Obamcare saved babies

[jem]

not a single republican voted for the plan.
its was obama, pelosi, reid and the insurance companies who got 100 democrats to cave away from single payer or govt payer.
then they had to gruber the people with lies... and the people still voted out most of the democrats who voted for it in the senate.

so no one but a leftist would try to blame that crap on a republican.

ACA expanded Medicaid much more than private insurance which is what I point to anytime someone says ACA is a Republican plan - the mandate is a conservative idea, not the rest of it.

Red states were the biggest beneficiaries of ACA as usual.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...26e61a-9cb3-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html

 

[exGOPer]

not a single republican voted for the plan.
its was obama, pelosi, reid and the insurance companies who got 100 democrats to cave away from single payer or govt payer.
then they had to gruber the people with lies... and the people still voted out most of the democrats who voted for it in the senate.

so no one but a leftist would try to blame that crap on a republican.

Of course not, spending public resources on the public is opposed by Republicans, they only lick their rich donor's balls.

Democrats raised their own taxes and 'lied' to save babies and expand healthcare, your guys lie to give themselves a giant tax cut while they collude with foreign powers.

No wonder Trumpanzees are ignorant.

 

[gwb-trading]

Actually, it’s not that significant of a cost. As a matter of fact government health programs are actually comparatively cheaper than private sector comparisons.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/specia...cle_a7cdd71b-dcba-5f64-9369-0d1a4357e602.html

As I have stated before a public plan directly administered by the government is lower cost than the plans from insurance companies in the U.S. Countries that have a public plan and allow private options (at slight additional cost) such as Germany appear to balance the best of public vs. private vs. costs, etc.

However some things to note regarding public plans is the wait times for non-emergency services such as MRIs, Knee Surgery, etc. are quite lengthy. There are also some public medical facilities with dismal results in many systems even thought they are "cost effective" (think of the VA Hospitals in the U.S.)

In the long term I believe the U.S. would be best going to a public plan allowing private insurance plan selection as an alternative -- Of course the insurance industry in the states will fight this tooth and nail.

Let me point out one thing. I work for a multi-national corporation. Our cost for health insurance in the U.S. for each employee is far higher than any other country. Having a public plan (with lower employer cost) is a competitive advantage -- some people in the U.S. seem to have lost sight of this.

 

[DTB2]

Of course not, spending public resources on the public is opposed by Republicans, they only lick their rich donor's balls.

Democrats raised their own taxes and 'lied' to save babies and expand healthcare, your guys lie to give themselves a giant tax cut while they collude with foreign powers.

No wonder Trumpanzees are ignorant.

Public resources that stem almost exclusive from the evil rich donors, right? How much to you think Medicaid patients contribute to the public coffers?

Dems don't seem to like the current tax plan that raises "their" taxes, how come?

 

[exGOPer]

Public resources that stem almost exclusive from the evil rich donors, right? How much to you think Medicaid patients contribute to the public coffers?

Dems don't seem to like the current tax plan that raises "their" taxes, how come?

What does it say in the bible about taking care of the sick and the poor?

As for taxes, it's the blue states Democrats who pay for it, in fact they pay for those poor red state cons as well.

 

[UsualName]

As I have stated before a public plan directly administered by the government is lower cost than the plans from insurance companies in the U.S. Countries that have a public plan and allow private options (at slight additional cost) such as Germany appear to balance the best of public vs. private vs. costs, etc.

However some things to note regarding public plans is the wait times for non-emergency services such as MRIs, Knee Surgery, etc. are quite lengthy. There are also some public medical facilities with dismal results in many systems even thought they are "cost effective" (think of the VA Hospitals in the U.S.)

In the long term I believe the U.S. would be best going to a public plan allowing private insurance plan selection as an alternative -- Of course the insurance industry in the states will fight this tooth and nail.

Let me point out one thing. I work for a multi-national corporation. Our cost for health insurance in the U.S. for each employee is far higher than any other country. Having a public plan (with lower employer cost) is a competitive advantage -- some people in the U.S. seem to have lost sight of this.

Right. This is because when it comes to insurance it’s more cost effective to cover everyone and stabilize the risk.

 

[jem]

expanding medicare is a separate analysis.

I will tell you what the bible would say about killing babies. I can tell you why a lot of hispanics voted against democrats.

its because your team and Obama was hell bent on forcing Catholics and Christian institutions to hand out abortion drugs as birth control.


That is one of the stealth reasons Trump won. There were a lot of hispanics and catholic democrats who voted against democrats because they were forcing the church to hand out abortion causing birth control drugs.

being ignorant of your propaganda would make a person smarter.

Of course not, spending public resources on the public is opposed by Republicans, they only lick their rich donor's balls.

Democrats raised their own taxes and 'lied' to save babies and expand healthcare, your guys lie to give themselves a giant tax cut while they collude with foreign powers.

No wonder Trumpanzees are ignorant.