Jump to content

The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All


Recommended Posts

I like the Canada system , but that's just me

Then perhaps we should send our needy that don't have health insurance across the border to Canada to get their treatments. That's what the Canuks do to their people who need, e.g., open heart surgery. They ship them over here to get the treatment they need because it ins't available from their own healthcare system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should everyone have hospital and catastrophic coverage ?

 

That would be my recommendation, yes.

 

I also think the moment you are married, have children, and/or buy property, you should get a living trust.

 

Oh, and I also think people who drive slowly in the fast lane should get a ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar

I'd like to see Trump and Obama debate since it's ultimately their bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 charts that explain what Graham-Cassidy will do


Big states are, not surprisingly, affected the most. Texas, which rejected Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, would see an increase of $35 billion in federal dollars headed its way.


California and New York, two massive states whose governors accepted the Medicaid expansion, would see dips in funding of $78 billion and $45 billion, respectively.




That couldn't be right ? Would never pass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalifornyah, Nueva York, Mass, and Maryland take 40% of the federal dollars dedicated to Medicare. Graham's bill is aimed at evening out the federal spend so it's equally applied to everyone. One person, one vote. One person in any state gets the same share of the federal dollars. Sounds fair - doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalifornyah, Nueva York, Mass, and Maryland take 40% of the federal dollars dedicated to Medicare. Graham's bill is aimed at evening out the federal spend so it's equally applied to everyone. One person, one vote. One person in any state gets the same share of the federal dollars. Sounds fair - doesn't it?

 

I heard that this morning, and I could only laugh. First time I can remember that Democrats are against "fair" redistribution of wealth to those in need and for states' rights. :lol:

Edited by DC Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall funding over the next decade for all the states combined would only have a reduction of about 6-7% from it's current baseline.

 

It really is not a Draconian proposal.

 

But as I said earlier, since there is nothing concrete to look at, because the states have to design these systems, the opponents can paint it any way that they'd like.

 

Which of course if you are against it, that would be the way to do it. It's easier to attack the scary undefined unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who claim that the Graham-Cassidy bill is being rushed through the legislative process should know that they’re making time Monday night to have a televised debate on CNN between the bill’s namesakes and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar

 

Will they give Bernie and Amy the questions in advance? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...