Magox

That article is one-sided, which is what you would expect from Vox. And they are wrong, premiums are exploding but those exploding premiums are masked by the subsidies. Also, most people that are on the exchanges aren't thrilled with the coverage, they are happy that they can finally get coverage but they don't like the coverage in itself. The vast majority of the plans on the exchanges are HMO's with extremely tiny networks and lower quality hospitals, doctors and medical providers. That's a fact, not an opinion. But, at least they are able to get coverage, which of course is better than not having coverage at all. That would have been a more honest account to what is happening with the ACA rather than what I just read from them. RedDogBlitz has troubles understanding what he reads, does that apply to you as well? Before the ACA there were 47-48 million people without health insurance, 18% of the population. Now that number has gone down by 20 million which is about 10% of the population. I didn't say tens of millions of people would be without coverage I said tens of millions of MORE people would be without coverage.

I've been wrong plenty of times about various things. With that said, I think this is a tough one for the GOP, they over promised what they cannot deliver. The country with the media helps will incessantly focus on 3 things and only one of them is something that the GOP's ideas could help A) Expanding coverage - GOP fails this test (from the perspective of more than half the country and the media) B) Pre Existing coverage - GOP fails this test (from the perspective of more than half the country and the media) C) Reducing Premiums - This is where the GOP could score well but even then there is a caveat, they would be reducing some coverage for this to happen and even then they still get bad media coverage. Not to mention that the Democrats are proposing Subsidies which lowers people's premiums My hopes is that the GOP accepts the fact that the country wants expanded coverage and realizes that their only hope of instituting a long-term solution that could be viable would include a government partnership with the market driven concepts. There are lots of things that they could do that could work and achieve all of the above. If the system begins to work and coverage doesn't drop off all that badly from where it is along with more choice and lower premiums then there is a chance it could sustain itself. The problem is that what the ACA does is something that people can actually see, feel and benefit from. When people get Medicaid, that is a direct benefit that constituent receives. When someone didn't have coverage and was denied to Pre Ex and now is able to get coverage, that is something they feel the impact of that benefit. When someone gets a big subsidy to help pay for their coverage and now are paying much less, again it is a direct benefit. It's hard to take that away once it has been given. Many conservatives offer market driven ideas with more choice which lowers premiums for some middle class folks. But in comparison to what the Dem's offer with the subsidies, more people benefit than those that suffer the rising premiums. In regards to taxes and what it does to the National Debt, the majority of the taxes are levied on the wealthy, so people by in large don't have a problem with that. The debt, and the hidden taxes no one really seems to care anymore. For most people it is abstract concept where they don't see the impact of what these things do. Their perception is that they don't feel the impact of increasing debt and taxes, but if you take away their healthcare that was given to them, then that is something that they will noticeably feel.

Even if they did, it wouldn't last. There is no way that we are going back to a system where tens of millions of more people go without health insurance. This is not about arguing what the role of government should be, or what should be done but more in practical terms of what the country expects. If Repubs do a full repeal, it will be the actual substantive rallying call for all liberals to run on, which is to get Single payer healthcare for all. Right now, Dem's are running on empty, the only thing they have is Trump this, Trump that, Russia Russia Russia. That may net a few electoral gains but not enough to lead to a clear mandate. If Repubs "take away" healthcare from tens of millions of people, the mandate will be there for Dems to do something.

It's because the Republicans did the same, they "obstructed" with Obama's agenda and it paid off huge electoral dividends. Dem's are doing the exact same thing but now are taking it to a whole new level, hoping to get similar results. The way an ideal system should be run is where the politicians represent all their constituents not just their most ardent supporters. With the primary system we have in place, and the way information is now disseminated at warp speed, and voters primarily deciding to get news from sources that conform with their pre existing held views, it is no wonder we have the bankrupt governance that we have today.

Exactly!!

I kinda agree, they don't really do it for me either.

The GOP screwed up, everyone gets blame from the hardliners to the moderates to leadership to the Con media hucksters to the unrealistic expectations of voters. Even if somehow the GOP are able to cobble some sort of law that repeals parts or all of Obamacare, the argument that healthcare should be provided to all American's has already won in the conscience of most American's. It would only be temporary. The idea that a purely market driven system of healthcare is what should be in place is a dying idea. Pragmatism could potentially provide a better path that includes a more effective partnership between market driven forces and government, but the GOP and Conservatives are not able to come to a lasting solution.

I've provided my reasoning behind this quite a few times, is it really necessary to repeat it over and over? For the sake of argument I will. Rand's idea for starters will be pilloried by the media twice as much as it already is being criticized. The idea of repealing first and then trying to get legislation that will gather enough votes for new legislation would be much worse in the eyes of the majority of the public. I know you and others don't like the idea that the government should be helping provide healthcare to the public, but the majority of the public do like that idea. The reasons why the GOP's plan has such low approval ratings is because they think it's too "mean", Rand's idea by that definition would be not just "mean" through the eyes of the public but outright cruel. Either way, this is a electoral loser no matter how it goes down for the GOP. The question is how much of an electoral loser will it be? All these years, they talked like big tough guys, "Obamacare is a disaster, Repeal and replace" bla bla bla. They passed these show votes never actually thinking through what could actually become law if given the opportunity. The best thing they could have done was work with the Democrats right from the onset, and I've communicated at various points how that could have looked like. Single Payer here we come.

Entitlements are just as addicting for politicians of either party as they are for their beneficiaries — a fact Democrats have been counting on for generations. Reminder: MICHAEL WALSH: The Coming GOP Electoral ‘Health Care’ Disaster.. Yes, because Rand's idea would be an electoral winner.

The ratings agencies were catastrophically wrong during the crisis, at least half of those mortgaged-backed debts that they rated as AAA were truly Junk. One of the big problems with the ratings agencies is the system in placed is riddled with conflicts of interest. We've talked about this ad nauseum over the past decade but these ratings agencies are compensated by the companies that they are rating, and during this time greed was one of the major players that led the individual investor, homeowners, Banks, ratings agencies you name it to make such poor decisions. Deep down I think many people knew that the risks were severely understated, but everyone was making money. And if they weren't going to play along someone else would and very few people/companies had the fortitude to withstand the temptation of those big $$$$. I certainly believe that regulations and US housing policy contributed to the crisis, but let's be real here this was something that was in the making for a number of years and there were many guilty parties including Wall Street

There are two points that I've made that this portion of the article pointed as well A) The length of the patent B) And the "pay for delay" collusion between Big Pharma and some of the generic makers. The answer to your question is something that I cannot provide with any specifics simply because I don't have the data and time to do it. However, the limited research I did do shows that the AVERAGE profit margins for Pharma is so great that if the time was reduced by a few years A) they'd still be very profitable and B) It would reduce costs for everyone else. To the "pay for delay" tactics by Big pharma and some of the generic makers, I find this to be corrupt. Essentially a generic maker is paid off by the Pharmaceutical company to not release their generic product.

A point that I've been making for years

It's just going to get worse. I wonder how many jobs improved software technology has taken away the Job markets?

Not really a high bar While this is mostly true, presidents and congress can most certainly help contribute to the successes and failures of an economy.

Ugh

Looks like the Cruz and Lee amendment will struggle to garner more votes. I liked the idea but just as the insurers noted, it would most certainly contribute to even more adverse selection. You'd essentially have the most heavily subsidized and sickest populations left in the market place while many others would go to these other plans.

Yes, because he's a clown who forgets what he says.

When people say they want "outsiders" to be in charge, it's these sort of instances that remind you the disadvantages and growing pains you have with the so-called outsiders. Look at Trump, he's been able to accomplish very little and one of the main reasons is because they are a bunch of neophytes when it comes to governance, understanding protocol and etc.

From what we know this isn't collusion, but a case of naivete and idiocy from Donald Jr. That is what I believe it to be as well.

Of course you are appalled because you are a hypocrite and someone who has a hard time comprehending what they read. And again, no one says they are colluding, what we are saying is that if anything would be closer to collusion it would be between what was purported to have taken place between the DNC and Ukrainian government officials than Trump Jr. with a Russian lawyer who doesn't work for the Russian government. In other words, from what we know, neither is collusion. Trump Jr. was contacted by a Russian Lawyer about getting some Oppo Research, he heard what the chick said and he decided not to pursue it. That's what we know up to now. The DNC allegedly actually did receive Oppo Research from the Ukrainian government. It's just two separate entities that are trying to gather Damning research to take down their opponent. No collusion, no unlawful activities, just campaigns doing what campaigns do.

The Democrats were standing up to Putin??? "go focus on a non-issue" ?? That politico shows that the DNC worked with the Ukrainian government to get information to contribute to their oppo research. Yet, all you have is Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer about potentially getting some oppo research. Its reasons like this why 90% of this board doesn't take you seriously. Show some logic and consistency in your arguments, maybe if you begin to do this people will at least begin to respect what you have to say.

I didn't say it was collusion. Yet another example of you not being able to understand what you read. I said: And no, that is not what the article said, yet again your level of comprehension fails you. That directly contradicts what the Politico article claims.

So what you are saying is that you have a hard time understanding what you read. Here is what I said:

Not only would any rational person who is unbiased in one direction or another consider this to be "heat", but it barely qualifies as smoke. What the DNC did with the Ukrainians is much closer to anything that could be considered as collusion with foreign agents than this "evidence" of Trump Jr. and this lawyer.

Admits to inquiring about receiving Oppo research from someone from Russia? A) Is she a Government agent for Russia? B) Was there any information exchanged? C) Was there a quid pro quo? The only thing we know is that she is a lawyer from Russia who doesn't work for the government that wanted to provide Oppo research to Trump Jr who was helping his dad try to win an election. Which is worse? This Trump Jr. stuff which shows there was no exchange of oppo research from a Lawyer from Russia to Trump Jr. or this Here you have the DNC actually paying this Ukrainian group and actually receiving oppo research.