How so? What % can't afford to use it?? What % are going to the ER still in CA that have insurance? Well it's now ~8.5% in 2015. Texas is still ~20% uninsured and it's costing counties, municipalities, and the state.
It really makes this whole conversation make sense now that you are showing you don't know how insurance works. This will probably blow your mind, but insurance doesn't make things free....you still have to pay for them. If your insurance is cheap, it probably has big co-pays and high deductibles. When you can barely pay the premiums due to the costs continuing to skyrocket, you aren't going to have much left over to pay co-pays and deductibles. Hopefully your parents explain all of that to you before you have to get your own insurance one day.
Well you are making these claims.... Trying to get a handle where the truth begins and Bobby begins. I pay $130 per month here in Texas as a health 30 year adult male kiddo. My rates don't rise because my health indicators when I get my annual physical are good.
Yes, considering how some posters even admit they are disappointed Obama oversold the cost. Affordable Care Act is only affordable to those who get deep subsidies or the very wealthy.
Well Americans are pretty unhealthy, not too surprising the costs. Just wait until you see how much Medicare is going to cost in 2020.
Everything I'm saying is the truth, I'm just trying to teach you how health insurance works since clearly you are a bit confused about it. As to numbers, those numbers don't exist....which is why you have a scenario where things can look good on paper, but not really be any different. A similar example is if you took the commonly quoted unemployment number and it was low, but the percentage of the population out of the workforce who want a job but quit looking after many months of failure was super high you'd have a situation where on paper according to the official unemployment number things would be great but in reality things would suck. Yeah, pretty much but you mean to say Obama UNDERsold the cost, not oversold it. I remember people laughed at the initial claims for how much it would cost and suggested it would cost much more and those who were pushing the bill accused them of exaggeration.....and even those numbers fell short of reality.
You may think it's the truth but reality is different. Meanwhile, GOP legislators are getting paid to do nothing while you applaud. If you are b****ing now about costs....Just wait until 2020 when the boomers are retiring in mass. You just can't see the forest through the trees and have the audacity to see you are "conservative".
Again, I can point to the Republicans in congress stopping the Obama trillion+ dollar annual deficits as something positive they've done, what can we point to in the years it was under Democrat control as positives? As to being a conservative....yeah, I am when it comes to fiscal issues, just like any competent person. I don't see why you are bringing up costs.....I mean you do know Obamacare has done nothing to stop those costs from greatly outpacing inflation right? You're arguing for doing something expensive that doesn't help anything and then getting hit in a few years when boomers retire en masse. That problem should be part of the reason you oppose spending trillions more on new entitlement programs, not the justification for spending trillions more on new entitlement programs.
Again.... I've already explained to you that the deficit reduction was due to a stronger economy. Remind me what programs the Republicans cut? Or do you think that as the bailouts/TARP/etc. unwinded as the economy got better, sending decreased and bailed out companies started paying us back? You fooled me.... or perhaps you young folks are just so into that instant gratification. Not greatly, unless you say the same thing about healthcare costs before ACA, which brings up the question of why would you want to repeal something without an alternative. We are going to have to pay no matter what, better to start to get on the right track now. You still haven't answered me what is so darn anti-conservative about ACA that it can't be used as starting point....? Kinda pointless to have Medicare when you got all the unhealthy folks which will automatically qualify it once they hit 65. That is if you are a conservative who cares about the debt.... Rome wasn't built in a day but we need to figure out how to get healthcare for everyone and it won't be easy or cheap. However, it is necessary in an industrialized society where people live longer and don't make everything for themselves. Otherwise, you need to tell the Medicare folks that we'll reimburse what they put in so they can use that money for healthcare in the private market.
Yeah, you gave that spin but it's not accurate. Do you not remember the fights that went on when the Republicans wanted to cut spending and the president fought it saying that it would lead to people dying in the streets? The budget that Obama voted for in 2008 spent 3.5 trillion dollars, up from 2.9 the year before. Last year the government spent just 3.6 trillion dollars. It takes a LOT of cuts to have only 100 billion more in spending 6 years later. You don't understand healthcare, so I won't assume you understand budgeting either. With budgeting, there are expected increases every year, if you cut those increases, those are considered spending cuts even if it is an increased budget over the year before. I'll spoil this for size, but it would be best if you knew what you were talking about. Spoiler Yeah but it's NOT getting on the right track. It's actually making things worse. If you could take the president out of your mouth for long enough to read up on things, you'd realize that. It's an incredibly stupid plan. ....I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here. Basically since it'll be a problem one day we should make it bad now and worse later? That's kind of a weird way of doing things but consistent with the liberal mindset. Making things worse, won't help make things better. You are arguing for something that has no benefits by suggesting that at least it is trying....it's ridiculous.
Yes, they wanted to cut the automatic spending that was caused by the economic crisis. Not to mention, AGAIN, the bailouts and the like unwinded and companies began paying back the government adding to revenue. Another nugget of info too... As the economy improved so did revenue which also helped narrow the gap. Here's is what I've been getting at: Using Heritage's Graph, you can see where mandatory spending skyrocketed due to the economy. Demographics, the elderly and low income, have been playing an increasing role in spending. You are right in that aspect. Now I expect the same from you for above. It's not that hard to admit when you are wrong. Solving the pre-existing condition issue is expensive. Texas not having a plan for 20% of their uninsured population is also a stupid plan that is costing some money. That could change and Texas could even make it's own plan. Not really. I want to spend more today to save more tomorrow. Except today is the next decade or two and tomorrow is when I need to start worrying about retirement or whatever we'll be doing. I am over here playing chess and you're playing checkers Bobby. Except for those with pre-existing conditions and have medicaid where it was expanded. Keep improving that, and maybe do something more with HSA/FSA for the middle to upper income folks. Maybe the Republicans can come up with the plan to address the costs side. Rome wasn't built in a day son. You and your instant gratification....
No.....that's not what those graphs show, they show the rise of "mandatory spending", which are things like social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, VA benefits, interest on debt, and unemployment. Those programs make up almost all of "mandatory spending. Trying to blame that on bailouts is pretty ridiculous.
And I posted seven hours of video where the Republicans were very nearly begged to provide their input, the extent of which was a call for a "clean sheet of paper." Hilarious.
After it was clear the legislation was preordained and that no input would actually be considered, none was given. I mean, they were "begging" for the appearance of bipartisanship in the pushing of a pre-written bill. Why would they help Democrats create propaganda to help push their bad legislation? Do you really think if the Republicans added their input, telling the Democrats that Obamacare wouldn't work and that they need to try something else, that the president would have stopped pushing it? Of course not. They were always going to push Obamacare no matter what input was given. As the quote said, it was obvious the legislation was "preordained" and that there was nothing that could be said or done to alter it.
LOL. It shows exactly that with a sharp uptick in spending. You still can't answer what's so anti-conservative about ACA because you are a GOP shill. It's ok kiddo. Why are you so dishonest and putting words in my mouth. What I said is clear and you are dishonest but that's expect of you kiddo.
Nope. You are a liar. Do you really think if the Republicans added their input, telling the Democrats that Obamacare wouldn't work and that they need to try something else, that the president would have stopped pushing it? Of course not. They were always going to push Obamacare no matter what input was given. As the quote said, it was obvious the legislation was "preordained" and that there was nothing that could be said or done to alter it.[/QUOTE] Nope. You are a liar and you got nothing. Move along kiddo.
Bobby has to stick to his preordained narrative otherwise reality falls apart and he realizes the GOP has played him for a fool.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Politico: Obamacare sticker shock hits key Senate races. <a href="https://t.co/7yX5olFYZk" title="http://ow.ly/psrh303BG99">ow.ly/psrh303BG99</a></p>— Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/769128625224290305" data-datetime="2016-08-26T11:05:28+00:00">August 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Politico: 'In 9 of 11 states with competitive Senate races, at least one insurer seeks to hike Obamacare rates by at least 30% next year:'</p>— Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/769128502209773568" data-datetime="2016-08-26T11:04:59+00:00">August 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So what you are telling me is that in political races that republican candidates are at risk, the insurance companies are threatening to raise prices... hmm, I wonder...
I posted a whole article that contradicts his story in both the house and the senate (i mean he doesn't even know what the gang of six was all about) - he's delusional.
