Don't hold your breath: Obamacare could only really be repealed now by replacing it with either a practically identical or much more significant piece of health reform - and if you're hoping for single-payer health insurance out of the Republican party, well, good luck. But it's ok, you don't have much to worry about - like I said, the policy is working.

And here I was thinking Dems were all about pro-choice. Guess healthcare is part of the issues that are not. Really, the policy is working? If it's working then how come there are Dems that now oppose it? Because it's an utter failure. People can't keep their current plans, prices for over a million people have risen, and a vast majority of those who have enrolled have had previous healthcare insurance and even then, about 30% still have not payed. But please explain to me why 40 million people are STILL uninsured? I would have thought that free healthcare would have everybody running to the nearest computer. Oh yeah, because it's still law that hospitals can not turn you down for emergency care. ObamaCare is nothing more than a glorified tax that is nothing near what healthcare reform should be Want REAL healthcare reform then follow this simple, but genius idea: Allow those who are poor and can't purchase private insurance to be insured by the government. Depending on their income, they will either get it for free or have a co-pay. These people will be seen at military hospitals and clinics. On the other hand, allow those who want private insurance and any plan to do so. If they are willing to pay money and contribute to the economy then don't stop them. Oh, and don't force penalities/taxes on people Really, is that difficult to understand? You're making even the most conservative Republicans happy since they can still have any insurance/plan and you're making the most liberal Democrat happy since the poor will have access to free insurance

[quote]And here I was thinking Dems were all about pro-choice. Guess healthcare is part of the issues that are not.[/quote] I'm not a Democrat, and I don't support abortion rights on the basis of it being a choice and choices are good and we should all make as many choices as possible (and this is off topic, but) I support them because they drastically improve the quality of life for a huge number of women and the actual outcomes of the policy are what matters. [quote]Really, the policy is working? If it's working then how come Dems are now opposed to it?[/quote] They're not. [quote]People can't keep their current plans, prices for over a million people have risen, and a vast majority of those who have enrolled have had previous healthcare insurance and even then, about 30% still have not payed. But please explain to me why 40 million people are STILL uninsured? I would have thought that free healthcare would have everybody running to the nearest computer. Oh yeah, because it's still law that hospitals can not turn you down for emergency care. ObamaCare is nothing more than a glorified tax that is nothing near what healthcare reform should be[/quote] I never said it was free health care, it just makes it more affordable for key demographics of the American population that had previously been left uninsured due to the cost. [quote]Want REAL healthcare reform then follow this simple, but genius idea: Allow those who are poor and can't purchase private insurance to be insured by the government. Depending on their income, they will either get it for free or have a co-pay. These people will be seen at military hospitals and clinics. On the other hand, allow those who want private insurance and any plan to do so. If they are willing to pay money and contribute to the economy then don't stop them. Oh, and don't force penalities/taxes on people Really, is that difficult to understand? You're making even the most conservative Republicans happy since they can still have any insurance/plan and you're making the most liberal Democrat happy since the poor will have access to free insurance[/quote] The medicaid expansion does provide insurance from the government for those living on up to 133% (I think) of the poverty line. Where it doesn't, you've only got state Republicans to blame. It also allows people to opt for private insurance if they want to. The only real difference between what you've described and Obamacare is that Obamacare also provides a way to insure those with pre-existing conditions, so that those people who are most desperately in need of health insurance are able to afford it. Neglecting that portion of the population would be a serious oversight for any kind of health reform. Remember how I mentioned that you could only really replace Obamacare with practically identical health care reform? Yeah, you're actually demonstrating that really well right now. So, you know, thanks, I guess.

[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359692/democrats-against-obamacare-deroy-murdock[/url] [url]http://time.com/6771/democrats-run-away-from-obamacare/[/url] Yes they are [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/[/url] Whatever, sorry for saying free. Either way only a 1/3 of all people who have signed up never had insurance. That's basically like 1-3% of the 40 million+ Americans that had never had insurance. Again, why are they not rushing to sign up? Because A.) It's not affordable for them, despite being the Affordable Care Act and B.) It's still law to refuse emergency medical care What I described is much more. It allows people to choose from ANY plan, like the ones that don't meat the ACA requirements, and ANY doctor. It allows people to not be taxed. It allows businesses to not want to reduce the number of full-time employees. It allows the poor to get covered when the ACA costs too much for them. This isn't identicaly; This is a far superior model that actually gives those in need what they want. I may be conservative-leaning but I still support for the care of my fellow Americans How about talking with bobcast about this. He is a doctor afterall and it effects him most

[quote][url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359692/democrats-against-obamacare-deroy-murdock[/url] [url]http://time.com/6771/democrats-run-away-from-obamacare/[/url] Yes they are[/quote] I'm not sure if you noticed, but both of those Super PAC ads also put a key aspect of the ACA at the forefront. Putting aside that Super PACs can't actually coordinate with the candidates they support as far as I'm aware, those ads clearly indicate support for the bulk of the health care reform. But this is a dumb argument to have, anyway - it's not as if the Democratic party in congress is moving to repeal Obamacare. [quote][url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/[/url] Whatever, sorry for saying free. Either way only a 1/3 of all people who have signed up never had insurance. That's basically like 1-3% of the 40 million+ Americans that had never had insurance. Again, why are they not rushing to sign up? Because A.) It's not affordable for them, despite being the Affordable Care Act and B.) It's still law to refuse emergency medical care[/quote] Trust Forbes to neglect to mention that the RAND corporation also found a net decrease in the uninsured population of 9.3 million people. [quote]What I described is much more. It allows people to choose from ANY plan, like the ones that don't meat the ACA requirements, and ANY doctor. It allows people to not be taxed. It allows businesses to not want to reduce the number of full-time employees. It allows the poor to get covered when the ACA costs too much for them. This isn't identicaly; This is a far superior model that actually gives those in need what they want. I may be conservative-leaning but I still support for the care of my fellow Americans[/quote]What you're talking about is getting rid of the employer mandate and the standards for health insurance plans. I mean, those things do exist for reasons, but they're not really [i]that[/i] significant. The other thing that you're talking about, though, the one that allows you to get rid of individual mandates, is the fact that you let people with pre-existing conditions fall to the side and become uninsured. You keep skirting around this, but it's the central point that your 'proposal' contradicts the ACA on. Making health insurance for the people who most need it unaffordable is far from a positive reform. [quote]How about talking with bobcast about this. He is a doctor afterall and it effects him most[/quote] Because there's very little that I'm talking about here that has to do with things like hospital and insurer regulations that I'd want to seek the opinion of people in the medical profession about. I'm not going to specifically avoid him if he wants to post in this thread or ask that he doesn't, but I'm also not going to seek him out.

What? Many politicians are making ads to show they don't support or distance themselves from the ACA due to it's failure and the lies Obama spoke Pretty sure the 1/3 IS the decrease of 9.3 million uninsured people. And there's 40 million+ still uninsured. Again, why is that? Oh and trust ANY source to neglect something If people are loosing plans and premiums increasing then it is a big deal. It's a big deal for everybody. But please do tell where I stated to refuse people with pre-exisitng conditions because I'm not. If an insurance company doesn't want to cover them then it's their decesion to do so Uh, this is about healthcare. Who treats health issues and problems? DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS. They have EVERYTHING to do about it, especially when waiting rooms are packed to the bone and there's not enough doctors to see them STOP DENYING THE FACTS AND REALIZE THE UTTER FAILURE THAT IS THE ACA

Lost all respect for this thread when I saw you were pro-abortion.

hue, nice try friend

I'm serious. I lost all respect for you when I saw that. And it's not more healthy for women to have them.

It is. Banning abortions and abortion clinics would ban [u]safe[/u] abortions. Abortions will still happen, but not regulated and safe. There will still be rusted coat hanger abortions in back alleys or some other unsafe alternative. Would you rather have one dead clump of cells at the beginning of a first trimester/second trimester, or would you rather have a dead clump of cells and a dead woman to deal with? The choice is yours, and you're eliminating your choice.

Ok having an abortion regardless of if it's regulated or no is not more healthy for a women than having a kid. If you think they you are absolutely happened.

I'm pro-life but [quote]If you think they you are absolutely happened.[/quote]wut

Auto correct from handicap... And what I'm trying to say is that having the baby is just the healthiest way to do it. Yes unregulated abortions would be unsafe but that doesn't mean regulated ones are healthier than having the baby. Honestly I'm pro-life and if you don't want the child just put it up for adoption.

I am also pro-life, I was just confused by that strange sentence :P Although I don't agree with what you said that Seggi's being pro-choice discredits this thread.

Again, people are still going to have abortions whether or not it's banned or not. Hell, a miscarriage is a natural abortion that isn't reliant on medicine or someone pulling parts of a baby out. Should we ban miscarriages too?

Ok you don't seem to get this so I'll talk like you're five. Miscarriages and births are a natural process. An abortion is not. If someone has a miscarriage something is wrong and they are not healthy. An abortion however is the interruption of a natural process. There is absolutely no way an abortion is the healthier choice of the two. As for banning miscarriages, the main difference between that and a abortion is no one chooses to have a miscarriage.

Please stop. This thread isn't about abortion.

Whoo! Ridiculously expensive healthcare!!!! But on another note, I think it could be repealed by an executive order

Well, no, it couldn't, because it's legislated, but my point is that it would be completely impractical to repeal Obamacare. Taking away any of the core aspects of the legislation (community-wide rating, low and middle income subsidies and the individual mandate) would cause it to collapse and just make health care way more expensive for sicker and poorer households, pushing them back out into being uninsured.