Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (41397)	3/10/2017 11:34:58 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> That's a fact. Nothing to discuss. It is a slightly different topic, but there is the issue of what it would have cost. Some people believe that you give health care benefits to everyone who doesn't have it, regardless of the cost of delivering that. In reality, we cannot come close to affording the 20 million who were added, and certainly couldn't have afforded more. We could also discuss the fact that our health care system cannot really handle any more Medicaids than it is today in many states because of Medicaid programs being so strained financially. So, even if we could pay for the welfare benefits, there may not be providers available to see those patients. But it is true, those are secondary issues behind the fact that we could have dumped them into a system that in many instances just has no place for them.

To: Lane3 who wrote (41397)	3/10/2017 3:31:57 PM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>>having "insurance" is not the same as having access what exactly does that mean?? that seems to be a phrase repeated by all republicon talking heads now, the new "catchphrase"... they must have put out a memo... "here's our line, just repeat it" if you have insurance through Obamacare you certainly have access to healthcare >>I never knew a lot about this since I had no background in it and it didn't apply to me but there was a functioning individual health care market prior PPACA. yes, but the policies were crap... sure you could get a catastrophic policy for $100 bucks per month... but it wasn't real healthcare You obviously have no idea about healthcare plans under the ACA because you're on medicare, so what makes you an expert on claiming millions of people have not benefited... at the expense of taxing the wealthiest people who can afford it? To tweak it I would give younger people more options of a cheaper plan. The mandate should offer some cheaper plans, which would mean less coverage, but younger healthier folks can have more options.