Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
AIDS is a hoax made up by Chinamen.
House GOP reveals AHCA: Update - Repeal of ACA IS BACK ON
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
55-year-old first-time voter who chose Trump protests large increase in health costs
After voting for the first time at the age of 55, for Donald Trump, Martha Brawley is worried that the main issue that brought her to the polls, health insurance coverage, is going to become worse.
Brawley, a resident of Monroe, North Carolina, said she fears the new Republican health insurance bill will significantly raise her premiums.
"I'm 55. This is the first time in my life I voted, and I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care," she told ABC News. "I might as well have not voted."
She first spoke to The New York Times about her concern that she would receive thousands of dollars less in assistance, as tax credits, to help her buy health care coverage under the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA), dubbed "Trumpcare."
Brawley reportedly receives approximately $8,688 in health care subsidies per year to pay for insurance, but under the proposed bill, she would receive $3,500 a year in tax credits, according to the Times.
First-time voter who chose Trump protests health cost increase
After voting for the first time at the age of 55, for Donald Trump, Martha Brawley is worried that the main issue that brought her to the polls, health insurance coverage, is going to become worse.
Brawley, a resident of Monroe, North Carolina, said she fears the new Republican health insurance bill will significantly raise her premiums.
"I'm 55. This is the first time in my life I voted, and I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care," she told ABC News. "I might as well have not voted."
She first spoke to The New York Times about her concern that she would receive thousands of dollars less in assistance, as tax credits, to help her buy health care coverage under the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA), dubbed "Trumpcare."
Brawley reportedly receives approximately $8,688 in health care subsidies per year to pay for insurance, but under the proposed bill, she would receive $3,500 a year in tax credits, according to the Times.
First-time voter who chose Trump protests health cost increase
Bleed The Freak
Superstar
55-year-old first-time voter who chose Trump protests large increase in health costs
After voting for the first time at the age of 55, for Donald Trump, Martha Brawley is worried that the main issue that brought her to the polls, health insurance coverage, is going to become worse.
Brawley, a resident of Monroe, North Carolina, said she fears the new Republican health insurance bill will significantly raise her premiums.
"I'm 55. This is the first time in my life I voted, and I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care," she told ABC News. "I might as well have not voted."
She first spoke to The New York Times about her concern that she would receive thousands of dollars less in assistance, as tax credits, to help her buy health care coverage under the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA), dubbed "Trumpcare."
Brawley reportedly receives approximately $8,688 in health care subsidies per year to pay for insurance, but under the proposed bill, she would receive $3,500 a year in tax credits, according to the Times.
First-time voter who chose Trump protests health cost increase
She needs to let the free market help her.
Last edited:
Bleed The Freak
Superstar
I think the hospital should have the right to refuse service.
That said I think professional certification has the right, depending on certification body, to say if you carry our license you can't refuse to threat anyone and stay accredited under our body.
You're not getting chemo in the ER
Koapa
Superstar
If you get rid of the individual mandates, what happens if someone with no coverage ends up at the ER?
I believe the individual mandate should stay. If you gave people that options, some will not get coverage.
I believe the individual mandate should stay. If you gave people that options, some will not get coverage.
my thing has always been that the individual mandate and expanded medicaid should stay as long as the 80's era law requiring emergency rooms to treat anyone that showed up is still in effect.
DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
I think letting the GOP kill off their own base is the most effective strategy
If that doesn't move the needle nothing will
However this exacerbates the problem that the ACA was enacted to solve. In fact, emergency care without coverage and overrealiance on emergency care is what was driving up prices before ACA and putting strains on hospitals who couldn't refuse emergency care. Then they would get help from the government to remain open. Because the hospital and government took the hit in response to people not having coverage and not utilizing preventive care which led to more emergency visits. The fact that preventive care is being under utilized due to lack of coverage, these same people probably ended up costing taxpayers more in the long run when they actually had an emergency care issue and life term illnesses and preventive illnesses reached their peak forcing them into the hospital eventually.
How does losing accreditation fix this problem and given your limited government view how do you keep governments out of the picture without making a ton of hospitals go broke?
This was what I was driving at with my question. Zealot adherence to anarcro capitalism seems to run into very sticky roadblocks such as this. I'm sure you can give me a rational so id like to hear it.
ACA was created by the GOP to subsidize health insurance companies. Period.
You want to take care of healthcare COSTS, delink it from insurance and let standardized costs for service to emerge like in the free market or even like the freer market singapore option. Let insurance be actual insurance for catastophric and unexpected costs.
That said there is a difference between compulsory acceptance of all by law and organizations volunterring to see all who come at their door.
Government shouldn't be in the healthcare or healthcare subsidizing business in myopinoin. Its their relationship that has done nothing but lower quality of service while raising prices.
If we can removed the FDA, remove government IP laws on drugs, remove government backing of medical cartel groups AMA, surgeons, medical schools, remove government authority on state level that lets health mega corporations block building on new hospitals for their own sake, and etc, cost of care would go down, quality would go up because of market competition, drug prices would crash down, medical professional growth rate would skyrocket bringing cost of services down, and you would have lower healthcare costs all around, which would allow donations from people to go further to aid those who truly fall into times where they need charity.
All that said, it seems you are a statist medicine zealot, as if you think arguing for market solutions and removing of government restrictions that stop the medical/healthcare sector from responding directly to consumers is a negative or that the government is neccessary to providing these services when it can't even adequately provide the service of transporting mail at a profit.
You want to reply back to my previous posts with rational critiques and questions though, I'll be ready to answer you and engage in a conversation.
Bleed The Freak
Superstar
It's like telling a restaurant to feed everyone who walks in or a hotel they must rent a room to anyone regardless of ability to pay. That is socialism. These people get seen completely for free and you and I foot the bill.
These Ayn Rand thinkers keep forgetting she lived her golden years off Medicaid and SSI.
Politicians with taxpayer subsidized health care telling their citizens they can't get taxpayer subsidized insurance is the height of hypocrisy.
I looked up the Singapore healthcare system just out of curiosity because I was unfamiliar with it, and I'm surprised you're advocating for it.
Here is a quick description of it (Yes, I know its wikipedia)
Healthcare in Singapore - Wikipedia
Citizens are taxed to pay for their own healthcare which is then stored in a healthsavings account. This is more government than Ryan's voluntary HSA plan is proposing. Also the government controlling prices is something I'm surprised you support. This seems very statist and in fact falls in line with Singapore's reputation of being much a statist society as a whole.
Quite frankly I agree that ACA was an example of crony capitalism and if given the power to create a healthcare system is not one I would choose. However, obviously I would go more towards a reliance on the state controlling healthcare cost. The bottom line is I don't think that private industry when it comes to public good are able to act in the public's best interest if more money can be made somewhere. Its an amoral, and at worst immoral,system that should be removed from things such as healthcare, education, military, etc. I don't think the invisible hand is infallible.
I would agree with getting rid of IP laws if that means getting rid of patent restrictions on drugs and research. However, again, I would think this would run counter to what you would advocate because the pro-business argument is that patents help motivate private research and discovery because it allows exclusive access to profits and rewards related to whatever discovery or innovation said company creates. As far as removing the FDA, no will never agree with that though I would be open to modifications. I'm not educated enough on the rest to give an honest critique without research first so I won't try to.
However, I think at the most basic level, we are working on totally different realities here. The idea that government is an absolute evil is something I simply don't believe and I don't think we'll ever come to agreement on that basic fact.
It really boils down to what you think is the greatest evil. Is having a society through the act of government set some expectation among its citizens to support other citizens to some degree the most evil thing in the world? You would say this is through the act of violence but at the same time unless you're living in a cabin in the woods and off the grid, I think there should be some responsibility by a citizen to participate, in this case through taxes, since they often use the same services at some point in their lives.
Last edited: