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:

---

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.

---

To clarify - I was laughing at your going to the mat on not understanding the definition of efficiency and trying to sort of pigeon-hole your original misunderstanding into some sort of esoteric truth.

You're not looking at efficiency at all. And that is the problem. You're looking at having other people pay for other people's health care regardless of the cost. If you understood what efficiency meant and valued it as a concept, it actually might be helpful in the discussion.

So, curious ... you keep avoiding the pretty simple questions ... are you going to answer are just avoid?

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?

Do you support said kickbacks to Big Insurance?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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?

---

they did that too

EatMoreSalmon 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!!

---

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. .

---

I know exactly what it is and American business's are horrible at management of HC for employees.

I just love backwater hanky panky and his hypocrisy. Young backwater Hank is not only a recipient of employer, but he's got momma with govt/employer Cheddar! Govt ed, baby. Go get em's double dipping govt cheddar man!

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:

---

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.

---

To clarify - I was laughing at your going to the mat on not understanding the definition of efficiency and trying to sort of pigeon-hole your original misunderstanding into some sort of esoteric truth.

You're not looking at efficiency at all. And that is the problem. You're looking at having other people pay for other people's health care regardless of the cost. If you understood what efficiency meant and valued it as a concept, it actually might be helpful in the discussion.

So, curious ... you keep avoiding the pretty simple questions ... are you going to answer are just avoid?

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?

Do you support said kickbacks to Big Insurance?

---

You keep coming back to comments like kickbacks and discussing cost. Read the bill. i dont think you understand what the bill was intended to do. Read the actual program info, not some Conservative media sound bite. Efficiency, as you are using it, is not mentioned. Remember, Subsidies is what the Congressional discussion is about. ACA was intended by law to have 3 primary goals:

Make affordable health insurance available to more people. The law provides consumers with subsidies ("premium tax credits") that lower costs for households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

Expand the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the FPL. Not all states have expanded their Medicaid programs.

Support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally.

ACA did what it was designed to do it provided more access and lowered cost to below 400k households through Govt subsidies.

the problem is you keep applying other metrics to the discussion. Unlike your belief, it was never intended to increase cost efficiency. It was intended to lower cost to those needing it, access. it did a good job of efficiently providing access as uninsured dropped by 51%, which was the point of the legislation. It kept cost to the user under control through Government subsidies, not industry cost efficiency.

I get why you guys get so frustrated. Several of you talk what you WANT to happen versus what is actually on the table. You decide what YOU want policy to do and then evaluate it against your desires. That is not policy analysis, you have to look at what the legislation was supposed to do versus what it did. ACA did a good job of what it was supposed to do. If you don't want it fine, but at least know what it was supposed to accomplish before killing it.

You are on the wrong hill is the problem.

By the way, efficiency CAN be other metrics than money. That is not esoteric. Maybe you are too focused on one aspect of the world? Accountant?

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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?

---

they did that too

---

So you don't know why, eh?

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:

---

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.

---

To clarify - I was laughing at your going to the mat on not understanding the definition of efficiency and trying to sort of pigeon-hole your original misunderstanding into some sort of esoteric truth.

You're not looking at efficiency at all. And that is the problem. You're looking at having other people pay for other people's health care regardless of the cost. If you understood what efficiency meant and valued it as a concept, it actually might be helpful in the discussion.

So, curious ... you keep avoiding the pretty simple questions ... are you going to answer are just avoid?

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?

Do you support said kickbacks to Big Insurance?

---

You keep coming back to comments like kickbacks and discussing cost. Read the bill. i dont think you understand what the bill was intended to do. Read the actual program info, not some Conservative media sound bite. Efficiency, as you are using it, is not mentioned. Remember, Subsidies is what the Congressional discussion is about. ACA was intended by aw to have 3 primary goals:

Make affordable health insurance available to more people. The law provides consumers with subsidies ("premium tax credits") that lower costs for households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

Expand the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the FPL. Not all states have expanded their Medicaid programs.

Support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally.

ACA did what it was designed to do it provided more access and lowered cost to below 400k households through Govt subsidies.

the problem is you keep applying other metrics to the discussion. Unlike your believe it was never intended to increase cost efficiency. It was intended to lower cost to those needing it, access. it did a good job of efficiently providing access as uninsured dropped by 51%, which was the point of the legislation. You are on the wrong hill is the problem.

---

Like a lot of TDSers, you politics has put you in an intellectual corner. You're fallen on lock step and want to blame Republicans for the failure of Obamacare, but you cannot intellectually process the basic questions:

Why does the signature Democrat legislation of the last 60 year require $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance to remain viable?

What does the average American spend / year on health care?

Is it more or less than Obamacare?

The problem is you're fine spending other people's money to give benefits to other people - that can be done until the cows come home, but is that the right answer?

I can disprove your premise with another simple question you will not answer. Is your primary goal to make affordable health insurance available to more people? Is there any limit to achieving this goal?

If you were not so entrenched politically you would just acknowledge Obamacare and government-interference in the market is a failure in every setting: the evidence is right in front of you, but your TDS has you painted into a corner where you have to claim Obamacare is good because it is the TDS position.

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

You are right. Regardless of who administrates the pot of healthcare, we all need it. We all need to pay into it, some more than others, and we all need its benefits.

It is hard to imagine going back to pricing that anyone can afford on their own, especially the impoverished, or those with pre-existing conditions.

That ship sailed. Rightfully so. Not only doctors, but the industry, should have an obligation to help those who need it. Problem is we signed a blank check, as our way of getting the industry on board with.... providing healthcare to those who need it.

Fixing it would be a real labor. But a worthy one.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

Seems like Canada where reimbursement for Health care services are much less than here
I'm against reduced pay for drs PTs etc

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

designed to fail.........

- uncle fred

Mission Accomplished!!

Lots of villages in Tejas are missing some miembros...........

Lamentable.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

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:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

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:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

---

i think it is important to distinguish between "Health Care" and "Health Insurance". The 2 things are not synonymous. i believe most people have access to health care through local free clinics and/or emergency rooms at hospitals such as Dallas Parkland.

Guy Noir 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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

---

i think it is important to distinguish between "Health Care" and "Health Insurance". The 2 things are not synonymous. i believe most people have access to health care through local free clinics and/or emergency rooms at hospitals such as Dallas Parkland.

---

who do you think pays for the free clinics and ER? Medicaid. The same pot that pays for ACA, ACA is just through private insurance. ACA gave people access to health care that was part of the system. You will like this, it is more efficient to have them within the system versus what you describe with free clinics and non profit hospital ERs being paid for with Medicaid. You really think ERs and the free clinics can handle that volume???? 23M? it is also MORE expensive.

the system is broke and ACA is all many have. what alternative does the GOP have to replace it before pricing it out of people's affordability?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guy Noir 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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

---

i think it is important to distinguish between "Health Care" and "Health Insurance". The 2 things are not synonymous. i believe most people have access to health care through local free clinics and/or emergency rooms at hospitals such as Dallas Parkland.

---

who do you think pays for the free clinics and ER? Medicaid. The same pot that pays for ACA, ACA is just through private insurance. ACA gave people access to health care that was part of the system. You will like this, it is more efficient to have them within the system versus what you describe with free clinics and non profit hospital ERs being paid for with Medicaid. You really think ERs and the free clinics can handle that volume???? 23M? it is also MORE expensive.

the system is broke and ACA is all many have. what alternative does the GOP have to replace it before pricing it out of people's affordability?

---

I'm sorry, but ACA coverage is awful. It is too expensive for the coverage you get. Healthcare costs and insurance bloat are going to come crashing down, and soon.

so , all you trumpians hating on Obamacare, what is the PLAN? Piggy has said he has a plan for 10yrs, but crickets. You mean piggy lied? nah. What is the freaking plan . What we have ain't working. What's the plan trumpians?

You guys do a great job in stating the obvious. Yeah, the system is broke. EVERYONE agrees on that. Most health insurance that people can afford sucks. The system is set up to eliminate the sick people from the cohort, sort of counterproductive for health care, don't you think? The system wants premiums of the healthy and elimination of the sick, efficiency... The system will not reward prevention or if it does it is marginal. Prescriptions are out of control, even basics like insulin are problematic. We ALL agree. It is one item that there is actual bi-partisan support. Except from those that made fortunes denying people health care.

SO, what is your plan besides pricing millions out of the little bit of health insurance they have? What plan to replace the horrible ACA, which reduced un-insured by 51%? Those of us in Florida, we know this game. We are fighting in homeowners too. But everyone in a Government program, then say it is too expensive and do away with it to save Government spending. Meanwhile, millions don't have insurance in a world that requires insurance.

So, put your great analytical skills that came to conclusion to take away health insurance from millions and give us an alternative. Anything... Or, will we hear how they deserve it because they made bad choices so either pay or die?

Your turn, what you got?

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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

---

The irony is you're claiming I am a political idealogue while you're blaming the GOP for the failure of Obamacare while ignoring the fact that all the Democrats are doing is providing kickbacks to Big Insurance.

If it is such a lame question, why won't you answer? Why do you think Obamacare requires $62K / year / person in subsidies? What is the average health care cost / person / year in the U.S.? You just keep ignoring inconvenient data and claiming stuff that is not true. I think if you look in the mirror you will see the idealogue.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Guy Noir 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:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

For those interested in learning more about history: companies started offering health insurance in the 1940s rather than just raise wages because FDR instituted wage controls, which limited companies abilities to raise wages; so they found another way.

Another example of how government regulation causes problems.

FLBear - looking forward to your answers.

---

Didn't know that. Thanks. If that is what happened and caused this mess, I agree 100%.

Problem is that we are down this path a pretty significant way. How do you solve it without people that have nothing to do with any of it paying the price either financially or through service??

I hate health insurance companies. Those that made their fortunes on denying coverage will burn in one of Dante's levels of hell. My sister-in-law has stage 4 pancreatic cancer in rural Colorado. She will not survive. One of the reasons it reached stage 4, the little hospital missed it in the CAT scan. Thought it was something else. 6 months later, Univ of Colorado found it when things got bad. Not their fault, they just don't have the resources that poor Doctor did the best he could with little resources. Look up the situation with rural hospitals, they rely on Medicaid.

Not a negative post. HOW do we solve this *****?????

Friday night, 3 in to my Heinekens before pizza. So, sorry if a bit rambling.

---

Heinekens and pizza sounds like a bad ass Friday night. Cheers.

You have to acknowledge you hate insurance companies while supporting $62K / patient / year kickbacks to them under Obamacare. It's weird.

Insurance really is not the problem.

What is the average profit margin for a U.S. insurance company?

There is an "iron triangle" of health care: Access. Quality. Cost. Those have to be traded off to come up with some equilibrium.

If you want to lower cost to improve access, and easy way to do that would be for the government to regulate the costs of providers. Limit the salaries of nurses and doctors? Compare the salary of the average doctor in the U.S. vs. the average doctor in Canada and the U.K. and share what they reveals to you?

Would you favor capping doctor salaries at $150,000 / year and nurses at $60K / year to improve access to health care for all?

The problem with U.S. health care - like many problems - is government regulation, which is why Obamacare is such a disaster. The answer to health care like most problems is two-fold:

1. Let the free market work
2. Give people tools to managed their care and hold them accountable ... align incentives

---

i have said that Trump moving to HSA's and giving the subsidies to people would be better.

The issue i see is it is not an easy transition to free market. we are way down the current path. can we transition to a hybrid? i would love to see someone, Trump, Cruz, or any of the GOP float some plan. right now, it is it sucks blame the Dems...

---

I appreciate your response. Sometimes if my posts come off as acerbic is the frustration with refustion to have a conversion and the weird sort of delusion ...

1. Are you not aware that Obamacare is the signature legislation of the Democrat party in the last 60 years? So who do you blame for that? It's literally called "Obamacare."

2. Would you support a cap on nurse and doctor salaries in order to reduce costs and expand access to health care? Would you support limiting nurse salaries to $50K / year and doctors $100K / year? That would dramatically reduce costs, but since you said your focus was on health care for all would you support this?

---

#1 - Do I blame the Dems? No. They tried and it failed. It happens. They put forward something that decreased the uninsured by 51%, it blew up costs. Yeah, it was successful in one aspect, but not sustainable. So, go back to the drawing board. How do we fix it. You heard Trump, call it Trump care he can care less, just do something. He is throwing ideas out and I give him a lot of credit for that. Congress has to do it. The world is not 1945 anymore, there are some items that the Government needs to be involved and health care is one of them.


What your saying in number 2, won't work. You want the brightest and best operating on you. When we were in Wisconsin, my wife an RN had a stream of Canadians coming to get procedures and paying out of pocket because they couldn't in Canada.

We also have a huge nursing issue, so much so that hospitals are cutting deals with Japanese and Phillippino nursing schools to bring in RNs (those two nations produce some top notch RNs, my wife loves working with them.)

I do think Trump is on to something with letting the people control the money may help.

---

It is one of the reasons I asked is because earlier you very passionate about the most important thing was Access and that it was totally worth taxpayers paying a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance if it mean insuring more people; however, you are not willing to lower Quality by capping the salaries doctors and nurses can make. What it reveals is you care about Access but not as much as Quality - you're willing to have more uninsured if it means you get the best Quality care. And that is been our philosophy in the U.S. You care about Access but you would not trade Quality to achieve it. I suspect you would put Cost over Access too if the Cost affect you, but if it is just "taxpayers" you're fine spending other people's money or bankrupting your grandchildren.

I do not get the politization and party bias where you do not hold the Democrats responsible for the failure of Obamacare. It was their signature legislation. It's named after a Democrat president. The thing is everyone with two brain cells to rub together said this would happen because it was awful legislation and little more than a giveaway to Big Insurance, which it was criticized for at the time. It's just Democrats are not rationale and logical only political so they can with no shame act like it is Republicans' fault and their oligarch media propaganda parrots their gaslighting.

Health Care is always going to be hard in America where we have such a large population, such a unhealthy population, millions of illegals and tens of millions of irresponsible, dependent dregs on society that do little more than have *******s and collect welfare. The problem is unlike some cultures we have lost the ability to shame poor behavior and encourage responsible, civic behavior .... you know because of T'RACISM.

---

No, I said access was most important and that is what the ACA was intended to do. I never said it was worth it or that it shouldn't be changed. I said it was not intended to address the overall costs, just the costs to the people. It did that. I also said that is should be extended UNTIL an alternative can be found. So, far the GOP has not floated anything but removing ACA and leaving people with no coverage.

You guys love picking your one thing and avoiding the rest. ACA did what it was designed, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. So, what do we do? I prefer not pricing millions out of the market while Congress debates for another decade (literally).

---

Exactly. You said Access was the most important; but your later comments betray you. We could cap doctor's salaries at $100,000 / year and nurses at $50,000 / year and provide access to everyone at a much lower cost, but you already said you would not make that trade-off. Just like I could ask you would you personally pay $62,000 / year to sponsor an Obamacare plan for someone? it is one thing to say you support broader Access but another to specify what trade-offs you would be willing to make.

You keep avoiding the original questions:
- Why do you think Obamacare requires a $62k / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?
- What is the average cost / person on health care in the U.S.?
- Why were subsidies tied to covid needed five years after covid?

Think about that and maybe the dots will start to connect rather than just BLAME TRUMP.

What alternative have the Democrats proposed to fix Obamacare? Why do you think they have proposed that?

---

We keep going on the same merry go around.

All your questions are cost related. The ACA was not intended to lower cost, it was to increase access. I am a bit confused why you are evaluating it on cost when that was not the intent. We did it for a decade, it covered 51% more people, which is what it was designed to do. Now, we are seeing we can't afford it, so we need to change it.

It is not that hard, you are making this much harder than it needs to be. To address your questions,

1 - There was always a subsidy. The current system goes through health insurance, so the payments were made to the health insurance companies. Either we change it, if we don't like that. Or, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. That is the system we have in the US. Sorry?

2 - It is 35k for a family of 4. It is going up and more of it is being paid by the household. Business contributions dropped from 61% to 58%. Under ACA the monthly for a family of 4 was 589$ or about 8k a year. Someone has to pay that difference or people will use ERs.

So, my question back, is it cheaper to subsidize through ACA or let them use ER and pay through Medicaid with no health care when diseases are at the later stages?

3- DId you read the ACA legislation? It was always tied to subsidies. The subsidies didn't appear for COVID. The amounts changed, but they change every year. There is and always has been a subsidy to cover the difference from #2. Ok, if the COVID subsidy expires. We pay through Medicaid in another form. Someone has to pay for care. Or you let people die in the streets and we are paying in other programs. What is your pleasure?

You do know that use of ACA has grown from 5.5 million to 23 million? There is obviously a need. Where do those people get health care? Also, you know if we do not have some type of program we will end up paying more and the 35k number will go higher. We are paying, someone has to pay.

---

Obamacare was designed to bankrupt the system and force nationalization, so the Democrats could assume more control of Americans and make more dependent on them ... it is working.

Obamacare is terrible. We told you it was terrible in 2008. And it has been terrible because everything the government regulates turns to ***** The free market would fix it - with some agreed upon carve-out for government support of pre-existing conditions, which is an issue the free market would not address. Additionally, need to hold people accountable for their health care - if that means some suffer, so be it. We cannot pay for every lazy, irresponsible buffoon out there that is eating twinkies and having *******s expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. It might take a generation but we have to reverse the Welfare Mindset in some communities ushered in by the Democrats.

It is sort of silly and naive the claim costs do not matter. Every Democrat idea is just to regulate or distribute goodies to buy voters and drive dependency, but we still have an economic reality unless you just do not care about your kids and grandkids and are happy to destroy their economic lives. Maybe that's the case.

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Those subsidies absolutely started in response to covid - not all but the ones the Democrats shut down the government for were post-covid ... new subsidies.

---

you have 23 million people on it. leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative? use your head. GOP cakt do that. it will be a **** show.

---

What is the average spent / year / person on health care in the U.S.?

Is it more or less than the Big Insurance kickbacks the Democrats want?

Will you personally pay $62K / year to sponsor someone on Obamacare?

What alternative has the Democrat party proposed?

---

I answered 1 and 2 above.

You have not answered my questions at all. So???? Do you leave 23 million without health care during midterms with no alternative?


You are playing a political game. I get it. You are an idealogue. No issues. But, if you do what you are suggesting, you, the GOP, price 23 million out of health care in a mid-term election year. How do you think that will play out? Fiscal conservatism going to move the needle? You, me and the GOP have no choice. It has to be extended. Dec 2025 was not the expiration date by accident. What do you do? No more cost questions. What do you do?


You won't answer, you will repeat some lame statement about us paying 62k each. It is all you got...

---

i think it is important to distinguish between "Health Care" and "Health Insurance". The 2 things are not synonymous. i believe most people have access to health care through local free clinics and/or emergency rooms at hospitals such as Dallas Parkland.

---

who do you think pays for the free clinics and ER? Medicaid. The same pot that pays for ACA, ACA is just through private insurance. ACA gave people access to health care that was part of the system. You will like this, it is more efficient to have them within the system versus what you describe with free clinics and non profit hospital ERs being paid for with Medicaid. You really think ERs and the free clinics can handle that volume???? 23M? it is also MORE expensive.

the system is broke and ACA is all many have. what alternative does the GOP have to replace it before pricing it out of people's affordability?

---

If Obamacare is efficient, why does it require a $62K / person / year kickback to Big Insurance?

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys do a great job in stating the obvious. Yeah, the system is broke. EVERYONE agrees on that. Most health insurance that people can afford sucks. The system is set up to eliminate the sick people from the cohort, sort of counterproductive for health care, don't you think? The system wants premiums of the healthy and elimination of the sick, efficiency... The system will not reward prevention or if it does it is marginal. Prescriptions are out of control, even basics like insulin are problematic. We ALL agree. It is one item that there is actual bi-partisan support. Except from those that made fortunes denying people health care.

SO, what is your plan besides pricing millions out of the little bit of health insurance they have? What plan to replace the horrible ACA, which reduced un-insured by 51%? Those of us in Florida, we know this game. We are fighting in homeowners too. But everyone in a Government program, then say it is too expensive and do away with it to save Government spending. Meanwhile, millions don't have insurance in a world that requires insurance.

So, put your great analytical skills that came to conclusion to take away health insurance from millions and give us an alternative. Anything... Or, will we hear how they deserve it because they made bad choices so either pay or die?

Your turn, what you got?

---

What alternative have the Democrats proposed other than kickbacks to Big Insurance?

I think it has been posted myriad times. Let the free market manage it and get Obamacare out of it. What you don't seem to realize is the problems with Obamacare is Obamacare - the Democrat regulations that make it designed to fail so they could usher in more dependency and authoritarianism.

Is the Democrat's signature legislation - Obamacare - a complete failure?

Why does it require covid-era subsidies?

What is the average cost / person / year on health care?

Are kickbacks to Big Insurance wanted by Democrats more or less than the average cost / person / year?

Blame GOP? I never blamed the GOP for Obamacare's shortcomings. You are way off base there. All I said was have something to replace it, just don't kill it. Those are way different. You are putting what you want to see in the conversation.

If the GOP has something better, I am ALL FOR IT. Let's hear it. What have got? Once again, crickets...

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys do a great job in stating the obvious. Yeah, the system is broke. EVERYONE agrees on that. Most health insurance that people can afford sucks. The system is set up to eliminate the sick people from the cohort, sort of counterproductive for health care, don't you think? The system wants premiums of the healthy and elimination of the sick, efficiency... The system will not reward prevention or if it does it is marginal. Prescriptions are out of control, even basics like insulin are problematic. We ALL agree. It is one item that there is actual bi-partisan support. Except from those that made fortunes denying people health care.

SO, what is your plan besides pricing millions out of the little bit of health insurance they have? What plan to replace the horrible ACA, which reduced un-insured by 51%? Those of us in Florida, we know this game. We are fighting in homeowners too. But everyone in a Government program, then say it is too expensive and do away with it to save Government spending. Meanwhile, millions don't have insurance in a world that requires insurance.

So, put your great analytical skills that came to conclusion to take away health insurance from millions and give us an alternative. Anything... Or, will we hear how they deserve it because they made bad choices so either pay or die?

Your turn, what you got?

---

What alternative have the Democrats proposed other than kickbacks to Big Insurance?

I think it has been posted myriad times. Let the free market manage it and get Obamacare out of it. What you don't seem to realize is the problems with Obamacare is Obamacare - the Democrat regulations that make it designed to fail so they could usher in more dependency and authoritarianism.

Is the Democrat's signature legislation - Obamacare - a complete failure?

Why does it require covid-era subsidies?

What is the average cost / person / year on health care?

Are kickbacks to Big Insurance wanted by Democrats more or less than the average cost / person / year?

---

So you have nothing? You have absolutely no alternative for health insurance for the 23 million that use ACA, correct? I have asked multiple times and no programs, your only response was

"are there no free clinics and non-profit hospitals that have to do pro bono"? Sort of sounds like "are their no prisons? Are there no work houses?" (tis the season).

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys do a great job in stating the obvious. Yeah, the system is broke. EVERYONE agrees on that. Most health insurance that people can afford sucks. The system is set up to eliminate the sick people from the cohort, sort of counterproductive for health care, don't you think? The system wants premiums of the healthy and elimination of the sick, efficiency... The system will not reward prevention or if it does it is marginal. Prescriptions are out of control, even basics like insulin are problematic. We ALL agree. It is one item that there is actual bi-partisan support. Except from those that made fortunes denying people health care.

SO, what is your plan besides pricing millions out of the little bit of health insurance they have? What plan to replace the horrible ACA, which reduced un-insured by 51%? Those of us in Florida, we know this game. We are fighting in homeowners too. But everyone in a Government program, then say it is too expensive and do away with it to save Government spending. Meanwhile, millions don't have insurance in a world that requires insurance.

So, put your great analytical skills that came to conclusion to take away health insurance from millions and give us an alternative. Anything... Or, will we hear how they deserve it because they made bad choices so either pay or die?

Your turn, what you got?

---

What alternative have the Democrats proposed other than kickbacks to Big Insurance?

I think it has been posted myriad times. Let the free market manage it and get Obamacare out of it. What you don't seem to realize is the problems with Obamacare is Obamacare - the Democrat regulations that make it designed to fail so they could usher in more dependency and authoritarianism.

Is the Democrat's signature legislation - Obamacare - a complete failure?

Why does it require covid-era subsidies?

What is the average cost / person / year on health care?

Are kickbacks to Big Insurance wanted by Democrats more or less than the average cost / person / year?

---

So you have nothing? You have absolutely no alternative for health insurance for the 23 million that use ACA, correct? I have asked multiple times and no programs, your only response was

"are there no free clinics and non-profit hospitals that have to do pro bono"? Sort of sounds like "are their no prisons? Are there no work houses?" (tis the season).

---

Part of why I keep asking you the questions you refuse to answer is to help you connect the dots. I will explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Democrats want $62K / person / year in kickbacks to Big Insurance for Obamacare.

The average person spends $14.5K / year in health care costs.

If you understand math, you will realize there is a ~$38K / year / person gap - why do you think Democrats want to give this extra kickback to Big Insurance?

I have given you the answer - the free market. You just keep ignoring it. Get the government out of health care and what replaces Obamacare will be better. The problem with Obamacare is the terrible Democrat rules - remove those and it will be fine. To try to explain it it you again - the government should not try to fix Obamacare because it is terrible. Abolish it and the free market will take care of it.