3rd Attempt: GOP/Trump Repeal & Replace ACA and Trump lie about pre-exist coverage

So the first example of saving lives is someone who died and would have died no matter what and the second is someone that would have had insurance problems without the ACA, but I'm not sure you can say she would have not received treatment without the ACA so it's not really a good example either.

That said, it's possible that legit examples do exist, but it isn't something that has been proven so saying that "millions" will die over Obamacare being allowed to collapse on it's own or due to it being repealed is flat out BS.

 

He battled cancer for two years with chemotherapy and radiation. Unfortunately not everyone beats cancer. To claim that he never had a chance is asinine on your part. Basically what you're saying is, they should have never even tried to save his life because he was going to be a goner anyways. You didn't see his medical report. You know nothing of the man and this is your assessment based on an internet post. You are an idiot.

Secondarily, I asked the other friend about ACA and from her own words, she would have been denied healthcare based on pre-existing conditions. She requires home healthcare almost everyday and takes up to 40 pills a day just to digest nutrients from food. She has an extremely rare condition that requires her to be on top of her medication everyday. She's exactly the type of person that would be denied based on ACA repeal. You don't know what you're talking about as usual.

 

Before running your mouth and embarrassing yourself, read what YOU wrote.

So, this person who was saved by the ACA died, and YOU said without the ACA he would have died......

I mean, he did in fact die, so that's why I say that he was going to die with or without it. How is this hard for you to comprehend?

No, you can't be denied "healthcare" due to pre-existing conditions, you mean to say "health insurance". Hopefully you understand that "health insurance" and "healthcare" are not the same thing. Would it have been considerably more difficult without health insurance? Absolutely, but it doesn't mean she couldn't have received health care without it.

 

This guy is an embarrassment to this site. He spams nonsense constantly, I really hope they do something about it.



London, I am glad your friend was able to receive palliative measures. They make a HUGE difference, its not about "that person would have died anyways." I didn't end up choosing heme or rad-onc but I rotated within those specialties. With the exception of a couple of cancers, our interventions make a world of a difference in how people choose to go. Bobby doesn't know medicine, and he probably doesn't know what he himself is trying to say. Don't feed the troll, all he does is derail any meaningful discussion.

 

I expect the Cruz amendment would boost enrollment and lower premiums because people would be able to be counted as covered even if they buy a plan that doesn't give them effective coverage. I philosophically like the position that people should be able to buy insurance that is customized to their needs; in reality though I know that without strong consumer protections, a lot of people are going to get ripped off by buying slimmed down coverage and then getting the worst surprise of their lives when their potentially terminal illness isn't covered.

It was a parliamentary system though. He didn't have an absolute majority in the Reichstag, but he was close. So he was able to force the appointment as Chancellor because of his party's parliamentary strength.

Anyway, Hitler still counts because Weimar was a democracy and Hitler was the leader of it (until he could make it a dictatorship, which didn't take long).

 

You're one of the worst posters on this board. I've never once seen you concede being wrong on anything be it Texans QBs, politics, Hangout discussions. Literally anything. You hold your nose up so high like you see what others don't and all I see is a fool. I'll happily run my mouth at you any time because you're always so full of s-hit.

Again, he had Stage IV colon cancer. He had health insurance through the hospital he worked at up until he had cancer. The hospital in error wrongfully terminated his long term benefits and health insurance. He would not have received the same type of quality of care were it not for ACA. The fact that he died is unfortunate but I've no doubt he received far better care with ACA health insurance than some walk in clinic where he'd have to wait hours to receive treatment. In pain, he was able to receive all pain medications to make his passing as comforting as possible. I doubt he'd receive that kind of attention even approaching death without the health insurance provided by ACA. He was a Trump supporter. His parents are still Trump supporters and even they acknowledge the benefits of ACA and the type of health care he received despite dying anyways. He was better off with ACA than without. I don't even know how you can argue that.

Regarding my other friend, I trust her testimony on the matter given that she lives and deals with her conditions and insurance providers everyday. You're just a random troll on the internet that's always full of s-hit. I never find your posts intelligent. Just the same condescending s-hit from you. It's old. I don't know how you suffer through being you everyday. It's gotta be miserable being you, because you can't help yourself from being a c-unt on the internet. You can't un-cuntify who you are. It's just a part of you. Wonder if there's a medical diagnosis for cuntiness. You'd have stage IV of that.

 

Geez, dude. Maybe you and Tinman should switch names.

 

Typical voting against self interest GOP voters, they deserve to lose their insurance and not get the ACA help.

 

I take it Bobby is saying that somebody who died of cancer should not have received medical treatment because of imminent death?

When there's a contrarian road available, even if it goes against bedrock principles in society, Bobby is there in his edgelord glory.

 

There's a trend of people like yourself being wrong and at the same time wanting me to concede being wrong when that isn't the case. If you struggle to follow along, that's a you problem. Also, if you are going to embarrass yourself like this, don't bother telling me what you think you see as if it is going to be something I'll take seriously.

You do realize that you are trying to list this as a person the ACA "saved" right?

The guy had stage 4 cancer and he died despite the ACA.....it didn't save him. Sure, he'd have died without it....but he died with it.

You understand how listing this as an example of someone that the ACA "saved" makes you look like a fool right?

And this is you whining like a b**** because you've been called out for being wrong. It's okay, I'm used to people like you by now. You say stupid things that are easily disproved and then you throw a temper tantrum when that happens. It's not the way to make people think your stupid clams that were easily disproved are accurate.

 

No, I'm saying that someone who died of cancer with Obamacare was not saved by Obamacare. Somehow that blew London's fragile little mind.

 

He should have said ACA helped or prolonged their live, but that is just nitpicking.

 

The context of the conversation was that I was disagreeing with someone who said that getting rid of the ACA would kill millions of people. I suggested that wasn't true and that it wasn't proven that the ACA saved any lives to begin with, so eliminating it wouldn't then cost people their lives.

His response to that was first listing a person who died of cancer WITH the ACA. That was his very first example of a life saved by the ACA.

That's sort of where everything went off the rails because any intelligent person would know that someone who died of cancer WITH the ACA clearly did not have his life saved by the ACA and London simply couldn't grasp that concept instead assuming I was being an ******* by pointing out the obvious.

 

I agree that it did not save life in this case, but I am sure it saved some lives, for example someone with early stage cancer got the right treatments because they had the insurance that allow them get preventative checkups that caught the disease early.

 

There might be a tiny pool of people out there that fit very specific circumstances, but that could never equate to "millions".....and people continue to ignore the fact that not having insurance does not equal not having access to health care so a lot of people in that pool wouldn't even count.

That's what I was saying.

Anyway, since the ACA is dead one way or the other, either by it failing on it's own or due to congress repealing it, I'd much rather get back to the conversation about what to do next. Some suggest a single payer system like they have elsewhere, and I've asked proponents of that to list even one country that has a successful system like that has an illegal immigration problem comparable to what the US deals with. So far I haven't gotten an answer.....likely because the only country in Europe that has an illegal immigration problem anywhere near the scope that the US has to deal with is Greece....and crazy entitlement programs pretty much screwed that country.

 

Why is illegal immigration a problem for single payer system?

 

You're an idiot. ACA saved his family from bankruptcy easily, since he'd have been denied medical coverage and I've no doubt his parents and extended family would have covered all the debt just in hope of a possible recovery from him. I'd say it saved him an additional two years of life by receiving treatment even if ultimately he died. It saved him from an enormous amount of pain in palliative care he likely wouldn't have received, at least without his parents seeing a $30K medical bill for a few nights stay at the hospital. ACA improved his quality of life even at end of term and saved his family from likely bankruptcy covering medical debt. Arguing semantics of saved would basically mean no healthcare saves anyone because we're all going to die regardless of what type of healthcare we receive.

There's dying like a dog in the street, and then there's dying with dignity in a hospital bed surrounded by loved ones while receiving the best morphine and pain relievers medical health insurance can provide. Despite dying, I've no doubt he received far better medical attention with ACA health insurance than without. That saved him a lot of additional pain and discomfort you never got to witness. I did though. You b****.

You ignore the other part of your post where you basically said I was wrong for listing my other friend with PID as saved because of ACA. She isn't dead yet. Does that qualify enough for you dipshit? Does her own testimony about ACA's conditions benefitting her override your online arguments against? Only in Bobbythecunt's world does it. You talk with the same narrative like a ****ing bot. "I'm so used to be called out for being wrong all the time despite being right. Durrr. I'm BobbytheGreat and you should all agree with my narrative of platitudes that only make sense in my world." That's every post of yours on this BBS.

 

Because free riders are always a problem in any welfare state and as a result illegal immigration puts more stress on entitlement programs like that. Of course that's just one of the differences between the US and those countries that have universal healthcare that would make it difficult for the US to do, but it's just the first I thought people should address.

 

Bobby is a sociopath and a troll. I hope you have learned the lesson.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Tens of thousands of people are alive because of Obamacare. There's no disputing it but there are surprisinly idiots who believe nobody dies without health care.