Poll: Large majorities of Americans want to preserve Obamacare's consumer protections

[CFM]

You didn't earn it, and I don't believe you when you say you're employed. I think you're making it up.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. The facts don't care about your feelings, boy.

Hopefully something very detrimental to your health will get you soon and you won't be able to get care for it.

 

[LV426]

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.

Actually, it's quite relevant because your entire argument is predicated on this belief that I'm jealous of you because you have someone else paying for your health care.

So it's paramount that I accept your premise, otherwise you have nothing to argue.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There we have it. Someone with the inability to do something on the level he thinks others should do still demanding others do with their money what you expect them to do. I bet you're one of those that thinks someone with more than YOU believe they need not doing as much as YOU think they should is selfish.

For those that receive money for the "whatnot", that isn't giving. That's called getting paid for working.

As for those organizations, that's your choice with your money. The problem comes in when you expect others to do with their money what you think they should do.

You can't claim you're leery about a centralized government then support such a major concept headed up by that centralized government. That's like considering all used car salesman as shysters then buying a used car from one of them.

The general welfare doesn't mean that it's the government's place to provide to people what they refuse to provide to themselves. Many of you that equate healthcare to the general welfare have proven you don't know what the term "general welfare" means. More than one of you using that argument have stated that if a majority support the government doing it and you can't justify in your mind that it fits what you consider the general welfare, you're OK with it. However, those same people, when it's something they oppose, consider a majority voting to do something as mob rule.

In case you're too stupid to understand, if the government constantly gives someone else's money to another group that refuses to do even the basics for themselves, they have no motivation to do for themselves. You don't get rid of stray cats by feeding them.

I have no responsibility to fund my neighbor's choices even feeding their children. If parents don't give a shit enough about their own kids to provide them with the basics, it doesn't become the place of us that do with our kids to feed them. What we need is bleeding hearts like you that feel it is your responsibility to do it rather than support taxing someone else to make yourself feel better.

I help who I, not you, decide to help. The first thing you need to learn is that unless it's your money, you have no say in who and how much I should do. Your entire argument centers around you thinking it's your place to determine who and how much for someone else. There isn't but one person for which you can make that determination and that's you. You've proven you won't do to the level you demand others do while claiming you have compassion.

The irony of this whole discussion is that on this post you're bitching at me for supporting using your tax dollars for something you don't want, then on another you'll be justifying extremely broad government spending to enforce YOUR idea of morality. Like protecting "society" from nonviolent drug users. This is tens of billions of dollars annually going down the toilet for this. Not including the demanding cost of incarcerating them. That's just to catch them. Gets worse when you realize drug abuse is worse now than when the drug war started so it's not even effective at doing what you want it to do. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're a fake ass fiscal conservative. You don't get to be on your high horse about taxes when you support some of the most wasteful shit programs our government has to offer just because you'd rather spend tax money throwing people in a cage rather than feeding or clothing them.

The only thing further I have to say to you is: get the hell over it. Nearly half of my paycheck has been going to militarize law enforcement, throw peaceful people in prison, spy on the public, bomb other countries, bail out failing industries, and countless other crap for decades I'm very much ideologically and morally opposed to. Totaling trillions on trillions by now. If you end up spending money to treat someone's cancer, I'm frankly not going to shed a tear over your plight. Maybe if we come together as a country and begin to utilize solutions to our problems outside the state, reducing our dependence on state institutions to manifest social change, we can talk. But you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, we can sit here and debate the merit, effectiveness, efficiency, outcomes of these programs...but you have no place playing the victim complaining about theft through taxation. That's laughable, considering the bloated government you yourself support holding a gun at my head to fund.

 

[anonymoose]

You're a fucking liar. Nothing you say is truthful. A small business under 50 employees is exempt from the mandate to provide insurance to its workers. And if it does, it gets huge tax credits.

Only for providing ACA insurance. All my employees are very healthy and all femails past child bearing age, therefore don't need or want health insurance that's only good for providing care over the course of a terminal illness where the deductible is $5,000 and the premiums are $700/mo.

Everything you're saying is a lie. You lie about stuff you know cannot be verified on message boards in an attempt to lend your failing argument credibility it doesn't have on the facts.

You lie. I don't believe you own a business. I don't believe you employ a single worker. I don't believe you even have a job.

I don't believe you made it past middle school. What's that got to do with anything?

I think you're just a troll who is inventing things about himself because your arguments cannot stand on their merits. So you have to invent things that only you know about to certify whatever shit you're pushing here.

What a fucking fraud. Do you think these tactics of faking your personal circumstances work? They don't. Every time you make it, you undermine your credibility that much more.

"If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. " That's the only lie that really matters here. My employees were very satisfied with their hlth. ins.

 

[LV426]

Only for providing ACA insurance. All my employees are very healthy and all femails past child bearing age, therefore don't need or want health insurance that's only good for providing care over the course of a terminal illness where the deductible is $5,000 and the premiums are $700/mo.

There is no such thing as "ACA insurance", particularly when it comes to group plans purchased on the SHOP marketplace, where all employers shop for coverage. The ACA didn't change anything about the SHOP plans at all. In fact, it provided businesses with less than 50 employees with tax credits for providing coverage.

The ACA didn't create insurance plans, it established a marketplace for insurance plans to compete.

This is how I know your story is bullshit.

 

[LV426]

I don't believe you made it past middle school. What's that got to do with anything?

I think you're just making up shit about yourself on an anonymous message board to confirm your bias because you know that you'll never be forced or expected to verify those claims here because this forum isn't set up to do that, and people like you use that to your advantage. Every single Conservative or Conservative-adjacent argument here always seems to end up with a "take my word for it" personal anecdote from people who operate exclusively in bad faith.

PASS.

 

[LV426]

"If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. " That's the only lie that really matters here. My employees were very satisfied with their hlth. ins.

You could keep your insurance if it conformed to the 14 base standards all health insurance plans must cover.

And I'd go further to ask, what was it about your cancelled health insurance plan you liked so much? The lifetime caps? The high deductibles? The high co-pays? Paying for hospital & ambulances? Was it the massive prescription drug costs? Or was it the pre-existing conditions and rescission?

If the only thing you "liked" about your cancelled plan was the cost, then you didn't like your plan, you just liked how little you paid.

 

[anonymoose]

There is no such thing as "ACA insurance", particularly when it comes to group plans purchased on the SHOP marketplace, where all employers shop for coverage. The ACA didn't change anything about the SHOP plans at all. In fact, it provided businesses with less than 50 employees with tax credits for providing coverage.

The ACA didn't create insurance plans, it established a marketplace for insurance plans to compete.

This is how I know your story is bullshit.

At the time the ACA came into being Alaska had two ins. cos. - ODS and BC/BS. ODS got kicked out because they couldn't afford to pay claims which left us with one ins. co. So that so called marketplace here had one ins. company to compete with. Itself.
With any kind of reading ability you'd know that ACA rendered some plans not tax deductible. S I could still offer my old plan to my employees except for two things. 1. BC/BS (my only choice in my "marketplace") no longer offered what my employees needed and wanted and 2. even if it was offered it would not provide me with the tax deduction I received before.
This is how I know you can't read . Either that or you're a liar. Take your pick, I don't care.

 

[anonymoose]

I think you're just making up shit about yourself on an anonymous message board to confirm your bias because you know that you'll never be forced or expected to verify those claims here because this forum isn't set up to do that, and people like you use that to your advantage.

I don't believe you made it past middle school.

Every single Conservative or Conservative-adjacent argument here always seems to end up with a "take my word for it" personal anecdote from people who operate exclusively in bad faith.

Tell that to a conservative. I'm a liberal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/classical_liberalism.htm

 

[anonymoose]

You could keep your insurance if it conformed to the 14 base standards all health insurance plans must cover.

So what you're saying is that if Obama would have been honest had he said, "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance if it conforms to the 14 base standards all health insurance plans must cover after this ACA is passed." Hmm. I wonder why he didn't say that? At least dingbat Nancy was honest when she said "We won't know wat's in ACA until it passes."

And I'd go further to ask, what was it about your cancelled health insurance plan you liked so much? The lifetime caps?

Don't remember if there were any or if so what they were. Apparently it was so high it never concerned me.

The high deductibles?

Yeah, hated those, but way lower than they are now.

The high co-pays?

Hated those too. But they were far lower than now.

Paying for hospital & ambulances? Was it the massive prescription drug costs? Or was it the pre-existing conditions and rescission?

STFU already.

If the only thing you "liked" about your cancelled plan was the cost, then you didn't like your plan, you just liked how little you paid.

My plan wasn't cancelled, the employees' was . Ask them, they're still livid about ACA. I've always been covered with my wife's. One of them went ahead and took out a Christian based health cost sharing plan. She's pretty happy about it from what she says.
I've always been covered with my wife's.

 

[Sailor]

The irony of this whole discussion is that on this post you're bitching at me for supporting using your tax dollars for something you don't want, then on another you'll be justifying extremely broad government spending to enforce YOUR idea of morality. Like protecting "society" from nonviolent drug users. This is tens of billions of dollars annually going down the toilet for this. Not including the demanding cost of incarcerating them. That's just to catch them. Gets worse when you realize drug abuse is worse now than when the drug war started so it's not even effective at doing what you want it to do. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're a fake ass fiscal conservative. You don't get to be on your high horse about taxes when you support some of the most wasteful shit programs our government has to offer just because you'd rather spend tax money throwing people in a cage rather than feeding or clothing them.

The only thing further I have to say to you is: get the hell over it. Nearly half of my paycheck has been going to militarize law enforcement, throw peaceful people in prison, spy on the public, bomb other countries, bail out failing industries, and countless other crap for decades I'm very much ideologically and morally opposed to. Totaling trillions on trillions by now. If you end up spending money to treat someone's cancer, I'm frankly not going to shed a tear over your plight. Maybe if we come together as a country and begin to utilize solutions to our problems outside the state, reducing our dependence on state institutions to manifest social change, we can talk. But you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, we can sit here and debate the merit, effectiveness, efficiency, outcomes of these programs...but you have no place playing the victim complaining about theft through taxation. That's laughable, considering the bloated government you yourself support holding a gun at my head to fund.

This is outstanding.

 

[LV426]

At the time the ACA came into being Alaska had two ins. cos. - ODS and BC/BS. ODS got kicked out because they couldn't afford to pay claims which left us with one ins. co. So that so called marketplace here had one ins. company to compete with. Itself.

Couldn't afford to pay claims? Well, yeah, paying out claims would eat into their profit motive.

Why do we have to have a profit tied to that administration anyway?

Secondly, I'd be doubtful when it comes to the explanations insurers used to ditch out of the marketplaces. Insurance companies were caught lying about leaving the exchanges by a federal judge.

 

[LV426]

With any kind of reading ability you'd know that ACA rendered some plans not tax deductible. S I could still offer my old plan to my employees except for two things. 1. BC/BS (my only choice in my "marketplace") no longer offered what my employees needed and wanted and 2. even if it was offered it would not provide me with the tax deduction I received before.
This is how I know you can't read . Either that or you're a liar. Take your pick, I don't care.

So clue #2 as to how I know you're bullshitting me; employers don't go on the Exchanges for individuals and purchase their workers individual plans. Instead, employers go through the SHOP marketplace that was unchanged by the ACA. So whatever the SHOP marketplace was like in Alaska pre-ACA, it's the same post-ACA because the ACA didn't change anything about SHOP marketplaces.

So I don't know why you are talking about tax deductions when that has nothing to do with purchasing coverage for your employees on a SHOP marketplace.

Your story doesn't add up. It's got more plot holes than straight-to-video Steve Seagal movie.

 

[LV426]

So what you're saying is that if Obama would have been honest had he said, "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance if it conforms to the 14 base standards all health insurance plans must cover after this ACA is passed." Hmm. I wonder why he didn't say that? At least dingbat Nancy was honest when she said "We won't know wat's in ACA until it passes." Don't remember if there were any or if so what they were. Apparently it was so high it never concerned me. Yeah, hated those, but way lower than they are now.Hated those too. But they were far lower than now. STFU already.

A couple things:

1. Most insurance plans weren't cancelled because most of them already conformed to the standards.

2. When you misquote Pelosi like that, you end up proving her entire statement true. So this is more of that bad faith you can't seem to stop yourself from engaging. What Pelosi actually said was "we have to pass it so you know what's in it outside the fog of controversy". So when you leave off the bolded part of her statement, you end up proving her entire statement true!

 

[LV426]

on't remember if there were any or if so what they were. Apparently it was so high it never concerned me.

But you don't know. So you're just guessing right now. I find your kind does that quite a lot.

 

[LV426]

Yeah, hated those, but way lower than they are now.

...depending on what plan you sign up for.

So you're doing that bad faith thing again, where you're leaving out exculpatory evidence that ends up changing the dynamic of your answer.

There are multiple Bronze plans on the exchanges, depending where you live, with low deductibles. And yes, there are some higher deductibles, but I thought you all loved having patients put more skin in the game? I guess that applies to everyone except you, right?

 

[LV426]

Hated those too. But they were far lower than now.

But you don't know that for sure because it all depends on what plans you sign up for on the exchanges. And as far as plans sponsored by employers, they use a different marketplace than individuals because group plans aren't sold alongside individual ones.

That's how I know all this you're posting is bullshit.

You're making it all up, aren't you?

 

[LV426]

Paying for hospital & ambulances? Was it the massive prescription drug costs? Or was it the pre-existing conditions and rescission?

STFU already.

And there you have it. Everything wrong with Conservatism summed up in an abbreviated response. You simply don't give it any thought because it's not something you've personally had to experience.

 

[blackascoal]

The 2018 Midterms Are All About Health Care
As the impact of Trump's attack on Obamacare becomes clear to voters, Democrats are going all-in on Medicare for All.

“Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare,” Donald Trump said during one of his final campaign rallies of the 2016 race. “We’re going to repeal it. We’re going to have a really great plan that’s going to cost much less and be much better.” While Trump has kept few of his campaign promises, this one is coming half-true—if not necessarily the way Republicans had planned. Congress failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but Trump has attacked the law in subtler, nonetheless devastating ways. For many Americans, Obamacare has effectively ceased to exist.

“Across the country, the details vary but the story is the same. The Trump administration has been rolling back sections of the Obama-era health law piece by piece,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. “The result is that the country is increasingly returning to a pre-ACA landscape, where the coverage you get, especially for people without employer-provided insurance, is largely determined by where you live.”

As for a “really great plan that’s going to cost much less,” Trump has been less successful. Last month, he rolled out a rule allowing small businesses to band together to provide cheaper health care to employees—without all of Obamacare’s coverage protections. But on Thursday, Politico reported that the National Federation of Independent Business, a business group that has advocated for so-called association health plans for two decades, won’t be creating such a plan because Trump’s rule is unworkable. Other trade groups are reportedly tepid, too.

In short, the health care system in America, after modest improvements under Obama, is becoming a chaotic mess under Trump—and his political opponents are poised to capitalize on it.

For Republicans concerned about their electoral prospects, Obamacare is no longer such a reliable foe. In 2017, roughly 350,000 Virginians faced the prospect of losing their ACA plans when Optima Health followed the examples of Aetna and Anthem and threatened to pull out of the exchange market. The move would have left nearly half of all Virginia counties without an ACA insurer, with the losses concentrated in Virginia’s western counties—among the poorest in the state. At the time, insurance companies cited market instability for their decisions, and they blamed the Trump administration for causing it. Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut subsidies for the ACA, and insurers worried that would put their profit margins at risk.

Whether or not Republicans succeed there, they have handed Democrats an opening ahead of the midterms, one that may crack even wider as the material consequences of gutting the ACA become clear. That awakening is already underway, if polling is any indication. Health care topped all issues, even the economy and immigration, in a YouGov/Huffington Post survey in April of registered voters’ priorities ahead of the midterm elections; it consistently ranks in the top three. That’s perhaps less surprising in light of a Navigator Research poll this week that found half of Americans say health care is main cost concern. In an ominous sign for the GOP, independent voters said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans, by an 18-point margin, to bring those costs down.
https://newrepublic.com/article/150074/2018-midterms-health-care

 

[LV426]

My plan wasn't cancelled, the employees' was . Ask them, they're still livid about ACA. I've always been covered with my wife's. One of them went ahead and took out a Christian based health cost sharing plan. She's pretty happy about it from what she says. I've always been covered with my wife's.

"ask them"...like you're going to give me that personal information?

So you're saying the plan you purchased for your employees on the SHOP exchange was cancelled? But you're here saying their plans were individual, not a group plan. So something is inconsistent in your story.