Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Another criticism of the ACA is that it should be socialized medicine, which it isn't.One of the criticisms of the ACA is that it would be socialized medicine, which it isn't.
Another criticism of the ACA is that it should be socialized medicine, which it isn't.One of the criticisms of the ACA is that it would be socialized medicine, which it isn't.
Well a lot of states refused the Medicaid expansions because know that letting the poor get health care will totally kill their motivation to work. So you kill some of them as an object lesson by letting them die of treatable causes and then you motivate the rest.
Wait! The lack of ACA leads to FEMA death camps?![]()
Another criticism of the ACA is that it should be socialized medicine, which it isn't.
Fixing the cost of health care is not politically palatable anytime soon. It would hit to many groups with good lobbyists to make it politically feasible to do anything about costs.
At home, yes, but when we had extended families there was a safety net for the ill, the elderly, and the lame.No, you are just left to die at home. That was the traditional way Americans dealt with poor people with chronic conditions that needed constant medical care.
There is something so egregiously wrong with that statement and, yet, it is so completely true at the same time.
At home, yes, but when we had extended families there was a safety net for the ill, the elderly, and the lame.
I was never a burden on the system before Obamacare; now I am. The way Medicaid works is that the state (AZ in this case) pays premiums to an insurance company. Those premiums get paid whether I go to the doctor or not. I seldom go to the doctor, so that money just goes to enrich the insurance company rather than helping someone who actually needs it. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money.
There is something so egregiously wrong with that statement and, yet, it is so completely true at the same time.
My insurance company sends a document that breaks down the "extra" cost. Something like 40% of the total cost of the policy is now due to "covering pre-existing conditions" (within what would have previously been an exclusionary period).
If they said that I believe they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. That percentage seems way to high. Although I am having trouble finding data to back up either my belief or their statement.
My rates are still triple what they were pre-Obamacare, and I still lost my dental. So... yea.
Were you underpaying before?
Are you now no longer subject to exlusions you were before?
Are your limits higher? Do you now have less financial responsibility in the contract?
Do you think the system's working now?
I love whiny temper tantrums from self centered greedy kids.I think it's broken in a different way. As a Gen Y'er, I'm exceptionally annoyed that the older generations are expecting my generation to pay for their problems and mistakes (once again) instead of creating reasonable systems decades ago. We know who is responsible for this crap. And when it comes time to start cashing in the SS and Medicare IOUs previous generations created for their children to pay, they might find we're not very sympathetic.
The thing is that people who couldn't afford insurance couldn't afford medical bills either. So that isn't much of a safety net.