Hey Democrats...

[AUFAN78 3,911]

8 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Democratic lawmakers just seem like they are generally more intelligent and less dramatic individuals than their Republican counterparts. 

Might want to research current affairs. Foreign policy/Afghanistan/border, economy/inflation, crime, human infrastructure/moral responsibility , and craters on the moon .

[AUFAN78 3,911]

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Globalist vs Nationalist? I gladly take Nationalist. Republicans don’t want one world government, world taxes, international criminals courts, ceding our sovereignty to international government bodies. No thank you. Some of the countries the UN puts on the human rights committee are a joke. 

One could argue the UN is a joke.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

6 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It's a statistical fact that the ACA increased the number of Americans who had health insurance policies.  https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/06/05/new-hhs-data-show-more-americans-than-ever-have-health-coverage-through-affordable-care-act.html 

Nobody gets taxed for not having health insurance the "uninsured tax" has been set at $0/yr since 2018. 

 

And I'm going to give a little personal story here. I know you are wrong because I am someone who did directly benefit from the ACA years ago. There are about a year where I was in a job where I was making low pay and did not have access to medical insurance at a cost that I could afford , and I was able to get a basic insurance plan subsidized through the ACA that allowed me medical care and prescription coverage that I would have had to go without before the ACA was passed. 

Yes, even if you are uninsured the hospital will still have to save your life if you come in with a injury or problem, but that isn't genuine healthcare. If you can't afford medication, regular checkups, pre-emptive surgery to take care of small problems before they become major, life threatening problems later...that's healthcare and is what America should offer it's citizens.  

 

We all benefit. Before ACA, most plans had caps — kid gets cancer, they hit their lifetime cap pretty quickly and families go bankrupt.  Those caps are gone under ACA.

[DKW 86 7,431]

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I am only considered a Democrat by virtue of there being no other viable option.  Therefore, I have no idea what planks there are in the platform.  What I do know is that, on a national level, the congressional candidates that I support do not find it acceptable to lie about our elections in order to gin up support and they do not mirror their views to any one individual in order to secure cult like support.

 

17 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

This is contradictory, the first sentence implies you researched the democratic party to figure out if it is a viable option for you. Yet, the second sentence says that you didn't even bother to research the democratic platform. 

This is the sad state of politics today.

I at least give him kudos for being honest.

My own: M4A, Student Debt Relief, not forgiveness, Racial Efforts to improve the nation and finalize equality for all,  

For what it is worth, I consider both parties to be almost 100% bought and sold to the MIC. I give Biden immense credit for standing up to the MIC and ending the Afghanistan Occupation. It was inevitable that we would pull out at some time. I also laugh at the juvenile antics of Biden's minions. IE "Lets go Brandon" is so ******* funny it is inviting ever more people to chant at popular events. To say that LGB has failed dramatically is a true cosmic understatement. They should have just ignored it or painted as a very small but vocal crowd. They went for the humor and MAN...did that completely backfire.

[DKW 86 7,431]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Well the ACA eliminated many plans people liked, raised everybody’s rates, and made a lot of people lose their doctors.  The whole cost of the plan as forced down our throats did not even have any money allocated to pay doctors.

 

12 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm not saying it didn't have any negative consequences associated with it, but it did vastly increase healthcare accessibility to people who otherwise couldn't afford it or didn't have access to it through their employer. The law has also become much more popular with the general public as time has gone on. 

I'd say the ACA was clearly a net benefit to America and increased the nations overall health and healthcare accessibility. 

The ACA was a step in the right direction...that was so poorly executed that it truly could not have gone worse. From the Haealthcare.giv rollout that was horrendously over budget and horrendously slow and non-responsive. It was a $50M portal that ended up costing us well over $950M to build and fix. There was no competition across the states. It had no real competitive relief for consumers. It made monopolies owned by some insurance companies 10X worse. The cost per tax payers was horrendous. The whole "IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN" was the biggest lie told in the 2000s. There was no way you could keep your plan for more than a few years. All plans had to meet stringent govt guidelines and it became an expensive nightmare for most. I know it did for my family and many others. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

 

The ACA was a step in the right direction...

Sorry to disagree, but it was the worst plan possible if the goal was really to make either health care or health insurance more affordable.  It literally cobbled together the worst of all possible worlds.

But that was never really the intention.

You say that both parties are bought and paid for and I agree.  The ACA is probably the best example of that corruption in American history.  Well, other than the current US military, which has become little more than a jobs program for soldiers and a way to funnel pork to large corporations.  The government figured out during the Vietnam War how to use it for the latter and it hasn't stopped since.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

The ACA was a step in the right direction...that was so poorly executed that it truly could not have gone worse. From the Haealthcare.giv rollout that was horrendously over budget and horrendously slow and non-responsive. It was a $50M portal that ended up costing us well over $950M to build and fix. There was no competition across the states. It had no real competitive relief for consumers. It made monopolies owned by some insurance companies 10X worse. The cost per tax payers was horrendous. The whole "IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN" was the biggest lie told in the 2000s. There was no way you could keep your plan for more than a few years. All plans had to meet stringent govt guidelines and it became an expensive nightmare for most. I know it did for my family and many others. 

Hard to smoothly improve health care with only obstruction on one side— anything this big needs refinements, modifications, etc. as unintended consequences surface. Republicans obstructed everything and offered ZERO, despite promises of a “replacement.” All repeal, no plan for replacement. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hard to smoothly improve health care with only obstruction on one side— anything this big needs refinements, modifications, etc. as unintended consequences surface. Republicans obstructed everything and offered ZERO, despite promises of a “replacement.” All repeal, no plan for replacement. 

Republicans should have obstructed the ACA.  Everyone should have opposed it.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

1 minute ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Republicans should have obstructed the ACA.  Everyone should have opposed it.

Have any solutions or do you think healthcare in America was fine before?

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Have any solutions or do you think healthcare in America was fine before?

 

First let's clarify.  When you say health care do you mean health care or health insurance?  They are not the same thing.

[AU9377 4,979]

On 10/13/2021 at 11:41 AM, wdefromtx said:

This is contradictory, the first sentence implies you researched the democratic party to figure out if it is a viable option for you. Yet, the second sentence says that you didn't even bother to research the democratic platform. 

This is the sad state of politics today.

It is not a contradiction.  You set up the question to be some sort of gotcha question.  The point is that you don't have to buy into every sentence in a party platform, which means very little, in order to vote for a particular candidate. The platforms mean very little in terms of actual decision making.

[AU9377 4,979]

4 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

First let's clarify.  When you say health care do you mean health care or health insurance?  They are not the same thing.

Without health insurance, receiving health care is certainly impacted.  The ER becomes a doctor's office.  You suggested obstructing the ACA, as though the ACA was the problem.  The ACA was an attempt to solve a problem. You can object to that solution, but unless there is another proposed solution, you objection is simply to return to the status quo before the ACA was enacted.

Edited October 14, 2021 by AU9377

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

Just now, AU9377 said:

Without health insurance, receiving health care is certainly impacted.  The ER becomes a doctor's office.

And yet they are still not the same thing.  People may have health insurance and still be unable to afford care.  In fact, for the lowest layer of people negatively impacted by Obamacare, that's exactly what's happened.  People who make just a little too much money to qualify for taxpayer subsidies, but who don't make enough to have $5,000 laying around can't use their health insurance because they can't afford their Obamacare—artificially inflated deductibles.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is not a contradiction.  You set up the question to be some sort of gotcha question.  The point is that you don't have to buy into every sentence in a party platform, which means very little, in order to vote for a particular candidate. The platforms mean very little in terms of actual decision making.

I'd say there's a pretty big difference between not buying into every sentence in a party platform and literally not being able to name a single element of the agenda.  Let's steer clear of false choices such as this.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is not a contradiction.  You set up the question to be some sort of gotcha question.  The point is that you don't have to buy into every sentence in a party platform, which means very little, in order to vote for a particular candidate. The platforms mean very little in terms of actual decision making.

I didn't set up any question..........apparently you did not even pay attention to that as well.

[AU9377 4,979]

14 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'd say there's a pretty big difference between not buying into every sentence in a party platform and literally not being able to name a single element of the agenda.  Let's steer clear of false choices such as this.

Oh good Lord....

I agree with all of the overall goals.  I think most Americans do.  Some things I disagree with. 

FOR DAMN EXAMPLE:

Page 58 - DC Statehood.  I do not believe that D.C. should be the 51st state.

Page 59 - Guaranteeing self determination for Puerto Rico. I don't see action being necessary.

Most things contained in a platform are aspirational and simply do not require support for every detail.  No you can have fun with a what about this and that..........  The point is that for President, many vote for the person moreso than a platform.

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

Edited October 14, 2021 by AU9377

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Have any solutions or do you think healthcare in America was fine before?

 

Don't think I have time to wait for your response to my question before replying, so I will assume you meant insurance.

I can think of two much better plans than Obamacare.

But that assumes that the government should get (even more) involved in this.  Kind of an aside, but for the record I personally am not opposed to deciding as a country that we'd like to be each other's keepers and make sure that every American citizen has access to health care.  *I think that comes with some big caveats, though.  I also do not believe that I am obligated to provide health care for others.  Every time I hear, "Health care is a right," it makes me want to resist the movement to provide universal coverage because it's simply not true.  A homeless person asking for my help is one thing, but a homeless person demanding money from me as a "right" is not going to get anything.

Anyway (the caveat to follow at the end), I think that there are two ways to solve this problem assuming we agree that it's a problem we should be solving for everyone.

The first and best way is to eliminate all but catastrophic insurance policies.  This is one reason that Obamacare is a joke—and by that I mean it doesn't even work theoretically, much less practically—because health insurance as we know it really isn't insurance at all.  It's just a co-op.  Insurance is for stuff that isn't likely to happen to you, and it only works on that basis.

So insurance only kicks in under this plan if expensive care is needed.  Otherwise, routine health care is cash.  This would cause the cost of routine health care to plummet, and this is why I think this is the best plan possible; for that reason and also because this system allows everyone to maintain choice.  The care could be paid for out of HSAs.  The money that goes in would be tax deductible, and poor people's HSAs could be taxpayer funded.  The catastrophic policies could be taxpayer funded as well.

Cash not only lowers the cost of routine health care, but it also incentivizes patients not to choose care they don't really need.  

The government could control people's behavior (as they so love to do) by incentivizing certain behaviors through the HSA, much in the way they do with taxes currently.  It could place conditions and give perks (such as allowing people to draw a certain amount of money out of the HSA and use it for something else provided that certain conditions were met)...there are all sorts of possibilities and just about any concern that a good, we-have-to-protect-people-from-themselves liberal might have could be managed this way.

The second way that would still be a million times better than Obamacare would be to simply model the mass educational system we have.  We have public and private schools.  Anyone can go to the public schools, but if you want a private school education you have to pay for it.

There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing with health care.  Public clinics and hospitals that any citizen could go to existing alongside private clinics and hospitals that charged.  Private health insurance would still exist for those who wanted private care, but would be obsolete for public health care.  Just walk in, show some form of ID proving you are a citizen and you get care.  No insurance claims to file.  The employees of the clinic work for the state and get paid a salary.  Taxpayer funded, just like public schools.

*If we're going to use my tax dollars to further some huge increase in government involvement in health care for everyone, I have conditions.  The government can't on one hand demand my money to provide health care for everyone while continuing to allow things like people using SNAP to buy junk food (the #1 food item bought with SNAP is soda), the FDA continuing to allow chemicals in our food that have been banned in over 100 other countries, subsidizing high fructose corn syrup and the beef industry, etc.  If it's going to take my money to pay for things like this, it's going to ned to get a WHOLE lot better at reducing the need for my money on the front end before I'm wiling to sign off on it willingly.  If it wants to get involved in something like this, it's going to need to REALLY get involved.

[DKW 86 7,431]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Hard to smoothly improve health care with only obstruction on one side— anything this big needs refinements, modifications, etc. as unintended consequences surface. Republicans obstructed everything and offered ZERO, despite promises of a “replacement.” All repeal, no plan for replacement. 

totally agree. the Republicans were worried that it would get screwed up. the dems were so hell bent on passing it that they started the preposterous “If you like your plan, you will keep your plan” stuff. Of course no one got to keep their plan. the requirements were rewritten and the best you got was a 2-3 grandfathering of your plan. 

[TexasTiger 12,964]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Don't think I have time to wait for your response to my question before replying, so I will assume you meant insurance.

I can think of two much better plans than Obamacare.

But that assumes that the government should get (even more) involved in this.  Kind of an aside, but for the record I personally am not opposed to deciding as a country that we'd like to be each other's keepers and make sure that every American citizen has access to health care.  *I think that comes with some big caveats, though.  I also do not believe that I am obligated to provide health care for others.  Every time I hear, "Health care is a right," it makes me want to resist the movement to provide universal coverage because it's simply not true.  A homeless person asking for my help is one thing, but a homeless person demanding money from me as a "right" is not going to get anything.

Anyway (the caveat to follow at the end), I think that there are two ways to solve this problem assuming we agree that it's a problem we should be solving for everyone.

The first and best way is to eliminate all but catastrophic insurance policies.  This is one reason that Obamacare is a joke—and by that I mean it doesn't even work theoretically, much less practically—because health insurance as we know it really isn't insurance at all.  It's just a co-op.  Insurance is for stuff that isn't likely to happen to you, and it only works on that basis.

So insurance only kicks in under this plan if expensive care is needed.  Otherwise, routine health care is cash.  This would cause the cost of routine health care to plummet, and this is why I think this is the best plan possible; for that reason and also because this system allows everyone to maintain choice.  The care could be paid for out of HSAs.  The money that goes in would be tax deductible, and poor people's HSAs could be taxpayer funded.  The catastrophic policies could be taxpayer funded as well.

Cash not only lowers the cost of routine health care, but it also incentivizes patients not to choose care they don't really need.  

The government could control people's behavior (as they so love to do) by incentivizing certain behaviors through the HSA, much in the way they do with taxes currently.  It could place conditions and give perks (such as allowing people to draw a certain amount of money out of the HSA and use it for something else provided that certain conditions were met)...there are all sorts of possibilities and just about any concern that a good, we-have-to-protect-people-from-themselves liberal might have could be managed this way.

The second way that would still be a million times better than Obamacare would be to simply model the mass educational system we have.  We have public and private schools.  Anyone can go to the public schools, but if you want a private school education you have to pay for it.

There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing with health care.  Public clinics and hospitals that any citizen could go to existing alongside private clinics and hospitals that charged.  Private health insurance would still exist for those who wanted private care, but would be obsolete for public health care.  Just walk in, show some form of ID proving you are a citizen and you get care.  No insurance claims to file.  The employees of the clinic work for the state and get paid a salary.  Taxpayer funded, just like public schools.

*If we're going to use my tax dollars to further some huge increase in government involvement in health care for everyone, I have conditions.  The government can't on one hand demand my money to provide health care for everyone while continuing to allow things like people using SNAP to buy junk food (the #1 food item bought with SNAP is soda), the FDA continuing to allow chemicals in our food that have been banned in over 100 other countries, subsidizing high fructose corn syrup and the beef industry, etc.  If it's going to take my money to pay for things like this, it's going to ned to get a WHOLE lot better at reducing the need for my money on the front end before I'm wiling to sign off on it willingly.  If it wants to get involved in something like this, it's going to need to REALLY get involved.

Thanks for your answer. You at least have a proposal, unlike the Republicans who repeatedly voted to “repeal and replace” without any replacement. The question is, in a democratic republic, can a party sell your proposal to a voting public that now approves of ACA?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Oh good Lord....

I agree with all of the overall goals.  I think most Americans do.  Some things I disagree with. 

FOR DAMN EXAMPLE:

Page 58 - DC Statehood.  I do not believe that D.C. should be the 51st state.

Page 59 - Guaranteeing self determination for Puerto Rico. I don't see action being necessary.

Most things contained in a platform are aspirational and simply do not require support for every detail.  No you can have fun with a what about this and that..........  The point is that for President, many vote for the person moreso than a platform.

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

Quote

I agree with all of the overall goals.  I think most Americans do.

I'm sure most Americans do agree with the overall goals.  The overall goals are little more than fantastic feel-good slogans.

The problem is what happens when you start looking at the details of where the fairy dust is going to come from to achieve the goal of every American being entitled to their own unicorn or whatever "overall goal" you choose. You actually have to pay attention to the agenda for that.  Sorry that fact irritates you.

Quote

The point is that for President, many vote for the person moreso than a platform.

The point is that doing that is a very bad idea.  You posted logic in this very thread that agrees with that.  Yet you also post like you're annoyed that anyone would suggest paying attention to a political agenda rather than a personality.

 

[AU9377 4,979]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Don't think I have time to wait for your response to my question before replying, so I will assume you meant insurance.

I can think of two much better plans than Obamacare.

But that assumes that the government should get (even more) involved in this.  Kind of an aside, but for the record I personally am not opposed to deciding as a country that we'd like to be each other's keepers and make sure that every American citizen has access to health care.  *I think that comes with some big caveats, though.  I also do not believe that I am obligated to provide health care for others.  Every time I hear, "Health care is a right," it makes me want to resist the movement to provide universal coverage because it's simply not true.  A homeless person asking for my help is one thing, but a homeless person demanding money from me as a "right" is not going to get anything.

Anyway (the caveat to follow at the end), I think that there are two ways to solve this problem assuming we agree that it's a problem we should be solving for everyone.

The first and best way is to eliminate all but catastrophic insurance policies.  This is one reason that Obamacare is a joke—and by that I mean it doesn't even work theoretically, much less practically—because health insurance as we know it really isn't insurance at all.  It's just a co-op.  Insurance is for stuff that isn't likely to happen to you, and it only works on that basis.

So insurance only kicks in under this plan if expensive care is needed.  Otherwise, routine health care is cash.  This would cause the cost of routine health care to plummet, and this is why I think this is the best plan possible; for that reason and also because this system allows everyone to maintain choice.  The care could be paid for out of HSAs.  The money that goes in would be tax deductible, and poor people's HSAs could be taxpayer funded.  The catastrophic policies could be taxpayer funded as well.

Cash not only lowers the cost of routine health care, but it also incentivizes patients not to choose care they don't really need.  

The government could control people's behavior (as they so love to do) by incentivizing certain behaviors through the HSA, much in the way they do with taxes currently.  It could place conditions and give perks (such as allowing people to draw a certain amount of money out of the HSA and use it for something else provided that certain conditions were met)...there are all sorts of possibilities and just about any concern that a good, we-have-to-protect-people-from-themselves liberal might have could be managed this way.

The second way that would still be a million times better than Obamacare would be to simply model the mass educational system we have.  We have public and private schools.  Anyone can go to the public schools, but if you want a private school education you have to pay for it.

There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing with health care.  Public clinics and hospitals that any citizen could go to existing alongside private clinics and hospitals that charged.  Private health insurance would still exist for those who wanted private care, but would be obsolete for public health care.  Just walk in, show some form of ID proving you are a citizen and you get care.  No insurance claims to file.  The employees of the clinic work for the state and get paid a salary.  Taxpayer funded, just like public schools.

*If we're going to use my tax dollars to further some huge increase in government involvement in health care for everyone, I have conditions.  The government can't on one hand demand my money to provide health care for everyone while continuing to allow things like people using SNAP to buy junk food (the #1 food item bought with SNAP is soda), the FDA continuing to allow chemicals in our food that have been banned in over 100 other countries, subsidizing high fructose corn syrup and the beef industry, etc.  If it's going to take my money to pay for things like this, it's going to ned to get a WHOLE lot better at reducing the need for my money on the front end before I'm wiling to sign off on it willingly.  If it wants to get involved in something like this, it's going to need to REALLY get involved.

This is the thing...  Even before the ACA, federal tax dollars (and state for that matter) were already being spent on healthcare. The amount we spend per resident is now over $11,000, which is twice what other comparable countries spend.  For that, we get care that is comparable to that care in Australia, the U.K., etc, but the average citizen is still left with large sums to pay and must either maintain insurance or face bankruptcy or financial ruin in many situations.

What the ACA did accomplish was to provide coverage for many Americans that could not obtain coverage otherwise.  Without the ACA, we would still be allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and charge others incredibly high premiums without any options available.  The system isn't perfect.  I would agree that in some ways it isn't working at all, but it is an effort.  It is inexcusable that a country of the wealth we have does not have a dignified system by which people can receive basic health care.  We literally force people to divest themselves of anything they have worked their lives for and become medicaid dependent before we help them.

I could agree to a system of public health clinics in general. However, Americans aren't going to settle for the wealthy receiving life saving procedures and the poor being told to die. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

28 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This is the thing...  Even before the ACA, federal tax dollars (and state for that matter) were already being spent on healthcare. The amount we spend per resident is now over $11,000, which is twice what other comparable countries spend.  For that, we get care that is comparable to that care in Australia, the U.K., etc, but the average citizen is still left with large sums to pay and must either maintain insurance or face bankruptcy or financial ruin in many situations.

What the ACA did accomplish was to provide coverage for many Americans that could not obtain coverage otherwise.  Without the ACA, we would still be allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and charge others incredibly high premiums without any options available.  The system isn't perfect.  I would agree that in some ways it isn't working at all, but it is an effort.  It is inexcusable that a country of the wealth we have does not have a dignified system by which people can receive basic health care.  We literally force people to divest themselves of anything they have worked their lives for and become medicaid dependent before we help them.

I could agree to a system of public health clinics in general. However, Americans aren't going to settle for the wealthy receiving life saving procedures and the poor being told to die. 

The simple solution is allow the ACA policies to be sold on the market, private companies policies as well, allow competition across state lines, let customers choose the details of their policy without requiring procedures or coverages that are irrelevant, and assign any gender dysphoria surgeries the same status as elective plastic surgery;  paid for by the patient not insurance.

[Grumps 3,704]

Making healthcare in the U.S. more affordable is EASY. Neither the democrats or the republicans have been trying at all to make healthcare affordable. The primary problem with our healthcare system is the cost, not access. If our government tried to reduce the cost of healthcare then access to healthcare would automatically improve. Everyone in healthcare knows there is tremendous waste. The ACA pretty much ignored healthcare cost and focused on access to healthcare. The democrats lied to get the ACA passed and then told the truth once the courts got involved (it was always intended to be a tax). The republicans were only concerned with obstructing what Obama and the democrats were trying to do.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

What the ACA did accomplish was to provide coverage for many Americans that could not obtain coverage otherwise. 

Without the ACA, we would still be allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and charge others incredibly high premiums without any options available.  The system isn't perfect.  I would agree that in some ways it isn't working at all, but it is an effort.  It is inexcusable that a country of the wealth we have does not have a dignified system by which people can receive basic health care.  We literally force people to divest themselves of anything they have worked their lives for and become medicaid dependent before we help them.

I could agree to a system of public health clinics in general. However, Americans aren't going to settle for the wealthy receiving life saving procedures and the poor being told to die. 

Quote

What the ACA did accomplish was to provide coverage for many Americans that could not obtain coverage otherwise. 

What the ACA accomplished was to create a very expensive wealth redistribution network that made health insurance more expensive across the board and thinly disguised it with taxpayer subsidies.  Health insurance costs more and pays out less than it did before the ACA.  For everyone.  It's just that the middle class is now forced to pay for their artificially inflated and relatively worthless health insurance as well as the artificially inflated health insurance costs of the lower class.

Quote

I would agree that in some ways it isn't working at all, but it is an effort.

It really isn't an effort.  It's little more than a corrupt scam.  And it's obvious.  It was obvious before it was even passed.  As I said earlier, the ACA doesn't even work theoretically.  Where were all you guys when John Gruber was confessing?

Quote

It is inexcusable that a country of the wealth we have does not have a dignified system by which people can receive basic health care.

Basic health care?  People are going bankrupt over basic health care?

Again, this is the "health care is a right" nonsense.

It's not a right and people are not entitled to it.  It's a service provided by others.  Nothing is a right that has to be produced by other people's labor.

 

[AU9377 4,979]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The simple solution is allow the ACA policies to be sold on the market, private companies policies as well, allow competition across state lines, let customers choose the details of their policy without requiring procedures or coverages that are irrelevant, and assign any gender dysphoria surgeries the same status as elective plastic surgery;  paid for by the patient not insurance.

I really don't think the number of gender dysphoria surgeries are part of the problem, but I have no objection to them being elective.  Honestly, to even bring them up just wreaks of Fox News.