"Skinny" repeal goes down in flames

[_The CCC]

There was a time not that long ago in the US that health care wasn't a for profit business.

[_subgenius]

There was a time not that long ago in the US that health care wasn't a for profit business.

Apart from your confusion between health care and health insurance, let's all wait for you to tell us exactly when this "time not long ago" was?
When was it ever a nonprofit in america???

Oh wait, you CAN tell us but you just choose NOT to back up your porch swing profundities??

[_subgenius]

Republican's had at least 7&1/2 years to do something constructive about health care insurance in this country. They chose instead to oppose everything the black man did. Including opposing the very Heritage Foundation idea's that Obama incorporated into his PPACA. Ironically it was another Republican who first proposed universal health care. That other Republican Roosevelt with the first name of Theodore "Teddy".

Thankful that you're old because you sure are stupid

[_The CCC]

Learn something you stupid piece of s*** Troll.
SEE http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _care.html

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Learn something you stupid piece of s*** Troll.
SEE http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _care.html

You're the laziest “F” ing poster on this board, The CCC. Your stupid ass linking and running is infuriating. “F” Dr. Shades' rules, right? You're the Zerinus of the Paradise forum with your particular quirk. Jesus.

- Doc

[_The CCC]

If you are too lazy to read a few sentences without it being predigested for you what can I say?

[_honorentheos]

Healthcare isn't a subject that can be dealt with in a partisan way. The Affordable Care Act was passed with known flaws that then-President Obama anticipated would be worked out later when he signed it into law. But it was formed in a partisan atmosphere hell-bent on sticking it to Republicans after the Bush years.

That's not accurate. Obama went out of his way, preemptively weakening the law even, in an effort to reach across the aisle and get bipartisan support. This is where criticisms of him as a weak president have teeth. He got none despite dangling concessions. The Republicans made a calculation that if they opposed it with parliamentary solidarity, this would be politically advantageous in the long-run. It was, so the politics made sense.

I wrote that poorly. I wasn't pointing the finger at Obama regarding the lack of bipartisanship and I thought I was being clear when I said, "...that then-President Obama anticipated would be worked out later..." as indicating he wasn't the one wanting to push it through without bipartisan efforts but signed it with an eye to the issues in the law being resolved going forward. Past posts on this hopefully clarify my intentions were there despite being unclear:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=45673

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you are too lazy to read a few sentences without it being predigested for you what can I say?

We're supposed to read an entire article and intuit what exactly? “F” balls you're a lazy “F”. You don't even read your dumb links. You just google a few key words in, find something related, and then try to act like a smartass know-it-all by linking and running.

“F” ing man up and do a little leg work you lazy Internet mooch.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Learn something you stupid piece of s*** Troll.
SEE http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _care.html

Worth reading the rest, I think ... here's the start.

Any successful attempt to reform health care in the United States must accommodate two realities.

Reality 1: The current system is increasingly inaccessible to many poor and lower-middle-class people (about 47 million Americans lack health insurance, up from about 40 million in 2000); those lucky enough to have coverage are paying steadily more and/or receiving steadily fewer benefits; the increasingly complex warfare between insurers and hospitals over who pays the bills is gobbling up a great deal of money and resources; and the end result is that the United States pays roughly twice as much per capita for health care as Canada, France, and the United Kingdom yet experiences slightly lower life expectancy than those countries and significantly higher infant mortality. The problems inherent in the U.S. system of health care are literally killing people.

Reality 2: Open discussion of a "single-payer" system in which the government pays for and regulates health care is verboten within the political mainstream because it is presumed that Americans would never accept socialized medicine. Whatever solution arrived at by Congress and the president (in all likelihood, not this president) will have to harness market forces because, it's widely believed, markets will always outperform the dead hand of government. The lesson of "Hillarycare," a sweeping proposed health-care reform that died in Congress and may have delivered the House and Senate to the Republicans in 1994, weighs heavily on Democrats' minds (even though Hillarycare was not a socialized-medicine scheme but rather an attempt to reorder the private insurance market).

[_The CCC]

It is a complex problem. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated". It was a complex problem for Europe and most of the industrialized world. They seemed to have successfully adopted a government supported health care delivery system that benefits their citizens. Great Britain going with government provided health care, and Switzerland going with mandatory insurance, and government support for those too poor to pay for it.

I could get behind a Medicare for all type system with taxes raised to pay for it(Yes that would raise my taxes), and subsidies for those too poor to pay it.