Trump, GOP look to 'Obamacare' report as comeback lifeline

[Gary A]

The bottom line is that the appointed AND elected morons are not capable or running anything efficiently. The corruption is shameful.

[Strange]

53 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Thing is if selfish billionaires avoid paying tax then America can not provide basic care to those who need and can not afford it.

 

Even if the selfish billionaires paid, it would not have any effect on anything. Rates would not change. Nothing will change. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

Your annual increase in premiums is not unusual for independent policies in the private sector and is not related to Obama care. 

 

Dictating what EVERY policy should contain as a minimum will vastly increase rates. Even independent policies. Its a direct effect of Obamacare. 

 

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

Obama care had no direct cost influences on non-ACA plans.

 

Man Im not trying to be combative here but this is just false. Even the private insurance policies are dictated to contain a minimum of coverage from Obamacare. 

 

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

It's one great positive on all plans is that it spelled out a maximum out-of-pocket.  If you ever had a serious illness or injury like myself, although you may not be an atheist, you too would get down on your hands and knees and thank Baby Jesus and all the other benevolent gods of the world for that little inclusion in the law.

 

This is true but it could be done without screwing everyone top to bottom, just like ending the pre-existing condition (thank god) 

 

Im not trying to take your post out of context, or edit it, just wanted to hit a few points. 

[pegman]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

The NHS is not free. Not. Free. Everything I read says that on average, English pay roughly 5,000 Pounds a year in tax for the privilege of having the NHS. This is an average. It is not free. This is not total tax, just the NHS cost. You guys pay more, per person, in taxation than an American. It appears that you guys get to keep an average of 57% of your income whereas an American, on average, and depending on state, keeps about 65-70% of their total income. Your NHS is not free. Stop saying its free. I would certainly hope that in your 45 years of paying this tax that you never want for anything, healthcare wise. Your government also floods the NHS with Billions of pounds of taxation money. Money taken from taxpayers. 

 

While I agree with some of your post, just about all of your talking points will not ever be touched on from the AHA. 

 

I agree that medical care should be a right to all citizens, but your stuff isn't free. 

 

In Canada our tax money pays for our health care also. But keep in mind that the reduced bureaucracy greatly reduces the per cap cost of care. When combined with the fact that most of our politicians aren't owned by the military industrial complex we get on rather well thankyou. 

[Andaman Al]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

 

The NHS is not free. Not. Free. Everything I read says that on average, English pay roughly 5,000 Pounds a year in tax for the privilege of having the NHS. This is an average. It is not free. This is not total tax, just the NHS cost. You guys pay more, per person, in taxation than an American. It appears that you guys get to keep an average of 57% of your income whereas an American, on average, and depending on state, keeps about 65-70% of their total income. Your NHS is not free. Stop saying its free. I would certainly hope that in your 45 years of paying this tax that you never want for anything, healthcare wise. Your government also floods the NHS with Billions of pounds of taxation money. Money taken from taxpayers. 

 

While I agree with some of your post, just about all of your talking points will not ever be touched on from the AHA. 

 

I agree that medical care should be a right to all citizens, but your stuff isn't free. 

 

I have no idea where you are reading, but the average Brit is not paying 5000 a year to the NHS. Healthcare is for ALL whether you pay tax or not whatever your age. If you are getting to keep so much of your income then STOP WHINING about it. If you are keeping 65-70% of your income after paying medical insurance then what is the problem? Even if Brits were paying 5K per year (which they are not), 45 years x 5 is 225K for cradle to grave medical care. One bout of cancer and there is your 225K back in a second. No increase in premiums and no Doctor scum working for insurance companies trying to invalidate your right to medical treatment because of a trivial paperwork error 15 years ago.

 

And yes we can put billions of pounds into the health service from tax (and education) because we don't have a military tax bill equivalent to all the other major countries put together - but you do!  So ultimately, the Military industrial complex, big pharma and the insurance companies have got you all by the balls and they will never let go. All enough to give you high blood pressure and heart burn, time for more and more tablets and medications. Now chill out, we don't want the insurance company increasing your premiums because you have to get more medication  

[JLCrab]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Stop trying to corner me. I never said I was trying to fix anything by posting on Thaivisa. I asked you if burying your head in the sand will fix anything - IE Staying in thailand and ignoring everything. Im trying to contribute here, in this thread. 

 

Feel free to PM if you like. 

 

Your exact words were:  "Does staying in Thailand and sticking my head in the sand fix anything?"

[Scott]

Some rather nasty posts have been removed.   Please stay on topic and stop with the bickering.  

[gk10002000]

7 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Your annual increase in premiums is not unusual for independent policies in the private sector and is not related to Obama care.  You will always get a steep increase each time you cross a 5 year age increase (e,g. 30,35,40 45, etc).  and that increase gets steeper for each decades in life.  The $400 per month is cheap if you are under 50 years of age and is cheaper than my wife's coverage and she is 53.  Your personal health issues are not taken into consideration as the ACA rules prevented any plan from discriminating based upon existing conditions.  It is all a matter of age.

 

Obama care had no direct cost influences on non-ACA plans. It's one great positive on all plans is that it spelled out a maximum out-of-pocket.  If you ever had a serious illness or injury like myself, although you may not be an atheist, you too would get down on your hands and knees and thank Baby Jesus and all the other benevolent gods of the world for that little inclusion in the law.  Stop thinking in terms of your good health and think about what happens when something goes wrong because that is why you are buying insurance. I mean what is the odds of my house burning down?  How many houses in your neighborhood have burned down over the past century?  But then we still all buy insurance on our homes, even when the house insurance companies continue to put their names on some of the tallest buildings in the world.

 

Look, this Republican inspired plan still relies on the private insurance sector, the people who actually wrote the law.  The only solution is a single payer national plan with everyone in one large national group to cover and spread the risk. I am not surprised the ACA is requiring increased premiums given that the participants in the ACA plans are not a random grouping of the populace.  It is all a matter of statistics and not politics.  But if you want to blame Obama and the Democrats for the weaknesses in this plan devised by the private sector to deflect attention away from a single payer option then by all means stay ignorant of how insurance works.

My plan fully covered me for serious illness or injury.  I paid less because I was responsible for routine things, had a 10K deductible.  That didn't bother me at all.  That is peanuts.  I had zero issues the last ten years and life was good until Obamacare mandated that even my grandfathered plan was altered!  They seem to have a different definition of grandfathered than I do!.  I was fully insured in case the 1 Million dollar thing came along.  I originally was paying $66/month for this catastrophic type of coverage and it was perfect for me.  Obamacare doesn't allow that type of coverage.  They want premiums NOW.  Now I pay 5x that.  But that will change since I just joined a major aerospace defense firm.  Saying that $400 a month is cheap is ridiculous!  That is a big chunk of your average person's pay.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, gk10002000 said:

My plan fully covered me for serious illness or injury.  I paid less because I was responsible for routine things, had a 10K deductible.  That didn't bother me at all.  That is peanuts.  I had zero issues the last ten years and life was good until Obamacare mandated that even my grandfathered plan was altered!  They seem to have a different definition of grandfathered than I do!.  I was fully insured in case the 1 Million dollar thing came along.  I originally was paying $66/month for this catastrophic type of coverage and it was perfect for me.  Obamacare doesn't allow that type of coverage.  They want premiums NOW.  Now I pay 5x that.  But that will change since I just joined a major aerospace defense firm.  Saying that $400 a month is cheap is ridiculous!  That is a big chunk of your average person's pay.

 

"If you like your plan, you can keep you plan"

 

Riiiiight

[Gary A]

Has anyone considered why medical care is so expensive? A doctor's insurance expense is staggering. Why is his or her insurance so horribly expensive? One reason is that we have scum bag lawyers suing for any small reason they can come up with. I would guess that lawyers are making more from this than doctors or insurance companies.These crooked lawyers should be penalized for filing frivolous lawsuits.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I have no idea where you are reading, but the average Brit is not paying 5000 a year to the NHS. Healthcare is for ALL whether you pay tax or not whatever your age. If you are getting to keep so much of your income then STOP WHINING about it. If you are keeping 65-70% of your income after paying medical insurance then what is the problem? Even if Brits were paying 5K per year (which they are not), 45 years x 5 is 225K for cradle to grave medical care. One bout of cancer and there is your 225K back in a second. No increase in premiums and no Doctor scum working for insurance companies trying to invalidate your right to medical treatment because of a trivial paperwork error 15 years ago.

 

And yes we can put billions of pounds into the health service from tax (and education) because we don't have a military tax bill equivalent to all the other major countries put together - but you do!  So ultimately, the Military industrial complex, big pharma and the insurance companies have got you all by the balls and they will never let go. All enough to give you high blood pressure and heart burn, time for more and more tablets and medications. Now chill out, we don't want the insurance company increasing your premiums because you have to get more medication  

 

5000 a year is an average, not the average brit. Take the tax paid in from the bottom, to the top, and then divide. Thats an average. The average is large because there is a lot paid into it, on top of the billions dumped in from the government. So its not free. You guys always chime in with "But its free" and its not. 

 

I completely understand the premise of the NHS. Im not whining, but the fact that you are trying to deflect by saying I'm whining and then attacking the Military, Doctors, Pharma, and insurance clearly tells me I'm getting to you, so ill take that as a success. Everything I said was true. 

 

When it comes to military spending, I could post articles with citations and pie charts and whatever, but I recommend you to have a look at what the UK spends compared to what the US spends based on Federal Budget, GDP, and population. We spend a lot more than anyone else, but we can afford to. This is always just an attack point for you guys but its obviously just uninformed nonsense. We spend more per person but we are hardly starving our population because of it. When it comes to military spending, Im very much happy with what we got. Plus we have like 1.5 million people taking part in it, earning college money, benefits, healthcare, education.  

 

Big Pharma? Whats Obamacare going to do about that? Big Pharma does the R&D for better or worse then COPYRIGHTS their product just like every other company that creates a product. I don't like it that they can sell their product to the US for 100$ and then sell it to India for $10 but how will Obamacare fix this? It won't and it can't. The point is moot. 

 

Doctors? Another reach. Doctors don't work for the insurance companies. One of the major expenses for medical care is the cost of Malpractice insurance/litigation insurance. Sure there are doctors in Private Practice that exploit the system, but they all do really. Thats what happens when you mandate that insurance pays for healthcare. Its a business and hospitals will change whatever they think they can get from insurance companies, then find a compromise in the end. Whats Obamacare going to do about this? 

 

You come in this thread and defend Obamacare, say the UK is Free, and better in every way. Wrong, Wrong, and more Wrong. Its hilarious that you believe so much, but clearly don't even know what percentage of your own income goes into your "FREE" healthcare system nor how much your own government spends its money, compared to the US, as it seems to be such a concern for you. 

 

I dont "dislike" the idea of an NHS type system, but that isn't even on the same planet as Obamacare. At this point, an NHS system would be a vast improvement but I have no idea how that would be implemented. 

 

We keep more income than you, and before Obamacare, an insurance policy that was very good, didn't require a wait of months to see a specialist, fairly quick and painless, was about the same cost as the insurance policy on a car. Now? For some, its the same cost as a second mortgage. 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

In Canada our tax money pays for our health care also. But keep in mind that the reduced bureaucracy greatly reduces the per cap cost of care. When combined with the fact that most of our politicians aren't owned by the military industrial complex we get on rather well thankyou. 

 

Im glad your happy with your system. Im also glad you realize that its not free and your tax money pays for it. Im to the point now where Id gladly pay an extra percentage of tax (within reason) if myself, my parents, and everyone else can get basic healthcare without freaking out about the money. But Obamacare can't and won't ever get to the point where its even remotely close to this premise. 

 

Your final point is just uninformed nonsense though. 

[Strange]

14 hours ago, Chicog said:

Yes, the Republicans legislated the buffers out of Obamacare that would have mitigated big increases, so I do blame them.

As for the insurers, they are only interested in profits, and they are doing their best to get out of having to treat sick people, because that's what costs them the most money.

Pretty basic stuff if you bother looking into it.

 

I never mentioned bureaucracy, so I don't know why you decided to slide that one in.

 

The real issue here is that Republicans take the most money from the Health industry and in return do everything the can to maximise profits for them.

(Which is not to say that there aren't Democrats on the payroll, but not to that extent. They're chucking a load of money at Clinton now she looks like she's going to win).

 

Look for yourself:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09

 

So insurers contribute to both Democrat and Republican, slightly more on the republican side, therefore the GOP works for insurance companies? Thats just nonsense. So is there anywhere in your article that says that Democrats refuse any money from insurers? They both take whatever is given to them. Republicans and democrats are not on the "payroll" for taking money from insurers. 

 

Bureaucracy is inevitable when the US Government gets involved in anything. Didnt slide anything in there, its a given. The post I was replying to said to kick the GOP out. Yeah, ok, then what? How do you attempt to "control" anything by involving the US government and not increase bureaucracy? 

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

 

So insurers contribute to both Democrat and Republican, slightly more on the republican side, therefore the GOP works for insurance companies? Thats just nonsense. So is there anywhere in your article that says that Democrats refuse any money from insurers? They both take whatever is given to them. Republicans and democrats are not on the "payroll" for taking money from insurers. 

 

Bureaucracy is inevitable when the US Government gets involved in anything. Didnt slide anything in there, its a given. The post I was replying to said to kick the GOP out. Yeah, ok, then what? How do you attempt to "control" anything by involving the US government and not increase bureaucracy? 

 

The Republicans are the ones that sabotaged the ACA.

 

 

And they will continue to sabotage it as long as they have the power.

They don't give a toss if people die for lack of affordable healthcare.

 

Not a toss.

 

 

 

[Basil B]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

 

The NHS is not free. Not. Free. Everything I read says that on average, English pay roughly 5,000 Pounds a year in tax for the privilege of having the NHS. This is an average. It is not free. This is not total tax, just the NHS cost. You guys pay more, per person, in taxation than an American. It appears that you guys get to keep an average of 57% of your income whereas an American, on average, and depending on state, keeps about 65-70% of their total income. Your NHS is not free. Stop saying its free. I would certainly hope that in your 45 years of paying this tax that you never want for anything, healthcare wise. Your government also floods the NHS with Billions of pounds of taxation money. Money taken from taxpayers. 

 

While I agree with some of your post, just about all of your talking points will not ever be touched on from the AHA. 

 

I agree that medical care should be a right to all citizens, but your stuff isn't free. 

 

 

The average UK Resident pays £4,398 tax some of which goes to fund the NHS.

[Strange]

Just now, Chicog said:

 

The Republicans are the ones that sabotaged the ACA.

 

 

And they will continue to sabotage it as long as they have the power.

They don't give a toss if people die for lack of affordable healthcare.

 

Not a toss.

 

Clearly, honestly, you don't know jack. 

 

Nobody will die from lack of healthcare. Worst case scenario, 911 is called and they will NEVER be refused treatment. Regardless of insurance or not. Regardless of cash or not. Nobody is refused treatment. This includes all emergency services, ambulance transport, and helicopter transport. 

 

Republicans didn't sabotage shit. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

The average UK Resident pays £4,398 tax some of which goes to fund the NHS.

 

No. 

 

honestly you don't even know what your tax money goes to? 

 

The only way a UK resident pays 4,398 in total tax is if they make around 10,000-12,000 pound income in a year. This is for a single person. Family? Multiple income? Yeah, still gonna be about 40% of total income given to the government. 

 

Do you guys not even look at where you money is going? 

 

Honestly, this stuff is easily researchable. 

[JLCrab]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Clearly, honestly, you don't know jack. 

 

Nobody will die from lack of healthcare. Worst case scenario, 911 is called and they will NEVER be refused treatment. Regardless of insurance or not. Regardless of cash or not. Nobody is refused treatment. This includes all emergency services, ambulance transport, and helicopter transport. 

 

Republicans didn't sabotage shit. 

" Countless uninsured people have postponed seeking medical attention – some even losing their lives as a result – simply because they felt as though they had no financial options for medical treatment."

https://billadvocates.com/get-medical-help-youre-uninsured/

 

 

[Slip]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

No. 

 

honestly you don't even know what your tax money goes to? 

 

The only way a UK resident pays 4,398 in total tax is if they make around 10,000-12,000 pound income in a year. This is for a single person. Family? Multiple income? Yeah, still gonna be about 40% of total income given to the government. 

 

Do you guys not even look at where you money is going? 

 

Honestly, this stuff is easily researchable. 

I really am intrigued with your figures here.  4398 of 10000 is a basic tax rate of 43.98%.  Can you back up this claim?  It certainly seems to have changed since I was last there.

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Slip said:

I really am intrigued with your figures here.  4398 of 10000 is a basic tax rate of 43.98%.  Can you back up this claim?  It certainly seems to have changed since I was last there.

 

I can't because I'm wrong. I got trigger happy in my reply and couldn't edit it before I realized my mistake. 

 

Im 100% wrong with the figures, but saying that most english pay 4398 a year in tax is BS. 

 

Edit:

 

Unless the majority of the UK is low income? 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Strange

[Johpa]

14 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

 I originally was paying $66/month for this catastrophic type of coverage and it was perfect for me.  Obamacare doesn't allow that type of coverage.  They want premiums NOW.  Now I pay 5x that.  But that will change since I just joined a major aerospace defense firm.  Saying that $400 a month is cheap is ridiculous!  That is a big chunk of your average person's pay.

 

Any plan charging a mere $66 a month is unviable, it was a Mickey Mouse plan.  But sure it was very attractive if you were young and single and healthy. But usually those who had such plans and became ill or injured, yet not rising to the level of "catastrophic", ended up using public funds to cover their medical costs that the plan did not cover.  I never said that $400 was cheap relative to the cost of living, only that it was cheap relative to the general cost of insurance to independents who do not work for the government or large corporations. And you don't need to tell me about how large a chunk of the average person's pay. I can't have a conversation with most people about health insurance because only about 15% of the population before the ACA were purchasing as independents, and many were purchasing those cheap ""catastrophic" plans. Talking to the public sector employees is particularly difficult as they are clueless as to just how much those medical benefits are really worth. And now you have joined a major defense contractor, congratulations, but your new health coverage there is also paid for largely by the other taxpayers as the likes of Boeing and LM are two of the largest corporate welfare recipients.

[gk10002000]

14 hours ago, Strange said:

 

"If you like your plan, you can keep you plan"

 

Riiiiight

yup.  I got to keep my plan, but the law allowed them to change it unilaterally and without my knowledge or consent!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎26‎.‎10‎.‎2016 at 10:37 AM, Andaman Al said:

 

Agreed. Obamacare was one of the biggest 'start-ups' in global history. Sure there are many problems and they need fixing, which can be done with Bi-Partisan co-operation. To simply bin it would be insane. Where is Trumps business acumen now?? Obamacare needs time and the problems need working through, there are many unfair issues as shown in the post by 'Strange' above, but to bin it would cost more than to work through the problems and fix them.

Good luck with the bi partisan thing. Clinton has poisoned the well so much that the GOP will, IMO, do anything to destroy her presidency.

 

This will only make a difference if the media gets the word out and the media is actively suppressing anything that helps Trump.

[Jingthing]

Obamacare is fixable but the republicans will block it.

Whose fault is that? Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/28/americans-are-tuning-out-trumps-ugly-lies-this-new-poll-proves-it/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9369fd079d94

Quote

 

This seems like the rub: Dems will push to spend some more money to build on Obamacare’s successful coverage expansion and fix problems that have arisen; Republicans will oppose it.

 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Obamacare is fixable but the republicans will block it.

 

So republicans are to blame for ACA.... Riiiiiight

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

So republicans are to blame for ACA.... Riiiiiight

 

Just curious if you are actually familiar with the legislative history of the ACA and how it evolved from a republican proposed alternative to the health care reform proposed by the Clinton administration in the 1990's. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

 

Or are you just opposed to it since it is nicknamed Obamacare and you are uninterested in objective facts?

TH 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

 

Just curious if you are actually familiar with the legislative history of the ACA and how it evolved from a republican proposed alternative to the health care reform proposed by the Clinton administration in the 1990's. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

 

Or are you just opposed to it since it is nicknamed Obamacare and you are uninterested in objective facts?

TH 

I don't know about Strange, but I would oppose it if I were an American simply because Obama lied about it, and no legislator actually read it before voting for it. Remember Pelosi saying that they had to vote for it to find out what was in it?