Posted by crazystengel on 7/25/2017 2:24:00 PM (view original):
the root cause of the republican antipathy for obamacare = the guys who own the GOP politicians (Kock bros et al) want tax cuts, not tax increases

Not sure I give a damn what a canuck thinks about American taxes.


I take that back. I'm 100% positive I don't care what your opinion is on any American matter. Go back to humping your pet moose and drinking LaBatts in celebration.

Ahhh, The Arrogant American mindset at play. And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. We sure don't have a problem interjecting our opinions on the rest of the world.

I don't wonder that at all. Nor do I care why the rest of the world hates us. And, if you'd be so kind, please find a post among my 53,000+ where I comment on the Canadian healthcare system. If you search all of them, you might find me pointing and laughing at Rob Ford but that's about all the comment I'll have on their political landscape.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/25/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):
What has to be addressed is the cost of goods/services not coverage. Obamacare did not do that. Address what a doctor visit and an aspirin in the hospital costs. But, if you want to lower the cost of services, you can't have a lawyer standing outside the hospital asking "Do you want to sue?"

And knock off the "Republicans" nonsense, dino. Legislation is a clusterfuck in DC and it's not one sided.

Well said.

Address the cost of healthcare, and much of the problems with healthcare in the US is fixed. Then, you can have some sort of subsidized "Obamacare-lite" to address what's left over.

But what's been in place for the past 6-7 years has been a clusterfuck. Addressing the symptoms and not the root cause rarely works out in the end.

The Affordable Care Act fails on the affordable part. That's the key part that many are missing.

Realistically, there isn't a way to profitably insure everyone at premiums people can afford to pay without at least one of the following:

- Some sort of price control
- massive government subsidies to either the insureds or the insurers
- a public option to remove poor and sick from for-profit policies

The ACA uses option 2. It would be a lot more successful if 19 states hadn't (out of spite) refused funds for Medicaid expansion.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/25/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):
What has to be addressed is the cost of goods/services not coverage. Obamacare did not do that. Address what a doctor visit and an aspirin in the hospital costs. But, if you want to lower the cost of services, you can't have a lawyer standing outside the hospital asking "Do you want to sue?"

And knock off the "Republicans" nonsense, dino. Legislation is a clusterfuck in DC and it's not one sided.

I think it all starts with the cost of education for a doctor. These ************* are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt at the very beginning of their careers. Kind of ******* ridiculous to me. Especially when you consider that the very best medical degrees from the best colleges don't even to be paid for in the first place.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2017 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Realistically, there isn't a way to profitably insure everyone at premiums people can afford to pay without at least one of the following:

- Some sort of price control
- massive government subsidies to either the insureds or the insurers
- a public option to remove poor and sick from for-profit policies

The ACA uses option 2. It would be a lot more successful if 19 states hadn't (out of spite) refused funds for Medicaid expansion.

#2 is deeply flawed and that's why conservatives don't like O Care.