The Terrifying Stakes Of Repealing Obamacare Without A Clear Replacement

[Masark]

The middle class isn't obligated to pay more for health insurance just so the lower class can have it.

Yes, that middle class of multi-millionaires.

[mittacc]

"Obamacare changed the healthcare industry, which makes up one-fifth of the economy."

"Urban Institute researchers studying mortality before and after the Massachusetts healthcare reform on which Obamacare was based found that for every 830 adults insured, one fewer died annually. Before Obamacare, one American died as a result of lacking coverage every 24 minutes, according to the Urban Institute."

So 20% of your incoming taxes is used to reduce mortallity by about 0.1205%? Yeah, in that case get rid of it lol...

[Thepersona]

Yes, that middle class of multi-millionaires.

Why does the conservatives thibk that the middle class would pay for this things? Most of the tax burden falls on the top 1% and almost all of it on the top 5%

[TrumpIsPresident]

Ehhh, source?
Because as far as i know, most people want wealth redistribution, and a just society. Remember the 99%?

Yea I remember the occutard phase.

"death to corporations mannnn" -sent from my IPhone

"corporations are greedy mannn" -like me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter

"we have to end the reign of corporate oppression mannnn, lets meet at Starbucks to talk about it"

A bunch of nonsense spurred on by Obama's class warfare rhetoric during both of his elections.

Then what happened?

It vanished like a fart in the wind.

Why?

[Masark]

"Obamacare changed the healthcare industry, which makes up one-fifth of the economy."

"Urban Institute researchers studying mortality before and after the Massachusetts healthcare reform on which Obamacare was based found that for every 830 adults insured, one fewer died annually. Before Obamacare, one American died as a result of lacking coverage every 24 minutes, according to the Urban Institute."

So 20% of your incoming taxes is used to reduce mortallity by about 0.1205%? Yeah, in that case get rid of it lol...

What? 20% of economy != 20% of tax revenues.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Why does the conservatives thibk that the middle class would pay for this things? Most of the tax burden falls on the top 1% and almost all of it on the top 5%

Because it was the middle class who saw their costs skyrocket despite being told over and over again that it would never happen.

People to this day still think it never happened.

That's how convincing the scam was.

[mittacc]

What? 20% of economy != 20% of tax revenues.

How much is it then? Is it 20% of the gdp? I really hope I misunderstood this article because if I didn't the people that support this are really damn retarded...

[Thepersona]

Because it was the middle class who saw their costs skyrocket despite being told over and over again that it would never happen.

People to this day still think it never happened.

That's how convincing the scam was.

The costs increased at a lower rate, than if the ACA wasnt passed.

[Lady Dragonheart]

I don't get any benefit from Obamacare, myself, according to my high income and residence. So, I'm interested to see what Trump and the rest of the government is planning to do once it is actually repealed.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

What does 2017 have to dp with it. Did people magically get the right to have something for nothing this year?

I've got bad news for you if you think that this is the right way to go ahead.

But perhaps the day automation takes your job and you get diagnosed with a treatable lethal cancer, you'll understand.

[Stormspellz]

Because it was the middle class who saw their costs skyrocket despite being told over and over again that it would never happen.

People to this day still think it never happened.

That's how convincing the scam was.

on national average prices didn't sky rocket, yes this year has a large spike, but over yearly averages your rhetoric doesn't hold up to facts, furthermore no one says its a perfect program, like any thing of this size it needs tweaking.

[Masark]

How much is it then? Is it 20% of the gdp? I really hope I misunderstood this article because if I didn't the people that support this are really damn retarded...

1. Yes.

2. Healthcare is 20% of the American economy/GDP.

3. That is nothing to do with the costs of the PPACA. It just means that 20% of the American GDP comes from medical stuff, be it research, manufacturing, medical treatment, etc. It's a tangential and basically irrelevant factoid that has nothing to do with the benefits or drawbacks of the PPACA.

[Garnier Fructis]

The middle class isn't obligated to pay more for health insurance just so the lower class can have it.

People don't like wealth redistribution, surprise surprise.

That's why they put Republicans in control of the entire government.

Goodbye Obamacare.

Health care costs were rising at a higher rate before ACA. You think this is a choice between paying more so the lower class can have access, or not paying more.

That's wrong. Your choice is paying more so the lower class can have access, or paying even more whilst telling them to sod off. And quite frankly if you guys were fooled into thinking you aren't going to keep getting screwed if ACA is gone, then you guys deserve the screwing you're going to get. It's the rest of America that doesn't deserve it.

[Wolfheart9]

Health care costs were rising at a higher rate before ACA. You think this is a choice between paying more so the lower class can have access, or not paying more.

That's wrong. Your choice is paying more so the lower class can have access, or paying even more whilst telling them to sod off. And quite frankly if you guys were fooled into thinking you aren't going to keep getting screwed if ACA is gone, then you guys deserve the screwing you're going to get. It's the rest of America that doesn't deserve it.

Most people posting here that are anti-aca are generlaly anti social anything, and many have flat out said they're happier paying more money if it meant the people below them don't get coverage.

[BannedForViews]

I've got bad news for you if you think that this is the right way to go ahead.

But perhaps the day automation takes your job and you get diagnosed with a treatable lethal cancer, you'll understand.

I know it's fashionable to put words in other peoples mouths, especially when this website is concerned, but that's not what I said at all. Clearly anyone who loses insurance and then finds out they have a medical problem that relies on them having insurance to get fixed, especially if it is life threatening, is going to be very upset. But that is the nature of humans. We are extremely concerned with our own sphere. If you are sick with cancer, that is all that matters to you, and rightfully so.

My point was a very simple one though. What about it being 2017 makes the world so different that something like universal healthcare needs to exist? People have said this crap for years now. "Oh it's 19xx, or 20xx, this that or the other needs to be, or you need to get with the times" etc, etc. The arguments for and against whether we need universal healthcare, or what kind we do need, have no bearing on what year it is.

Also many alternatives were offered, like health savings accounts, and catastrophic insurance coverage, to cut down on the cost of you getting a flu shot, or going in because your tummy hurt, and save money for things like unavoidable cancer. People just need to realize that everything is finite, and you can't have your cake and eat it as well. If we start making real decisions about what should and shouldn't be covered, how much should go towards things, and what the opportunity costs are of alternatives, then we can make real choices that hopefully improve our lives, but as long as people hold to this rhetoric about how healthcare is a right (it isn't) and anecdotes about how 1 face in a country of 350 million was saved because of some cancer screening by Obamacare (the sort of thing that always happened before it anyway) and how that means we should deflate our dollar with massive debt, or harm our economy with higher taxes, well, we're going to keep living in this fantasy world where people think things are getting better when in reality, they are not.

[Gorsameth]

The middle class isn't obligated to pay more for health insurance just so the lower class can have it.

People don't like wealth redistribution, surprise surprise.

That's why they put Republicans in control of the entire government.

Goodbye Obamacare.

Here is how it works

Person X cant afford health insurence.
X gets sick and cant afford the medicine to get better
X loses his job, gets on welfare that you have to pay
X's condition becomes critical and is given medicine for free to save his life. The Hospital charges you more for your treatment so they can make the money back spend on X

Because X cant afford to do preventive measures he is more likely to get sick and his illnesses will cost the hospital/state more money. Money you end up paying in the end.


Giving everyone healthcare, government bargaining to reduce the price and spending money on preventive care is cheaper for YOU in the end.

[BannedForViews]

Health care costs were rising at a higher rate before ACA. You think this is a choice between paying more so the lower class can have access, or not paying more.

That's wrong. Your choice is paying more so the lower class can have access, or paying even more whilst telling them to sod off. And quite frankly if you guys were fooled into thinking you aren't going to keep getting screwed if ACA is gone, then you guys deserve the screwing you're going to get. It's the rest of America that doesn't deserve it.

This isn't true, kind of at all. What happened is a lot of peoples private insurances were going to go up a lot and so they had to cut back on what was offered, which will have the effect of slowing growth because you avoided the higher cost.

To provide my own anecdote, my father in law works for a large law firm that provided a rather generous healthcare plan to all it's employees. After the ACA, the price of those plans were going to rise, so they were faced with the choice of paying a fine and putting a lot of the associates and lower ranking employee on Obamacare, or paying higher premiums to give them all a better quality of insurance. It shouldn't be hard to figure out which option they chose. They saved money on the fine, they kept everyone ensured through the government option, but who is really better off?

[Garnier Fructis]

How much is it then? Is it 20% of the gdp? I really hope I misunderstood this article because if I didn't the people that support this are really damn retarded...

Your argument that 20% of whatever is only reducing mortality by ~.1% is based on the logic that healthcare is 1/5th of the economy because of Obamacare. Which is false. And that number of ~800 insured per 1 less death was for Massachusetts, which the article claims Obamacare is based on.

You misunderstood a lot, and to be honest what you wrote doesn't make a lot of sense.

[BannedForViews]

Here is how it works

Person X cant afford health insurence.
X gets sick and cant afford the medicine to get better
X loses his job, gets on welfare that you have to pay
X's condition becomes critical and is given medicine for free to save his life. The Hospital charges you more for your treatment so they can make the money back spend on X

Because X cant afford to do preventive measures he is more likely to get sick and his illnesses will cost the hospital/state more money. Money you end up paying in the end.


Giving everyone healthcare, government bargaining to reduce the price and spending money on preventive care is cheaper for YOU in the end.

This is 100% false and unprovable by you. There are no preventative measures for leukemia. Seriously, there is so much wrong with this post, I don't even want to waste my time responding to it.

[Noxx79]

This is 100% false and unprovable by you. There are no preventative measures for leukemia. Seriously, there is so much wrong with this post, I don't even want to waste my time responding to it.

Leukemia is the only disease? There are no diseases that can be prevented or diseases that have a much higher survivabity rate if caught earlier?