Breitbart-sirius xm 125- Patriot Radio

[TNJOKER]

Does anyone on this forum subscribe to Sirius XM listen to channel 125? Has anyone noticed the increased narrative on the REPEAL of the Obama care bill. If so, what is your initial thoughts on a just repeal and no replacement?

I for one would be in favor of this.. States should be able decide whether to or not on selling insurance across borders. It is insane to think the ACA is actually affordable for middle America.

 

[golfballs]

Yes. Full repeal. Then they can come up with something that actually does something to address the underlying costs of healthcare.

Of course this is way too much to ask of a Republican-controlled Congress. Pathetic.

Btw, there is a big thread on this somewhere....

 

[McDad]

Sorry, Joker. Don't have Sirius.

 

[armchair]

20-30 million people would lose their insurance if ACA is repealed without a replacement. There are even a few Republicans who don't like that idea.

 

[tumscalcium]

20-30 million people would lose their insurance if ACA is repealed without a replacement. There are even a few Republicans who don't like that idea.

Lol

So 300+ million will be better off?

 

[InVOLuntary]

20-30 million people would lose their insurance if ACA is repealed without a replacement. There are even a few Republicans who don't like that idea.

Are the ones that lose it the ones that don't pay for it? Seriously, I don't know.

 

[hog88]

20-30 million people would lose their insurance if ACA is repealed without a replacement. There are even a few Republicans who don't like that idea.

How many will lose their insurance when all the carriers pull out and it collapses?

 

[luthervol]

Lol

So 300+ million will be better off?

In a group of 50 people, 30 people will benefit a little, 15 people will see no change, and 5 people will suffer greatly if a certain piece of legislation passes. If everyone votes according to nothing but their immediate self interest the bill will pass. With the repeal/replace of ACA that has been proposed, for every 10 people that will benefit in some relatively small way, one person will suffer in a possibly life altering way.

From a strictly selfish perspective this looks great. When people are only concerned with the immediate impact to their wallet, bad decisions are made. I see this phenomenon repeated all to frequently in politics and people's voting choices.

 

[hog88]

In a group of 50 people, 30 people will benefit a little, 15 people will see no change, and 5 people will suffer greatly if a certain piece of legislation passes. If everyone votes according to nothing but their immediate self interest the bill will pass. With the repeal/replace of ACA that has been proposed, for every 10 people that will benefit in some relatively small way, one person will suffer in a possibly life altering way.

From a strictly selfish perspective this looks great. When people are only concerned with the immediate impact to their wallet, bad decisions are made. I see this phenomenon repeated all to frequently in politics and people's voting choices.

1 out of 10? Not bad.

 

[SDV]

I thankfully am covered by my employer's insurance, however when I had my own business 3 years ago I had insurance through Obamacare. I costed me, my wife and daughter over $1,000 per month. We didn't even have the top plan. It is definitely not affordable. I guess it is if you are indigent. I'm all for repealing and replacing.

 

[McDad]

I thankfully am covered by my employer's insurance, however when I had my own business 3 years ago I had insurance through Obamacare. I costed me, my wife and daughter over $1,000 per month. We didn't even have the top plan. It is definitely not affordable. I guess it is if you are indigent. I'm all for repealing and replacing.

You heartless, brainless, racist, fascist, greedy, seedy, man. How dare you?

 

[SDV]

You heartless, brainless, racist, fascist, greedy, seedy, man. How dare you?

How dare you? Going to find my safe space now

 

[luthervol]

1 out of 10? Not bad.

I know, right. That's only 30 million people suffering so the rest of us can save $10 or $20....no brainer. It's my job to take care of me and their job to take care of themselves. If they would have made better decisions they wouldn't be in this predicament. We all had an equal chance after all. (I've just about got it.)

 

[allvol123]

I know, right. That's only 30 million people suffering so the rest of us can save $10 or $20....no brainer. It's my job to take care of me and their job to take care of themselves. If they would have made better decisions they wouldn't be in this predicament. We all had an equal chance after all. (I've just about got it.)

You having the government take care of them, is not you taking care of them. It is insisting others take care of them, so you feel better. Understand the difference.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I know, right. That's only 30 million people suffering so the rest of us can save $10 or $20....no brainer. It's my job to take care of me and their job to take care of themselves. If they would have made better decisions they wouldn't be in this predicament. We all had an equal chance after all. (I've just about got it.)

99% correct.


Life is full of choices. Poor people tend to make a lot of bad ones.





There is nothing stopping you from going to the hood and giving your money away to help those poor unfortunate people...right?

 

[McDad]

....suffering.....

Nicely crafted. A charged word producing sympathetic imagery in the reader's mind.

Of course, that word presumes all without coverage suffer. Or, even suffer equally. or, do not recieve medical help at all.

 

[SDV]

You having the government take care of them, is not you taking care of them. It is insisting others take care of them, so you feel better. Understand the difference.

All of extreme poor are covered by Medicaid. I propose that all of the liberals that want the remaining poor covered, pitch in a little extra out of their own money, since they care so much. But they love spending other people's money.

 

[luthervol]

You having the government take care of them, is not you taking care of them. It is insisting others take care of them, so you feel better. Understand the difference.

Not at all. It's a willingness to look beyond what is best for me individually and immediately to what is best for society overall. Understand the difference?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Nicely crafted. A charged word producing sympathetic imagery in the reader's mind.

Of course, that word presumes all without coverage suffer. Or, even suffer equally. or, do not recieve medical help at all.

By suffering I believe he means they would have to actually have money taken out of their paychecks, aka OPT IN, on employer insurance.

Thats the biggest smokescreen BS scam with the ACA, citing massive people without insurance. Most of those people willingly chose not to have it. You see it in the service industry a lot. Employer offers coverage that you have to contribute a bit of your pay to..well F that I'm not only NOT going to do that I'm going to not report my tips, more money for me sahn!

 

[allvol123]

Not at all. It's a willingness to look beyond what is best for me individually and immediately to what is best for society overall. Understand the difference?

I understand you want to force others to do what you want. Children exhibit this same behavior.

 

[McDad]

By suffering I believe he means they would have to actually have money taken out of their paychecks, aka OPT IN, on employer insurance.

Thats the biggest smokescreen BS scam with the ACA, citing massive people without insurance. Most of those people willingly chose not to have it. You see it in the service industry a lot. Employer offers coverage that you have to contribute a bit of your pay to..well F that I'm not only NOT going to do that I'm going to not report my tips, more money for me sahn!

The uninsured isnt a homogeneous group though. There are people of all walks in it:
- poor choices
- rejected employer insurance
- very healthy (low/nonexistent medical usage)
- between jobs
- couldnt afford COBRA
- pre existing conditions
- crappy luck

And that's just off the top of my tiny brain.

 

[luthervol]

Nicely crafted. A charged word producing sympathetic imagery in the reader's mind.

Of course, that word presumes all without coverage suffer. Or, even suffer equally. or, do not recieve medical help at all.

I'm not really talking specifics. Nobody agrees on the current state of the ACA nor on what will happen if it is repealed and eventually replaced. The only area of common agreement is that the current system is not good and desperately needs improving, and that health care was in a death spiral prior to ACA.

At the root of the debate is the theme of "how do we share the burden?" Obviously a small percentage of people account for a large percentage of health care cost. How much of this cost will be shared by the young and/or healthy that are not using much health care?

Also the whole issue of $10,000+ per capita health care expenditures.

 

[luthervol]

I understand you want to force others to do what you want. Children exhibit this same behavior.

It seems you understand very little. Let me know how you feel if your house catches fire and the fire department doesn't show or you're in a serious personal injury accident and no emergency personnel respond.

 

[tumscalcium]

Not at all. It's a willingness to look beyond what is best for me individually and immediately to what is best for society overall. Understand the difference?

You don't see the selfishness in demanding that people provide services for you on other people's dime? Nothing is stopping you from donating more or paying for other people. Don't be forcing others to do it.

Personal responsibility is gone.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm not really talking specifics. Nobody agrees on the current state of the ACA nor on what will happen if it is repealed and eventually replaced. The only area of common agreement is that the current system is not good and desperately needs improving, and that health care was in a death spiral prior to ACA.

At the root of the debate is the theme of "how do we share the burden?" Obviously a small percentage of people account for a large percentage of health care cost. How much of this cost will be shared by the young and/or healthy that are not using much health care?

Also the whole issue of $10,000+ per capita health care expenditures.

That is the wrong question. The question is "how do we create the greatest overall good?"

You're starting with an assumption that likely precludes the best result.