J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

If we had real media that would explain why Democrat rules make Obamacare so expensive ... but the oligarch media is going to continue to spread disinformation and blame Orange Man Bad.

---

so, young Hanky, does your employer, Starbucks subsidize your health care? Isn't that socialized medicine? What is your MAGA plan for HC? Gold Jesus has said he has one, but no-one has seen it. Trump lied? Damn! Just glad Mrs hanky-twink has govt healthcare she can support the twink with. Didn't think you Maga wierdo were again socialized medicine, but haven't provided a plan whatsoever. Fat boy has said has has a plan...He has been with that BS for 10 years. HC has nothing to do with Obama or Biden. All pig mans! Enjoy your socialized subsidized by the govt HC.

---

What a clever and articulate post……..if you're like 9 years old.

---

so little Johnny is on social medicine also....LJ, does anyone subsidize your healthcare? govt (teachers), employer , Govt cheddar like Assman? You MAGA turds are just not smart. Not, to mention the hypocrisy is amazing out of you people.

---

Are you really claiming that health care benefits that employers offer employees is a subsidy?

---

Of course I am. Do you pay 100% of ur premiums? If not, and your employer pays a portion. That is a subsidy. I don't chime in on what I haven't had experience or understood well. During my corp days , I was a c suite executive and on the compensation committee. It is a subsidy that is sold as part of your compensation package. We are the only industrialized country in the world who relies on business and govt to subsidize. Our H C is an absolute disaster. Still waiting on Trumpy plan that he has been saying he has it. Right on Liar in chief!!

---

Companies paying a portion or even all of employees' HC benefits (which is oh by the way the only way my HC benefits are "subsidized") is a business decision employers make to hire and retain quality personnel in addition to salary or bonus compensation, etc. This is in no way comparable to forcing taxpayers to subsidize premiums through Obummercare like what you have, Junior.

Your TDS driven posts are somehow getting dumber all the time, and I apologize to all the 9 years olds out there for insulting their intelligence in my earlier comment.

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

If we had real media that would explain why Democrat rules make Obamacare so expensive ... but the oligarch media is going to continue to spread disinformation and blame Orange Man Bad.

---

so, young Hanky, does your employer, Starbucks subsidize your health care? Isn't that socialized medicine? What is your MAGA plan for HC? Gold Jesus has said he has one, but no-one has seen it. Trump lied? Damn! Just glad Mrs hanky-twink has govt healthcare she can support the twink with. Didn't think you Maga wierdo were again socialized medicine, but haven't provided a plan whatsoever. Fat boy has said has has a plan...He has been with that BS for 10 years. HC has nothing to do with Obama or Biden. All pig mans! Enjoy your socialized subsidized by the govt HC.

---

What a clever and articulate post……..if you're like 9 years old.

---

so little Johnny is on social medicine also....LJ, does anyone subsidize your healthcare? govt (teachers), employer , Govt cheddar like Assman? You MAGA turds are just not smart. Not, to mention the hypocrisy is amazing out of you people.

---

Are you really claiming that health care benefits that employers offer employees is a subsidy?

---

Of course I am. Do you pay 100% of ur premiums? If not, and your employer pays a portion. That is a subsidy. I don't chime in on what I haven't had experience or understood well. During my corp days , I was a c suite executive and on the compensation committee. It is a subsidy that is sold as part of your compensation package. We are the only industrialized country in the world who relies on business and govt to subsidize. Our H C is an absolute disaster. Still waiting on Trumpy plan that he has been saying he has it. Right on Liar in chief!!

---

It is part of a pay package. That isn't a "subsidy." That is an employer shopping for health insurance for employees to use as part of a pay package - now because they are required to do so. The part they pay is still coming out of employee pay. Employee gets a "benefit" of a supposedly cheaper insurance as part of their pay package. A subsidy would be if the employer were paying the employee's insurance with government money - or perhaps money from another non-business source. .

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

If we had real media that would explain why Democrat rules make Obamacare so expensive ... but the oligarch media is going to continue to spread disinformation and blame Orange Man Bad.

---

so, young Hanky, does your employer, Starbucks subsidize your health care? Isn't that socialized medicine? What is your MAGA plan for HC? Gold Jesus has said he has one, but no-one has seen it. Trump lied? Damn! Just glad Mrs hanky-twink has govt healthcare she can support the twink with. Didn't think you Maga wierdo were again socialized medicine, but haven't provided a plan whatsoever. Fat boy has said has has a plan...He has been with that BS for 10 years. HC has nothing to do with Obama or Biden. All pig mans! Enjoy your socialized subsidized by the govt HC.

---

What a clever and articulate post……..if you're like 9 years old.

---

so little Johnny is on social medicine also....LJ, does anyone subsidize your healthcare? govt (teachers), employer , Govt cheddar like Assman? You MAGA turds are just not smart. Not, to mention the hypocrisy is amazing out of you people.

---

Are you really claiming that health care benefits that employers offer employees is a subsidy?

---

Of course I am. Do you pay 100% of ur premiums? If not, and your employer pays a portion. That is a subsidy. I don't chime in on what I haven't had experience or understood well. During my corp days , I was a c suite executive and on the compensation committee. It is a subsidy that is sold as part of your compensation package. We are the only industrialized country in the world who relies on business and govt to subsidize. Our H C is an absolute disaster. Still waiting on Trumpy plan that he has been saying he has it. Right on Liar in chief!!

---

Words mean things.

I work. In exchange for the value I bring my employer through my labor, I am compensated both in terms of both salary and benefits. Neither salary nor benefits are a subsidy. They are a bargained for exchange.

A subsidy is a grant or gift of money. No employer grants or gifts money to employees.

I ask nicely, please edit your posts and dock yourself however many points you deem necessary.

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

If we had real media that would explain why Democrat rules make Obamacare so expensive ... but the oligarch media is going to continue to spread disinformation and blame Orange Man Bad.

---

so, young Hanky, does your employer, Starbucks subsidize your health care? Isn't that socialized medicine? What is your MAGA plan for HC? Gold Jesus has said he has one, but no-one has seen it. Trump lied? Damn! Just glad Mrs hanky-twink has govt healthcare she can support the twink with. Didn't think you Maga wierdo were again socialized medicine, but haven't provided a plan whatsoever. Fat boy has said has has a plan...He has been with that BS for 10 years. HC has nothing to do with Obama or Biden. All pig mans! Enjoy your socialized subsidized by the govt HC.

---

What a clever and articulate post……..if you're like 9 years old.

---

so little Johnny is on social medicine also....LJ, does anyone subsidize your healthcare? govt (teachers), employer , Govt cheddar like Assman? You MAGA turds are just not smart. Not, to mention the hypocrisy is amazing out of you people.

---

Are you really claiming that health care benefits that employers offer employees is a subsidy?

---

Of course I am. Do you pay 100% of ur premiums? If not, and your employer pays a portion. That is a subsidy. I don't chime in on what I haven't had experience or understood well. During my corp days , I was a c suite executive and on the compensation committee. It is a subsidy that is sold as part of your compensation package. We are the only industrialized country in the world who relies on business and govt to subsidize. Our H C is an absolute disaster. Still waiting on Trumpy plan that he has been saying he has it. Right on Liar in chief!!

---

Words mean things.

I work. In exchange for the value I bring my employer through my labor, I am compensated both in terms of both salary and benefits. Neither salary nor benefits are a subsidy. They are a bargained for exchange.

A subsidy is a grant or gift of money. No employer grants or gifts money to employees.

I ask nicely, please edit your posts and dock yourself however many points you deem necessary.

---

Won't be surprised if Junior's next post is something along the lines of he's sure it's a "subsidy" because while being the King of China he invented employer provided health care benefits.

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

As bad as Obama care was for increasing healthcare prices, it was great for getting Americans coverage. For many it was a breath of fresh air. It really saved people from a lifetime of medical debt.

I have to yawn a bit about the Republican zealots stance against it, because other than a few very specific and narrow measures, Republicans have signed off on increasing prices too.

Show up with a real plan to get rid of the ACA yet keep healthcare costs down, I will listen! But just complaining, it gets so old.

---

You would have to have some sources of data to back up that first paragraph. We looked at the marketplace the first year, and it was anything but cheaper for the same coverage.

Some people with preexisting conditions could have benefitted as their options would have been more limited. People who were dirt poor and no employer insurance would have benefitted with the subsidies. Those two groups together would both be more costly to insurers. It was never going to be cheaper for anyone else.

See the option I presented above. Junk policies could be unmasked by government policy evaluators. Make all policies individual to keep it out of the employer influence and from segregating "groups." Make insurers actually compete for customers while not getting away with convoluted policy language.

---

It is actually free for millions of Americans. You can Google what the subsidies are.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

It is not though. Health care has historically been about helping people, and everyone, at that. If most of health care is large science and tech corporations, they have a legal obligation to shareholder profits, not helping people.

If you could honestly go back in a time machine, and replace the Hyppocratic Oath with an Oath to Shareholder Profits, for every doctor during the Revolutionary War, and tell me it works better, I'd eat... I'm not even sure. Just about anything.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

incorrect and somewhat correct. Business subsidized HC was invented from WW2 . Companies need labor for munitions manufacturing and started offering HC subsidized as a big benefit. We still doing it. Whole thing is totally broken . Obamacare was short on options and execution. It really helped me. 100%agree on free market approach. Also, don't by the hype that the US is far and away the pinnacle in the world. It just isn't .

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

incorrect and somewhat correct. Business subsidized HC was invented from WW2 . Companies need labor for munitions manufacturing and started offering HC subsidized as a big benefit. We still doing it. Whole thing is totally broken . Obamacare was short on options and execution. It really helped me. 100%agree on free market approach. Also, don't by the hype that the US is far and away the pinnacle in the world. It just isn't .

---

It doesn't really fit the definition of the word, because it is part of a compensation package from the very beginning. Money deposited into your bank acount is compensation, and so is paid-for health care. Money is simply deposited into a different bank account.

Porteroso said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

As bad as Obama care was for increasing healthcare prices, it was great for getting Americans coverage. For many it was a breath of fresh air. It really saved people from a lifetime of medical debt.

I have to yawn a bit about the Republican zealots stance against it, because other than a few very specific and narrow measures, Republicans have signed off on increasing prices too.

Show up with a real plan to get rid of the ACA yet keep healthcare costs down, I will listen! But just complaining, it gets so old.

---

You would have to have some sources of data to back up that first paragraph. We looked at the marketplace the first year, and it was anything but cheaper for the same coverage.

Some people with preexisting conditions could have benefitted as their options would have been more limited. People who were dirt poor and no employer insurance would have benefitted with the subsidies. Those two groups together would both be more costly to insurers. It was never going to be cheaper for anyone else.

See the option I presented above. Junk policies could be unmasked by government policy evaluators. Make all policies individual to keep it out of the employer influence and from segregating "groups." Make insurers actually compete for customers while not getting away with convoluted policy language.

---

It is actually free for millions of Americans. You can Google what the subsidies are.

---

Millions get some form of subsidy, but it's a small millions that get it "free."
I'm by no means rich. (My job and passion are not that type.)
The ACA was not designed to help low middle class families. It was obviously designed to only help those at very low income levels. In our case our premium would have been higher for less coverage. My wife's teacher insurance was cheaper then and is now. It helped a custodian that I know, but came nowhere near its promise even from the start. It takes a long time for that free coverage to start significantly paying. It's basically hospital coverage at a premium that would still bankrupt anyone with a severe condition like cancer.

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

incorrect and somewhat correct. Business subsidized HC was invented from WW2 . Companies need labor for munitions manufacturing and started offering HC subsidized as a big benefit. We still doing it. Whole thing is totally broken . Obamacare was short on options and execution. It really helped me. 100%agree on free market approach. Also, don't by the hype that the US is far and away the pinnacle in the world. It just isn't .

---

Why did companies offer health benefits?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

incorrect and somewhat correct. Business subsidized HC was invented from WW2 . Companies need labor for munitions manufacturing and started offering HC subsidized as a big benefit. We still doing it. Whole thing is totally broken . Obamacare was short on options and execution. It really helped me. 100%agree on free market approach. Also, don't by the hype that the US is far and away the pinnacle in the world. It just isn't .

---

Why did companies offer health benefits?

---

competition. it was the way to get more and better people to build armor and guns

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

incorrect and somewhat correct. Business subsidized HC was invented from WW2 . Companies need labor for munitions manufacturing and started offering HC subsidized as a big benefit. We still doing it. Whole thing is totally broken . Obamacare was short on options and execution. It really helped me. 100%agree on free market approach. Also, don't by the hype that the US is far and away the pinnacle in the world. It just isn't .

---

Why did companies offer health benefits?

---

competition. it was the way to get more and better people to build armor and guns

---

Why didn't they just raise wages?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

---

Efficiency can be effort, coverage, or cost. It depends on what you are measuring.

I think that is part of the problem between Red and Blue. Red is putting more on cost and Blue is putting more on coverage.

Sadly, the Senate is supposed to be about reaching a compromise and moving forward. We have reached a point where it is so polarized that we are talking removing the Filibuster to push through agendas rather than creating programs that meet both sides goals.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

---

Efficiency can be effort, coverage, or cost. It depends on what you are measuring.

I think that is part of the problem between Red and Blue. Red is putting more on cost and Blue is putting more on coverage.

Sadly, the Senate is supposed to be about reaching a compromise and moving forward. We have reached a point where it is so polarized that we are talking removing the Filibuster to push through agendas rather than creating programs that meet both sides goals.

---

Incorrect. You're using effective, not efficient.

What do you think "efficient" means in just a everyday context?

Are you implying that Obamacare - the signature legislation of the Democrat part in a generation - is failing because it is not doing what was promised and needs even more kickbacks to Big Insurance?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

---

Efficiency can be effort, coverage, or cost. It depends on what you are measuring.

I think that is part of the problem between Red and Blue. Red is putting more on cost and Blue is putting more on coverage.

Sadly, the Senate is supposed to be about reaching a compromise and moving forward. We have reached a point where it is so polarized that we are talking removing the Filibuster to push through agendas rather than creating programs that meet both sides goals.

---

Incorrect. You're using effective, not efficient.

What do you think "efficient" means in just a everyday context?

Are you implying that Obamacare - the signature legislation of the Democrat part in a generation - is failing because it is not doing what was promised and needs even more kickbacks to Big Insurance?

---

Money is only one aspect of waste. How about efficient usage? Time efficiency? Resource Efficiency? Money is only one metric. Money DOES NOT have to be included to measure efficiency.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

---

Efficiency can be effort, coverage, or cost. It depends on what you are measuring.

I think that is part of the problem between Red and Blue. Red is putting more on cost and Blue is putting more on coverage.

Sadly, the Senate is supposed to be about reaching a compromise and moving forward. We have reached a point where it is so polarized that we are talking removing the Filibuster to push through agendas rather than creating programs that meet both sides goals.

---

Incorrect. You're using effective, not efficient.

What do you think "efficient" means in just a everyday context?

Are you implying that Obamacare - the signature legislation of the Democrat part in a generation - is failing because it is not doing what was promised and needs even more kickbacks to Big Insurance?

---

Money is only one aspect of waste. How about efficient usage? Time efficiency? Resource Efficiency? Money is only one metric. Money DOES NOT have to be included to measure efficiency.

---

Okay. Seems like a weird hill to die on; just acknowledge you misspoke.

But share the outcomes how Obamacare members have better outcomes and use fewer health care resources than non-Obamacare. That would be compelling.

Still wondering why if Obamacare if efficient why does it require a $62K / person / year subsidy?
What is the average expenditure / person / year in American health care?
Which is higher?
What about that relationship makes you confident that Obamacare is more efficient than other plans?

I do not agree we need to make improvements in health care. It just continues to be a demonstrable fool's errand to not acknowledge what we told you in 2004 - Obamacare will be a disaster - and stop pouring more bad money after it because it is the Democrat sacred cow.

I do not think it needs to be a partisan issue, but it is one that requires logic, reason, and intellectual solutions and not hollow emotional political goodies designed to buy votes.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Maybe let's take a step back - what do you think efficiency means?

---

Efficiency can be effort, coverage, or cost. It depends on what you are measuring.

I think that is part of the problem between Red and Blue. Red is putting more on cost and Blue is putting more on coverage.

Sadly, the Senate is supposed to be about reaching a compromise and moving forward. We have reached a point where it is so polarized that we are talking removing the Filibuster to push through agendas rather than creating programs that meet both sides goals.

---

Incorrect. You're using effective, not efficient.

What do you think "efficient" means in just a everyday context?

Are you implying that Obamacare - the signature legislation of the Democrat part in a generation - is failing because it is not doing what was promised and needs even more kickbacks to Big Insurance?

---

Money is only one aspect of waste. How about efficient usage? Time efficiency? Resource Efficiency? Money is only one metric. Money DOES NOT have to be included to measure efficiency.

---

Okay. Seems like a weird hill to die on; just acknowledge you misspoke.

But share the outcomes how Obamacare members have better outcomes and use fewer health care resources than non-Obamacare. That would be compelling.

Still wondering why if Obamacare if efficient why does it require a $62K / person / year subsidy?
What is the average expenditure / person / year in American health care?
Which is higher?
What about that relationship makes you confident that Obamacare is more efficient than other plans?

I do not agree we need to make improvements in health care. It just continues to be a demonstrable fool's errand to not acknowledge what we told you in 2004 - Obamacare will be a disaster - and stop pouring more bad money after it because it is the Democrat sacred cow.

I do not think it needs to be a partisan issue, but it is one that requires logic, reason, and intellectual solutions and not hollow emotional political goodies designed to buy votes.

---

The hill is the problem hill. That is why I choose it to stand on. You are looking at fiscal efficiency. I am looking at providing service efficiency. The difference to me is how many people can we get covered. What you and the fiscal group are proposing does not cover enough and leaves too many in the cold. It is not efficient in terms of coverage.

Naturally, there is an in between. But at some point we need to start talking each other's metrics to reach an agreement. Both sides.

Why 62k to Big insurance per person
We waste more money than I ever imagined

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Who developed the graphs? Don't dodge or deflect. Chapter and verse.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

---

And prices must be up front. No sudden appearances of new bills after a procedure. A practice needs a price list for services. Doctors and all can divvy it up afterwards. Patients don't need a bill from every person in an O.R. or radiology lab with one person being out of network or a service being more expensive than thought because that lab hired provider isn't in network like the lab is.

But most of all, no bills that show laughably inflated charges that would never be seen should a patient private pay. You know, those $20,000 toenail extraction bills that the PPO magically takes down to $1750.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

---

I have no issues with that. I think that is a good idea.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

---

And prices must be up front. No sudden appearances of new bills after a procedure. A practice needs a price list for services. Doctors and all can divvy it up afterwards. Patients don't need a bill from every person in an O.R. or radiology lab with one person being out of network or a service being more expensive than thought because that lab hired provider isn't in network like the lab is.

But most of all, no bills that show laughably inflated charges that would never be seen should a patient private pay. You know, those $20,000 toenail extraction bills that the PPO magically takes down to $1750.

---

Or show up a year later.

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

Who developed the graphs? Don't dodge or deflect. Chapter and verse.

---

Statista. And F-off... If you are going to ask, ask nicely.

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

---

And prices must be up front. No sudden appearances of new bills after a procedure. A practice needs a price list for services. Doctors and all can divvy it up afterwards. Patients don't need a bill from every person in an O.R. or radiology lab with one person being out of network or a service being more expensive than thought because that lab hired provider isn't in network like the lab is.

But most of all, no bills that show laughably inflated charges that would never be seen should a patient private pay. You know, those $20,000 toenail extraction bills that the PPO magically takes down to $1750.

---

Or show up a year later.

---

Agree with that. We had one show up 2 years later.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

1. Health insurance attached to employment is another result of Democrat policies.

2. Obamacare is a disaster solely due to Democrat regulations.

3. The best answer is a free-market solution.

---

No, it isn't. The free market is not the answer for every issue. Actually, the free market is one of the most inefficient and lest equitable means of providing basic health care. No one is talking cosmetic or even elective. But, basic you get sick and get to see a doctor with access to basic pharmaceuticals.

Under the "Obamacare" or its real name ACA more people are accessing medical services than without it. If the goal is to get MORE people access to health care, than it is doing a better job than without it. If the goal is profit, than the free market is better because those with money and coverage will get better care. Those without, not.

Number of Affordable Care Act-related (ACA) enrollments in the Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Basic Health Program (BHP) in the U.S. from 2014 to 2024

Number of people without health insurance in the United States from 1997 to 2024(in millions)


What is your goal? Do you want or believe that people should have access to basic health care or is it only for those that can afford it?

---

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

Ok, now we are talking costs?

Let's first determine what the goal is? Then it may be simpler to determine if having Government Sponsored Health Care (ACA) or Free Market, which you brought up, is a better path forward.

Once we understand and agree on the goal, we can discuss the most effective way to deliver. We are all over the board on all these subjects.

What is your goal on Health Care?

---

You said the free market was inefficient and cited Obamacare as efficient, do you not recall?

Why does Obamacare now need a $62K kickback to Big Insurance per person per year if it is efficient?

Is that more or less than average? Does that indicate efficiency to you?

Did Democrats tell us it would lowers costs?

---

As I said, what is the goal? Efficient at what?

I am talking increasing coverage and getting more people health coverage. It has done that better than the free market has, as I showed in the graphs. The free market is not efficient at getting the most people coverage.

Now, you agree with that and want to talk cost?

---

We don't have free market healthcare.

When prices aren't advertised, its not a free market.
We need mandated price transparency. Prices HAVE to be listed. If we do this, prices will drop astronomically.

---

I have no issues with that. I think that is a good idea.

---

The healthcare and insurance industry would hate it and they fill politicians pockets so that it never happens.