ACA is a failure for too many Americans who are forced into a single provider who see their policy skyrocket many multiples over, with deductibles that make plans useless, and growing.

This is apparent with so many insurance providers retracting their service.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/05/10/aetna-to-completely-pull-out-obamacare-exchanges-by-2018.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/10/news/economy/aetna-obamacare/index.html

Here are the two mainstreams reporting on one of many.

When will you learn that you cannot force people or corporations to subsidize a market that doesn't want to sustain itself under the threat of penalty, there's no money in it, the losses are too damn high.

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" a bold faced LIE.

If you want to have success you have to allow the free market to take over, people only buy what they actually want or need, not the things people tell them they want or need.

Capitalism > Socialism

Whistler, well said. I agree with you. As a healthcare provider, what do you think of universal healthcare like what Canada and several European countries have? Is it worth paying a higher tax?

Yes, more socialism/communism is always the answer for your side.

"b-but it's not real socialism!1one!!!!!!11!!!"

Useless insurance is no better than being uninsured, we don't need a single-payer system in the US.

I prefer to see a doctor before I die of the illness.

Of course it's not worth a higher tax if you also support open borders and the other policies that go along with the social justice mantra.

Oh and blaming the failure of ACA "because people don't like Obama" is laughable at best.

It didn't work because it was a flawed idea from the very start.

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" a bold faced LIE."

No, that was an accurate statement. Nothing in the ACA prevented people from keeping their plan. However, nothing in the ACA forced the private insurance companies to limit their rates - and there was no way the ACA was going to be passed if there had been.

Both of your articles are about Aetna pulling out of the ACA. And? They are the cheapest insurer and do everything they can do keep their costs low and profits high.

That's the thing, you guys just don't understand what "sustainable" means, an insurance provider backs out of the ACA and all you can say is "and"

AND now there is one less choice for the American "consumer", further exacerbating the increased costs, eventually no body will have insurance provided under this fiat market. It isn't the ACA that is failing that matters, it's the private health care industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo

Explain why when the law went into effect 4.7 million plans were cancelled by the provider instantly?



Playing tyrant over healthcare was a mistake, just admit it.

I've been responding to educate others. I have no expectation that you will do anything but regurgitate tidbits from the media outlets that match your worldview.

joyless: single payer obviously works elsewhere, but it does have limitations that we would naturally chafe at here in the US. People come here from other counties to get what they can't get in their own system. People in the US sometimes go to Asia or S. America for things that are too expensive or unavailable here. In short, it could work, but some people will be unhappy. In my area the benefits are clear to all, given the extreme disproportion of wealth.

From my window, I can see the most expensive real estate on the planet, and also a homeless tent city.

In a more homogenized area people will not understand how single payer could make a difference.

The truth is that people who are not insured run costs up for everyone because they don't get regular checkups, don't access medical care early when problems arise - making them more expensive later, don't have a regular doctor - so they go to the expensive emergency room, end up with chronic health problems requiring ongoing care, don't pursue ongoing medical care for chronic conditions, and ultimately spiral into disability and frequent hospitalizations until they die in a facility somewhere. These costs are passed on through higher costs, higher insurance rates, taxes, and tax breaks for charity care.

Also it's well established that blaqk lacks basic human decency and empathy. Pure capitalism leads to a dog-eat-dog world where selfishness wins out.

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I would rather to be $1,000 poorer than to cause deaths of less fortunate people that are entirely preventable.

Haha, I win. Those "tidbits" are the reality you and JJ deny for "feeling virtue"

Great! No one cares what Sam Hyde thinks.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2017/05/03/medica-last-insurer-selling-individual-health-policies-most-iowa-likely-exit/309664001/
http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/industries/health-care/2017/02/15/humana-2018-aca-exchanges/97929184/

https://www.healthinsurance.org/alabama-state-health-insurance-exchange/

"In Alabama, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield is the only insurer participating in the exchange in 2017, and it’s spending $1.20 for every $1 it collects in premiums."

This all comes down to self-responsibility.

These companies are for-profit entities who are pulling out because they don't want to play by the ACA rules. This works for their shareholders, and it works for you if you are healthy and/or wealthy, but it doesn't work for people who are most in need. That may be fine for you now, but unless you are quite wealthy, you will eventually need Medicare. Medicare pays about $.75 on the dollar, which means that extra $.25 is passed on to private insurers and private pay in the form of increased cost. Medicaid pays far less. Medicare will run down in 10-15 years.

"This all comes down to self-responsibility."

I would agree with you, if everyone was born into the same level of wealth, education and opportunity.

It's the evil capitalists fault! Wrong. Supreme court already ruled on medicare.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/slide/current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion-decision/

You still haven't given me an answer for why people should purchase something under the threat of taxation or worse and pretend that is capitalism.

I can defeat any "systematic" oppression debates so watch yourself, that bucket holds no water and you know it. At least not in the USA since the early 60's up until now.

You should be aware that I actually know about healthcare and actually follow and read the links. I think you might be used to people who don't.

here's a good one: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

I would hope you know how to click and read a webpage, or this would be pretty pointless.

You are not very well verse in the topic of Healthcare inside the US, sorry.

Point out the fallacy, because we can also debate the psychology of your replies as well and find a multitude of problematic logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I prefer to keep this in the realm of the topic at hand.

So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

You are not very well verse in the topic of Healthcare inside the US, sorry.

Talk about the orangutan in the white house.

A great example of Moving the Goalposts:

You wrote:
"Did you read dreams of my father? No, you have no idea that Obama's being married/joined the church was a completely political move to throw people off the trail before someone found out he was actually gay and muslim."

I responded:
"You referenced the book Dreams of My Father (actual title: Dreams from My Father) at the beginning of a paragraph, went on to make claims (gay, Muslim) in that paragraph, and then began a new paragraph. A reasonable person would infer that you that you were attempting to cite the book as a source for your claims. I responded with specific citations from the book that do not support your claims (plus another book as explained below). You could now cite specific passages in the book, in context, that support your claims. Or you could cite other sources, but that wouldn't be the same argument.

Float:

I would not be bothered if Obama is gay or Muslim. Regarding the "gay" quote, I ought to have pointed out that Dreams actually doesn't have any reference to Goldyn, homosexuality, etc.. The book that does, Rising Star, says what I quoted - which does not make him gay and I wouldn't care if he did have a gay relationship. More importantly, it's not in Dreams and it did not support the argument anyway."

You responded:
"@Whistler

A reasonable person would have read the entire post, I've already posted 100% authentic documents that show Barry practiced "Islam" above, your "counter-argument" consisted of a website that made the excuse based on unsubstantiated proof that it was because of his father and a mistake.

At best the brainwashing he received there was at minimum, but that doesn't excuse the odd things that have been uncovered in his past and his ties to racists, Islamic radicals, and so on.

There have been recent leaks of emails that would suggest he partakes in male prostitutes or "hotdogs" as recently as a few months before his final term was up, and as far back as when he joined the Trinity United Church of Christ."

The fallacy is that your paragraph implied that the book Dreams from My Father supported your claim that "Obama's being married/joined the church was a completely political move to throw people off the trail before someone found out he was actually gay and muslim." I pointed out that it doesn't (I read and searched the book), and you ignored that and went on to say whole rest of your post and previous posts supported your claim.

I enjoy discussions with people who hold beliefs I do not share because I can experience a different perspective. I might have my perspective altered, either by exposure to facts I had not considered before, or because I learned more about my own perspective that strengthens it. However, I feel that you won't engage me in a rational discussion, instead trying to "win" through various means. I joined the discussion with the understanding that I would not change your mind, but I hoped to have an exchange of ideas. I see no evidence that you have considered anything I have said. For what it's worth, I did read your links and appreciated the exposure to what you have been reacting to.

You ignored "home videos" and "emails" which contain the answers you supposedly seek.

Either way it's semantics, the point still holds true regardless if the evidence is a result of a revised book or a set of home videos from when Barry was still in college along with leaked/hacked emails from while he served as president.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

You don't intend to change my mind because you know you are wrong, and are doing wrong, and advocating for wrong, in the name of good.

You don't intend to change my mind because you know you are wrong, and are doing wrong, and advocating for wrong, in the name of good.

http://hanofharmony.com/the-dangers-of-making-assumptions/

This article could be a life changer for you!