties whose view on the problems and solutions differ greatly.  Republicans, in general, believe that the biggest problems faced by those who are struggling is that they already have too much, and thus don't have motivation to work harder and make their lives better off. So their solutions, in aggregate, entail cutting these demotiving benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, other social assistance programs) so that the money spent on those programs can go back into the pocket of those who already have the most.  Democrats, in general, believe that taxing those who have the most in our society in order to provide basic benefits for the poor (food, health care, etc.) not only is the right thing to do morally, but in the long run gives those folks the best opportunity to succeed and florish.  

Essentially, all of our arguments regarding economic and health care policy are at the margins, and you can define yourself politically by asking yourself one question:  Do you believe that in it's current state, the problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy have too little?  Your answer to that question should go a long way to which politicians and policies you support.

 

You're no better than the alt right people you whine about.  You want everything for your party and when you lose it's because the other guys hates poor people or is racist or sexist or some other stupid label you assign to people. There's a lot of people that think there's a middle ground between your two options.  Unfortunately none of them are in Congress

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, glvsav37 said:

Because neither side actually care about us and their only job is to do the exact opposite of the other party just so they can pound their chest and say how ####ty their opponent is. 

If our politicians ever decide to put the country fist and put their partisan BS aside, we may actually make something workable...until then we are all ####ed.

 

And yet there are still mouthbreathers lining up to proudly associated themselves with, and pledge undying allegance to, one side or the other... comical :lol:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Having babies, especially ones that spend any time in the NICU is expensive.  

I'd guess that the plan you have via the ACA, while having higher deductibles than your previous plan, likely had a bunch of features that your previous plan didn't. Of course those benefits aren't as noticeable as the higher up front costs you had to come out of pocket for, so I can understand why you would feel the way you do.  Being out an extra $8k sucks, and it's hard to value to benefit of no lifetime caps for you or your baby, no pre-existing conditions penalities if you/her have an accident or contract a disease, etc.

The previous child spent a few days in the NICU. Cost less than a grand. This one cost an extra $9K on top of more than an extra $1,000 a month I spent on premioms. 

In theory the plan taxes the rich to pay for healthcare for the poor, and in theory I'm all for that. But it seems that those of us in the middle got the #### kicked out of us too.

There in lies a very inherent problem to our current political system. One party wants to give everything to the rich. One wants to give everything to the poor. I'm neither. There are a whole lot more that are neither than are in either of the other two groups. History is not kind to nations that have forsaken the middle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheFanatic said:

As in we had a baby one year and it cost us more than $9,000 out of pocket. No major issues. Baby spent a day in the NICU but it was precautionary. Three years earlier, it cost less than a thousand. And the best part, we never met our deductible after shelling out $9K out of pocket and paying an extra house payment every month. We were crushed with copays that don't go to the deductible. I got lucky to have some side income, but that's a pretty significant chunk of change in a 12 month span. 

I went in to get new glasses. My vision insurance gave me an eye exam (still had to pay a partial copay) and 15% off frames and glasses. The prices of glassesa re so artificially inflated due to the insurance subsidy that when that subsidy is removed, it is not worth dropping $800 for a new pair of specs. So I got a few boxes of contacts to get me through to the new insurance I currently have.

To answer your question. I think if I were to have gotten cancer on that insurance that it would've indeed bankrupted me, particularly if it weakened me so that I couldn't do the side work. 

 

Pre-ACA I worked for a bank and managed the bankruptcy department.  In my experience most people who filed for bankruptcy did so because of medical costs, and most of them had insurance.  I know what you are talking about in regards to the ACA deductibles.  The "bronze" plan that is designed for low-income households and is the plan that gets fully subsidiized for low-income households has such a high deductible that there is no way a low-income or even lower middle-class household could afford it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I'm frustrated by the current situation as well, but the results of the last decade have only strengthened my liberalism and support for the Democratic Party.  Currently we have two parties whose view on the problems and solutions differ greatly.  Republicans, in general, believe that the biggest problems faced by those who are struggling is that they already have too much, and thus don't have motivation to work harder and make their lives better off. So their solutions, in aggregate, entail cutting these demotiving benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, other social assistance programs) so that the money spent on those programs can go back into the pocket of those who already have the most.  Democrats, in general, believe that taxing those who have the most in our society in order to provide basic benefits for the poor (food, health care, etc.) not only is the right thing to do morally, but in the long run gives those folks the best opportunity to succeed and florish.  

Essentially, all of our arguments regarding economic and health care policy are at the margins, and you can define yourself politically by asking yourself one question:  Do you believe that in it's current state, the problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy have too little?  Your answer to that question should go a long way to which politicians and policies you support.

 

:lmao:

So true, and so pathetic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

The previous child spent a few days in the NICU. Cost less than a grand. This one cost an extra $9K on top of more than an extra $1,000 a month I spent on premioms. 

In theory the plan taxes the rich to pay for healthcare for the poor, and in theory I'm all for that. But it seems that those of us in the middle got the #### kicked out of us too.

There in lies a very inherent problem to our current political system. One party wants to give everything to the rich. One wants to give everything to the poor. I'm neither. There are a whole lot more that are neither than are in either of the other two groups. History is not kind to nations that have forsaken the middle. 

IMO the Dems have been fairly straightforward on these matters, they recognize that there are flaws in the ACA and want to address them. There are countless examples of this honesty, starting from pretty much the day it was signed and going right through to Obama's statement yesterday. Republicans have completely rejected this, making it clear from Day 1 that they would refuse anything other than full repeal and running on that as their central message until they were in power.

It sucks that you got squeezed by the ACA (although rates were skyrocketing in the years before its passage anyway and likely would have continued to do so without it). I hate that stuff like that happens to anyone, and you have my sympathy. But if you default to "both sides" as a default position, you unwittingly validate the GOP's obstructionist strategy. If moderates and independents just throw up their hands in exasperation and refuse to get into the details of how things have unfolded over the last decade, they get to play to their base with a bill that slashes medicaid to cover a tax cut for the wealthy without paying a political price. I'm admittedly biased, but I don't see any way to conclude that one side has acted with less regard for the welfare of most Americans than the other side on this issue.

Also, I'm a recent convert to the single payer movement, maybe you want to check that out. Neither party is there yet, but the Dems are edging closer. As I pointed out yesterday, well over half the Dems in congress have now signed on as co-sponsors of their symbolic single payer legislation (H.R. 676).

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

 

Essentially, all of our arguments regarding economic and health care policy are at the margins, and you can define yourself politically by asking yourself one question:  Do you believe that in it's current state, the problem is that the poor have too much and the wealthy have too little?  Your answer to that question should go a long way to which politicians and policies you support.

 

The rich may be too rich

The poor amy be too poor

But stop beating the #### out of the middle class

I'm sorry, i try to be as compassionate as anyone else, but my taxes and burden to solve the worlds problems is just getting out of control. I'm far from rich, but with my wife and my salary plus income from a side business I run as well as a 3rd job officiating I do, this puts me at an income level that many Democrats consider "rich" and beats the #### out of the money I actually get to see to feed my family...let along any other family. When I look at my tax burden and consider the hours I work to make my income, yea, the words "WTF do i even do this" crosses my mind. 

I believe the rich are rich for a reason and the poor are poor for their own reasons. I want a party that is going to be more middle ground and allow for the largest part of the population to just keep doing whatever it is we are doing to be simple productive members of society and work to keep our own house and our family in order.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

The previous child spent a few days in the NICU. Cost less than a grand. This one cost an extra $9K on top of more than an extra $1,000 a month I spent on premioms. 

In theory the plan taxes the rich to pay for healthcare for the poor, and in theory I'm all for that. But it seems that those of us in the middle got the #### kicked out of us too.

There in lies a very inherent problem to our current political system. One party wants to give everything to the rich. One wants to give everything to the poor. I'm neither. There are a whole lot more that are neither than are in either of the other two groups. History is not kind to nations that have forsaken the middle. 

Bingo. 

No small part of why I think both Repubs and Dems can go #### themselves.... and why I think we're closer to a "3rd party" candidate (or one who breaks from the ranks on either side) than many think. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

IMO the Dems have been fairly straightforward on these matters, they recognize that there are flaws in the ACA and want to address them. There are countless examples of this honesty, starting from pretty much the day it was signed and going right through to Obama's statement yesterday. Republicans have completely rejected this, making it clear from Day 1 that they would refuse anything other than full repeal and running on that as their central message until they were in power.

It sucks that you got squeezed by the ACA (although rates were skyrocketing in the years before its passage anyway and likely would have continued to do so without it). I hate that stuff like that happens to anyone, and you have my sympathy. But if you default to "both sides" as a default position, you unwittingly validate the GOP's obstructionist strategy. If moderates and independents just throw up their hands in exasperation and refuse to get into the details of how things have unfolded over the last decade, they get to play to their base with a bill that slashes medicaid to cover a tax cut for the wealthy without paying a political price. I'm admittedly biased, but I don't see any way to conclude that one side has acted with less regard for the welfare of most Americans than the other side on this issue.

Also, I'm a recent convert to the single payer movement, maybe you want to check that out. Neither party is there yet, but the Dems are edging closer. As I pointed out yesterday, well over half the Dems in congress have now signed on as co-sponsors of their symbolic single payer legislation (H.R. 676).

The Dems may have been more forthcoming about their ####ty healthcare bill than the R's, but that doesn't help me or the rest of the middle class that the D's and the R's are ignoring. Trump played some lip service to the middle class and got him elected. Since then, I don't see anything so much as lip service. Both parties need to realize that the true seat of power comes from the middle class, not the extremes on either side of the financial spectrum. But alas, I foresee much more of getting those two bases frothing at the mouth over anything and everything the other side does rather than actually doing anything for the good of the country themselves. 

And to call one side of this political sphere obstructionist is funny. Everyone needs to stop giving labels to the other side (when damn near every one of those labels apply to both parties) and turn around and start holding the guys you voted for accountable. Until that happens, this ####storm only gets ####tier. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, proninja said:

If I believed the fact that bring poor is a character flaw (and the next assumption being that because of said flaw they don't deserve things like health care) I'd be a lot more likely to disagree with you. 

Congratulations on your level of success. I understand what it's like to look at the amount of taxes you pay and think "really?" but that's a much better option than not being taxed as much and not being able to afford the life that those of us who get taxed enjoy. 

I'm not sure where you are going with it, but i'll clarify. I didnt say being poor was a character flaw. I believe "poor" is a relative term and everyone has their own level of what they consider poor. Some of the happiest people I know make very little income and don't get hung up on things many other people in higher tax brackets do

second, I do believe everyone should have health care. Some one said it before, but I really want to remove HC from your employment. I think this is the biggest barrier to many people who otherwise could, not be entrepreneurial b/c they can't risk losing coverage and can't afford to start a business while paying the insane private HC costs.

But HC in this country has become a joke and a golden goose to those involved in it. And when I said, in earlier posts, I don't trust our current political set up to actually FIX the problem is because everyone involved is getting rich off it.  Between big pharma power and zero regulation on actual cost of medial procedures and hospitalization, we will NEVER get an effective system no matter which side writes it. Why would anyone profiting off of it want to change that? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fanatic, are you certain that you are "in the middle class"?  I only ask because that term is vague, and lots of us on this board are actually a lot better off than it may seem day to day.

Here's a link to an article from Pew, where they have an income calculator based on your geographic location.  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

Did you come out middle class?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.