LOL, seriously, you think politicians are afraid how you (or I) vote? I am sure they have already predicted your vote... and and it is clear they haven't changed anything based on how you voted all these years.
All you have to do is only use FDA approved drugs. Like i said above, I would reduce the FDA to an information source, not get rid of it. I would even be ok with forcing all drugs to submit for free FDA testing. So all you have to do if you want your old nanny state protection you currently have, is only use FDA approved drugs. The old system was fine, the issue was that it wasn't sustainable because healthcare costs were increasing faster than inflation by quite a bit. If you address healthcare costs, then you make the old system sustainable (it wasn't my favorite but its good enough). This notion was lost on Obama as his plan didn't try to reduce healthcare costs (even though he promised it would reduce healthcare costs by $2500 per house hold) If they aren't afraid of how I vote then why would they give a **** about my phone call?
I just posted proof that what I have said is true while your claims are nothing but bullsh!t. They never provided any input to be considered, how exactly did they realize that it wouldn't be considered when the extent of their "contribution" was to ask for a "clean sheet of paper"?
In what ways was it not working? For the vast majority of people, it was indeed working. The biggest problem in the system was healthcare cost, which Obamacare did nothing to address. Nor did Obamacare. What Obamacare addressed was insurance, not healthcare. And what it did was provide it to many who didn't have it before, whether they wanted it or not, and somehow assumed this wouldn't cost anything, which was ridiculous. This is a fair point.
Can't the exact same thing be said of ACA? It's almost like because this came from Obama we can't do this..... Well how are they are going to know what you're thinking? Seems like your method isn't work out too well. If you are in Texas then I can only point and laugh at you at how much you are being played to be the fool.
In what ways was it not working? For the vast majority of people, it was indeed working. The biggest problem in the system was healthcare cost, which Obamacare did nothing to address. Nor did Obamacare. What Obamacare addressed was insurance, not healthcare. And what it did was provide it to many who didn't have it before, whether they wanted it or not, and somehow assumed this wouldn't cost anything, which was ridiculous. This is a fair point.
The uninsured were a problem or those with pre-existing conditions. Republicans didn't address it either. Whether they wanted it or not? Can we tell folks they are too unhealthy or obese for medicare? Because those folks are gonna get a bunch more services than they put in. The bolded is where I do blame Obama and democrats for over selling how inexpensive it would be.
As you can see the idea of looking drug regulations is something I also support ("nanny state" snipe unnecessary). Whether easing or removing completely is the only question. Removing all protections seems dangerous, since its been clear that pharma doesn't always work for the consumer and since there will always be cases when someone's family member will come down with a terrible disease and will take anything to treat it. But reducing if not removing regulations is a good thing to look at. Here's where we disagree... the old system was NOT fine. Forgive my "selfishness", but the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions were not fine. The fact that so many people were not covered by health insurance and instead didn't get treatment or used ER's for treatment was not fine. You may not like ACA but it did address these problems with the previous system. And in six years after ACA there have not been any plans suggested that address these still. Even the latest republican plan (or more precisely "framework") says people with preexisting conditions need to have coverage, but doesn't say in any level of detail how they will accomplish it. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160624/BLOG/160629939 You seem hung up on the "call my representative". What was suggested that you don't just rely on your vote, but to get more active, by calling your rep, writing letters, attend meetings, talk to neighbors, campaign run for offices.
If its a terrible disease of course they would take anything to treat it. who wouldn't? In a deregulated system, they and whatever doctor they choose can decide on what drug will give them the best odds of treating it. In the current system, they and what doctor they choose can decide on what FDA approved drug will give them the best odds of treating it. It take 10 years on average for a drug to get by the FDA. They rush this for life saving drugs but still when a doctor comes up to you and says 'I'm sorry. we've done all we can' what he/she really means is 'I'm sorry. we've done all we can that the FDA will allow'. Dallas Buyer's Club was about this (good flick): Spoiler <iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qu4C1yi_FKw" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe> what do you think happened to a person who did not have coverage for a condition in the old system? just curious if its not reducing healthcare costs then it doesn't address anything. If healthcare costs are increasing far faster than inflation then it doesn't matter how you redistribute wealth, it will still be unsustainable and therefore doesn't solve your inability to cover your family's conditions. dmoney clearly stated 'call your congressman or you are blowing smoke'. that's what i responded to. Now it's 'write letters to other voters or you are blowing smoke'. how about posting on a forum? seems just as good. caught your eye.
I posted a quote by the "token" Republican that was chosen to be part of the healthcare debates before Obamacare was proposed.....up until she realized that the legislation was pre-determined and that none of her input would be considered. Anyway, I don't expect a partisan hack like yourself to remember history accurately. I know you'll just spout whatever the Democrat talking points are at the moment.....and that's what you are doing now.
Entirely valid. The Tea Party agrees with your accounts of ACA. You are dishonest.... Par the course for you....
Everyone should agree with my account of ACA, it's an accurate one. I mean, everyone that isn't blinded by partisanship that is. You've been trying to re-write recent history a lot lately and it's just not going to work kiddo.
Sorry son. Only tea baggers agree with your accounts. Even so.... What's to stop the GOP from putting forth their own plan at any point? They could have campaigned on it leading up to 2012.... 2014.... or this election cycle..... Come on.... Let's hear it. You keep deflecting on that.... I wonder why.....?
You mean the way that Obama and the Democrats campaigned on Obamacare during the 2008 election campaign? Oh, wait. That did not happen.
There's no incentive in doing so during a time with Obama as president, he'll never allow Obamacare to die while he's in office. There's a chance Hillary will be more of a political pragmatist if she has ANY of Bill's savvy and that'll be an opportunity to get something done for the good of the people...but till then? What's the point? During the Democrat majority times no Republican healthcare bill would ever be voted on and once Obamacare was passed, you'd have to get rid of that nonsense before anything legitimate could be done. Also, I'm not saying the Republicans have the answers here....remember, I call them the "Democrat light" party? I'm just giving you an accurate representation of what happened and you are disagreeing due to your partisanship.....it's sort of like how some black people couldn't admit that OJ was guilty for a LONG time. Sure on some level they always knew better, they just couldn't admit it.
