Not interested. At allOh definitely infinitely far, far shittier: Breakdown if you're interested: 7 Charts Explain the Horrors of Trumpcare
I am saying, if they are against Obamacare (big if), then repeal as promised.
Not interested. At allOh definitely infinitely far, far shittier: Breakdown if you're interested: 7 Charts Explain the Horrors of Trumpcare
Yeah except that never happened. Those who passed it knew what was in it.
And those who refused to pass this bill also knew what was in it.
"Letting is implode" is a bit of exageration by a present who occasionally exageratesSo now what?
It's largely accepted by people not completely blinded by political affiliation that the ACA is unsustainable as it is. So while Dems are rejoicing in this "non defeat" and - justifiably so - laughing at the GOPs complete failure in coming up with a bill they were comfortable moving forward with, what now?
Just let it implode?
Then it will implode. It already is. If the premiums keep increasing, the people that are supposed to fund the program will continue to drop out and either seek other insurance or just pay the penalty.nothing happens for awhile
We will seeThen it will implode. It already is. If the premiums keep increasing, the people that are supposed to fund the program will continue to drop out and either seek other insurance or just pay the penalty.
Why do you think this?Then it will implode. It already is. If the premiums keep increasing, the people that are supposed to fund the program will continue to drop out and either seek other insurance or just pay the penalty.
Economics 101.Why do you think this?
The problem, I've heard, with allowing people to shop across state lines is that the insurance companies, themselves, will all just move to the state with the lowest regulations. Allowing them to reject more people, offer worse healthcare(less covered) and wouldn't necessarily drop prices much, due to people needing healthcare - it's not something you can walk away from if you don't like the price.Economics 101.
If there isn't enough money to support the program, insurers will bail. They exist to make money. Plenty of major insurers have already removed themselves from the system (Blue Cross Blue Shield, United, Aetna). Some states now only have 1 supplier, which adds to the issue of premium increases (no competition) - and people aren't allowed to shop for insurance across state lines.
It's a failing program. I don't really care if it's repealed/replaced or if it's just fixed, but if left alone as is it will eventually fail on its own.
Yup. It's a failed system.The problem, I've heard, with allowing people to shop across state lines is that the insurance companies, themselves, will all just move to the state with the lowest regulations. Allowing them to reject more people, offer worse healthcare(less covered) and wouldn't necessarily drop prices much, due to people needing healthcare - it's not something you can walk away from if you don't like the price.
That's just not true. Plenty of things work well when run by the government, we just don't talk about them when they are running well, because there is no reason to. It also depends on what the philosophy is behind the current government. If they are for small government they have an incentive to underfund a department and then point to it as a failure to incentivise moving that role outside of government control and into private hands.Nothing run by the government works all that well. I don't know why people thought health care would be any different.
Yeah our military is just complete shit.Nothing run by the government works all that well. I don't know why people thought health care would be any different.
I'll give you that. We're good at spending a shit ton of money to have the most advanced weapons in the world. That's not a knock, by the way.Yeah our military is just complete shit.
As they should.It also assumes that there is a large degree of competence in the private sector, which is, often times, not the case. Many private enterprises fail due to mismanagement, poor personnel, or underfunding.
What are some states with only one supplier?Economics 101.
If there isn't enough money to support the program, insurers will bail. They exist to make money. Plenty of major insurers have already removed themselves from the system (Blue Cross Blue Shield, United, Aetna). Some states now only have 1 supplier, which adds to the issue of premium increases (no competition) - and people aren't allowed to shop for insurance across state lines.
It's a failing program. I don't really care if it's repealed/replaced or if it's just fixed, but if left alone it will eventually fail on its own.
There are now 5 states with only one insurance company offering Obamacare plansWhat are some states with only one supplier?
And what do you mean these insurers have "removed themselves from the system?"
Looks like Bernie has a bill he'll be pushing. He acknowledged in the campaign trail Obamacare needed work.So now what?
It's largely accepted by people not completely blinded by political affiliation that the ACA is unsustainable as it is. So while Dems are rejoicing in this "non defeat" and - justifiably so - laughing at the GOPs complete failure in coming up with a bill they were comfortable moving forward with, what now?
Just let it implode?
Regurgitating a selected soundbite out of context is not a good look.
You said they knew exactly what they passed, i provided a soundbite that says different. Regurgitated or not has no bearing on it being the truth. Your bias is way too obvious.Regurgitating a selected soundbite out of context is not a good look.
Interesting that you didn't realize I already knew that's what you were thinking of.
Re-read my post.
Your lack of knowledge is what is obvious.You said they knew exactly what they passed, i provided a soundbite that says different. Regurgitated or not has no bearing on it being the truth. Your bias is way too obvious.