Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Let's just hope and pray this statement is accurately fact-checked.

One of the problems we as a nation face is that employer-funded health insurance shields the majority of workers from the cost of health insurance. Get rid of that and a national healthcare system would get put in place tomorrow.

While Schumer's comment is hyperbolic, there's almost 12million people on the ACA (and facets thereof) and some of those people do indeed have preexisting conditions and even those that don't, could easily be priced out when seeking insurance if the ACA goes away if they're deemed a financial risk to insurance companies.

I get my and my family's medical insurance through my employer, so I'm safe here. This doesn't affect me.

No offence to the majority of Americans who are honourable and didn't vote Republican, but **** me, what a horrible group of people run your country, they are as bad as the Tories.

Wonderful!


Now let's get some proper universal healthcare.


Bring on the Medicare for All plan.



Also, based on how it works, the ACA plans, by heir very design, are predatory against the poor who do not have jobs that offer insurance plans. These risk pools exist to make a net positive off of the people they insure. What are these pools really doing? Profiting off of poor people. And the dumbass Democrats pretend we are harming poor people when insurance companies already have their hands in the pockets of the poor.

"But, but, but....dadudemon, the poor get subsidies!" And those subsidies only cover a fraction of the people using ACA. By the very design of how insurance works, they will take more money than they payout. Sometimes, negotiated rates do save money. Great. But often, paying cash for your care saves you even more money than insurance. It's not a wash, for sure. But the argument is week.

We need to make a Medicare for All Plan. I've done the math. Bernie's plan, however inflated it is, will save us trillions. ACA is a corrupt law. Needs to be torn down.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No offence to the majority of Americans who are honourable and didn't vote Republican, but **** me, what a horrible group of people run your country, they are as bad as the Tories.

Agreed. A tear down without a better replacement ready to go is just so f**ked.

It that was too hard (which seems so, as they failed previously) they should have reworked the ACA, improving what worked, taking out what was shit and added as needed and just renamed it "Trumpcare" to get the orangutan to sign-off on it.

Originally posted by Robtard
While Schumer's comment is hyperbolic, there's almost 12million people on the ACA (and facets thereof) and some of those people do indeed have preexisting conditions and even those that don't, could easily be priced out when seeking insurance if the ACA goes away if they're deemed a financial risk to insurance companies.

I get my and my family's medical insurance through my employer, so I'm safe here. This doesn't affect me.

He deliberately inflated the issue by using that language, tens of millions doesn't make people think 12 million, they think much larger. More garbage language used to make news.

And just think for a minute if your employer stopped paying their part of the premiums. That would cause a huge surge in a public option we're talking closer to 90% plus. Paying the premium started after WWII to offset the fact employers didn't/couldn't pay higher wages. Time for some changes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed. A tear down without a better replacement ready to go is just so f**ked. No replacement will come, insurance companies have too much to lose.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No replacement will come, insurance companies have too much to lose.

Get rid of employer-sponsored health insurance and I PROMISE you change would come rapidly.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Get rid of employer-sponsored health insurance and I PROMISE you change would come rapidly. That's not going to happen...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
That's not going to happen...

If only russia would meddle in our health insurance policies

Originally posted by snowdragon
He deliberately inflated the issue by using that language, tens of millions doesn't make people think 12 million, they think much larger. More garbage language used to make news.

And just think for a minute if your employer stopped paying their part of the premiums. That would cause a huge surge in a public option we're talking closer to 90% plus. Paying the premium started after WWII to offset the fact employers didn't/couldn't pay higher wages. Time for some changes.

If that's all you want to focus on, cool, you do that.

I'd rather not go without health insurance. eg my wife a month ago had a severe allergic reaction, she ended up in the emergency room and had to stay overnight (never figured out what was the cause even after a battery of test), that one night stay cost $19,871.16. We only had to pay $500.00 of that out of pocket. Now imagine being someone who that happens too and you've lost your insurance. No thank you. That's what 12million people on the ACA have to worry about now.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed. A tear down without a better replacement ready to go is just so f**ked.

It that was too hard (which seems so, as they failed previously) they should have reworked the ACA, improving what worked, taking out what was shit and added as needed and just renamed it "Trumpcare" to get the orangutan to sign-off on it.

No, after going through Bernie's plan, burn ACA to the ground. Simply change the age rules on Medicare.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If only russia would meddle in our health insurance policies

haermm

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No replacement will come, insurance companies have too much to lose.

Yeah, that's what I'm guessing too. If they had a better replacement, they would have rolled with that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, after going through Bernie's plan, burn ACA to the ground. Simply change the age rules on Medicare.

It's like burning the parachute you're currently using and there isn't a soft body of water for you to dive in. Have the pool below you built first, before doing the stunt.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that's all you want to focus on, cool, you do that.

I'd rather not go without health insurance. eg my wife a month ago had a severe allergic reaction, she ended up in the emergency room and had to stay overnight (never figured out what was the cause even after a battery of test), that one night stay cost $19,871.16. We only had to pay $500.00 of that out of pocket. Now imagine being someone who that happens too and you've lost your insurance. No thank you. That's what 12million people on the ACA have to worry about now.

I'm not saying you should lose your insurance, I'm saying that to make the change to a social platform we would need to get rid of group insurance.

Everyone has a story about their potential/real insurance costs. I'm saying that if we REALLY wanted to create a national platform group insurance would have to go.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that's what I'm guessing too. If they had a better replacement, they would have rolled with that. The Tories are doing something similar to the National Health in the UK. I get pretty good VIP BUPA EXECUTIVE healthcare, but I'd be a **** if I just Sald0 what they should do is and didn't acknowledge it wasn't going to happen.

The thing is people are largely pretty happy with their employer based insurance, so running on "Hey let's get rid of it" is a losing argument.

Also if ACA goes, that will also affect employer based health insurance - things like life time limits and what not will come back, which is not a good thing.

If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon. What will happen is that if ACA goes then we'll revert to how it was before ACA, where insurance companies would be able to turn people away for cancer treatment based on the fact that they had their tonsils removed when they were 12. People with pre-existing conditions would be ****ed on the federal level. However, I imagine most heavily blue states would implement similar protections to ACA on a state level so that's something at least.

In the end though this ruling probably will be overturned either in appeals or by the supreme court. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of ACA being constitutional twice now, no reason to think they would change that now.

Originally posted by BackFire
The thing is people are largely pretty happy with their employer based insurance, so running on "Hey let's get rid of it" is a losing argument.

Also if ACA goes, that will also affect employer based health insurance - things like life time limits and what not will come back, which is not a good thing.

If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon. What will happen is that if ACA goes then we'll revert to how it was before ACA, where insurance companies would be able to turn people away for cancer treatment based on the fact that they had their tonsils removed when they were 12. People with pre-existing conditions would be ****ed on the federal level. However, I imagine most heavily blue states would implement similar protections to ACA on a state level so that's something at least.

In the end though this ruling probably will be overturned either in appeals or by the supreme court. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of ACA being constitutional twice now, no reason to think they would change that now. I agree and let's hope it gets overturned.

Of course because they pay into the premiums.



This affects group plans in a tiny tiny fashion, simply changing plans or renegotiating on renewls fixes this(also switching companies resets life time costs), its the people on individual plans that suffer the most with the changes.



Also, write in riders on renewals that don't cover TONS of procedures if they have any correlation to initial condition.

I know you like your employer insurance, my point is solely that to move to national coverage it has to go bye bye.

I also forgot to mention portability, having a group plan ties people to jobs since they can be forced into said position of lose coverage for their family, let's not get into cobra coverage.

Originally posted by BackFire
The thing is people are largely pretty happy with their employer based insurance, so running on "Hey let's get rid of it" is a losing argument.

Also if ACA goes, that will also affect employer based health insurance - things like life time limits and what not will come back, which is not a good thing.

If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon. What will happen is that if ACA goes then we'll revert to how it was before ACA, where insurance companies would be able to turn people away for cancer treatment based on the fact that they had their tonsils removed when they were 12. People with pre-existing conditions would be ****ed on the federal level. However, I imagine most heavily blue states would implement similar protections to ACA on a state level so that's something at least.

In the end though this ruling probably will be overturned either in appeals or by the supreme court. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of ACA being constitutional twice now, no reason to think they would change that now.

Wasn't aware of the ACA tear down also possibly affecting EBHI. That's potentially troubling.

I don't share you're faith, the SC is different now and so is the ACA due the Trump Admin's tampering. We're looking at a different game.

The SC isn't really that different. The five judges who ruled that ACA was constitutional are still there.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Of course because they pay into the premiums.



This affects group plans in a tiny tiny fashion, simply changing plans or renegotiating on renewls fixes this(also switching companies resets life time costs), its the people on individual plans that suffer the most with the changes.



Also, write in riders on renewals that don't cover TONS of procedures if they have any correlation to initial condition.

I know you like your employer insurance, my point is solely that to move to national coverage it has to go bye bye.

I also forgot to mention portability, having a group plan ties people to jobs since they can be forced into said position of lose coverage for their family, let's not get into cobra coverage.

Just to clarify, I don't actually get employer-based insurance, I buy it myself on the marketplace. But I know people who do have it usually like it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, really. It is true that in order to move to a nationwide system we will need to get rid of it, and the downside that it ties you to your employer and makes changing jobs/losing jobs worse than it needs to be is also very true. I myself would prefer a full single-payer system to what we have now. My point was simply that packaging that argument to appeal to people who are generally pretty happy with their employer-based coverage is going to be difficult if not impossible.

Which was one of Obama's points.

Originally posted by BackFire
The SC isn't really that different. The five judges who ruled that ACA was constitutional are still there.

My bad, true enough. I still don't share your faith though; hopefully I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's like burning the parachute you're currently using and there isn't a soft body of water for you to dive in. Have the pool below you built first, before doing the stunt.

You mean a transition period?


How about no. "2021, medicare for all. ACA disappears."


No transition period. Burn it to the ground.

Originally posted by BackFire
If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon.

Which is both true and sad. Sometimes, I detest my ignorant, obstinate, fellow Americans for this.

I disagree with the idea this is a win for Trump. Merely because I find it highly doubtful this ruling won't be struck down via appeal.

Originally posted by Surtur
I disagree with the idea this is a win for Trump. Merely because I find it highly doubtful this ruling won't be struck down via appeal.

You're just saying that and hoping it's struck down because you stand to lose your County Care, which is a facet of Obamacare.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're just saying that and hoping it's struck down because you stand to lose your County Care, which is a facet of Obamacare.

I'm saying it because it's true...it's why I'm not worried. It's also why it's silly for Trump to celebrate.

What will happen to disabled people in the US Rob?

It's inhuman, more like what I see out here than in the first world.

Then again, mega corporations like insurance companies always do the right thing now when left to their devices, always, so meh.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that's all you want to focus on, cool, you do that.

I'd rather not go without health insurance. eg my wife a month ago had a severe allergic reaction, she ended up in the emergency room and had to stay overnight (never figured out what was the cause even after a battery of test), that one night stay cost $19,871.16. We only had to pay $500.00 of that out of pocket. Now imagine being someone who that happens too and you've lost your insurance. No thank you. That's what 12million people on the ACA have to worry about now. this happened to my dad when he crashed his van. 30k hospital bill, no insurance. Never paid it. Died a few years later of cancer. That's what happens without insurance... The cost is passed on to the hospital which has to have an open emergency room policy in order to benefit from govt programs like Medicare.

Sorry to hear that, sounds awful. But we have insurance through employers, why we only paid a nothing $500.00 out of pocket compared to the almost $20K for a one-night hospital stay.

I think tax payers end up eating those costs, why it's stupid to not just have a decent universal healthcare.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
What will happen to disabled people in the US Rob?

Disabled people will still use Medicaid just like before, during, and after ACA.

Don't buy into the fear-mongering that Democrats have been propagandizing to the world about the ACA.

The ACA increased medical costs (faster than what it was before). It also increased the out of pocket costs for the average American.

Here's the kicker:






And this is what they concluded from their outdated study:



https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/01/23/obamacare-household-spending


What I've been saying.


Medicare for all.


Here are the findings of a very large research group's look into the ACA over time:



And as you can read, they are definitely anti-Trump.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca



Here's what it boils down to:

The very poor have better access to healthcare plans. But the costs on their out of pocket costs are so high that any critical life event makes the coverage meaningless. $1,000 out of pocket for a single mother of 2 who makes $20k a year is too much. It's retarded that she should pay anything like that.

Most Americans, who get their insurance through employers, were harmed by the ACA. That's 158-ish million Americans.

Insurance companies benefited the most from ACA.




Kill ACA and implement Medicare for All, ASAP. Medicare for All would be a better version of NHS if implemented effectively.

In regards to disabled people, that's only if they qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance. It also take two years for it to kick in after they're entitled.

Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to disabled people, that's only if they qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance. It also take two years for it to kick in after they're entitled.

Sort of. You can have it back dated to shorten the waiting period.

https://www.disabilitysecrets.com/dnewsblog/2010/04/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-medicare.html

And all of this is independent of the ACA and the marketplace. If you're applying for this stuff, you can't afford the out of pocket costs anyway. That means if you get your plan's premium subsidized already because you're disabled and cannot work, you can't afford the out of pocket costs from the plans.

So the appeal to emotion fallacy about preserving the ACA because of disabled people is invalid. It amounts to what I said it was, "...fear-mongering that Democrats have been propagandizing to the world about the ACA."

Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to disabled people, that's only if they qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance. It also take two years for it to kick in after they're entitled.

Schfwacks, let's not forget the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in the USA is medical expenses!

Go Team Murika



So many words to simply say puts people into financially stressful positions and is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy:P

That applies only to disabled people who meet the SSDI requirements to begin with.

It's also not a "but disabled people!" strictly for me, it's about people getting shafted by insurance companies like it was before the ACA. If you want to tear down the ACA, cool, just have a better plan already penned out and set to go.

That sucks one of the problems for consumers of regular health insurance is that many people never take the time to understand it and when those limited plans comes along it's even worse with less understanding.

Those policies should be illegal.

I say make healthcare a right, cuz Dems have shown they won't ever come after rights...what could go wrong?

Originally posted by snowdragon
That sucks one of the problems for consumers of regular health insurance is that many people never take the time to understand it and when those limited plans comes along it's even worse with less understanding.

Those policies should be illegal.

These type of shit-policies flourish when laws (or lack there of) are set to best benefit the mega insurance corporations' interest.

Rob I was asking you has anything changed since the judge made that ruling?

Originally posted by Surtur
I say make healthcare a right, cuz Dems have shown they won't ever come after rights...what could go wrong?

PSA: The 100% free to you County Care you're on is under threat, as it's a facet of the ACA. Coping by screaming "but the Democrats" here is silly.

Yar

Tasha Yar?

Obamacare Must 'Fall,' Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court

In a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration has reaffirmed its position that the Affordable Care Act in its entirety is illegal because Congress eliminated the individual tax penalty for failing to purchase medical insurance.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, said in a brief that the other provisions of Obamacare are impossible to separate from the individual mandate and that "it necessarily follows that the rest of the ACA must also fall." -snip



The Trump admin has not given details on what health care place would replace the ACA if it is stuck down, Alex Azar the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services said there would likely be no details given on the new plan until after the SC rules on the ACA.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obamacare Must 'Fall,' Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court

In a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration has reaffirmed its position that the Affordable Care Act in its entirety is illegal because Congress eliminated the individual tax penalty for failing to purchase medical insurance.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, said in a brief that the other provisions of Obamacare are impossible to separate from the individual mandate and that "it necessarily follows that the rest of the ACA must also fall." -snip



The Trump admin has not given details on what health care place would replace the ACA if it is stuck down, Alex Azar the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services said there would likely be no details given on the new plan until after the SC rules on the ACA.

Glad to see ACA going down for the corrupt legislation it was....but...

Where's the replacement?

dur

So.... Bidencare?

Okay, if this continues, I may just go full Democrat this time around. 2016 was the only time I ever went right wing in my life but goddamn are they failing bad this time around.

Your application has been denied. Sorry.

I don't know what that means.

The Supreme Court is set to take up two cases involving the ACA on Nov 10th, they could decide that the ACA is unconstitutional and that's that.

This would be a big personal win for Trump and Trumpers as he made it one of his big campaign promises to "dismantle" and destroy Obamacare"

Biden will make it better. Go Biden!

The SC could rule a few different ways on both cases involving the ACA, but if they flat out rule that the ACA is unconstitutional and therefore needs to be dismantled, there's nothing much Biden can do, as even a Presidential executive order does not override an SC decision.

It could fall to some states to try and keep the ACA themselves, if they have the foundation for it, iirc not many do, but the states would have to pay the subsidiaries themselves and there's no real incentives for the Insurance Companies to opt in, as they can make more money by denying people they deem "nonviable", ie people with preexisting conditions that will cost them more than the monthly premium they'd receive.

What we could potentially see is a new Health Care plan if the Democrats take the WH, take the Senate and keep the House. But that could take a few years. We'll see after the SC, as noted, could go more than just it stays or it goes.

I'm hoping for a true UHC option instead of Obamacare. I highly doubt that will happen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm hoping for a true UHC option instead of Obamacare. I highly doubt that will happen.

So am I but I certainly don't want to see ppl lose coverage until we get there

Originally posted by snowdragon
So am I but I certainly don't want to see ppl lose coverage until we get there




Seems like most people agree with both of us. So still not sure why we don't have an affordable UHC option...

Robs shaking in his boots

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Robs shaking in his boots


I have nothing personal to lose if the ACA goes away, as I have my own insurance for me and my family.

I do feel bad for the people who rely on it and could now lose their insurance, potentially at the risk of the lives, I'm also not a Trumper and have compassion for other people.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have nothing personal to lose if the ACA goes away, as I have my own insurance for me and my family.

I do feel bad for the people who rely on it and could now lose their insurance, potentially at the risk of the lives, I'm also not a Trumper and have compassion for other people.

How many illegal aliens have you boarded and sheltered over you progressive lifespan?

IOW: "I had no proper response so I am mad and shit-posting" -Broly

So, Bidencare?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Biden will make it better. Go Biden!


Though thinking about it, what Biden needs to do every night of the debates is mention that the SC will be voting on the ACA on Nov 10th because of Trump's almost 4 year attack on the ACA and that if they rule against it, millions of Americans could lose their insurance by being dropped or priced out, especially if they have preexisting conditions. Hammer that shit home, as Trumpers who rely on the ACA will be watching.

The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments concerning the the future of the ACA. This is the near culmination of Trump's nearly four year attack on it. Final ruling could be by the end of June 2021.

Forgot to add "tomorrow", arguments start tomorrow.

American Health Care Insurance Act to come next?

AH-CIA?

CIA?

YOU ARE A SPY!!!

SPY? YOU ARE FBI!

*shoots LSD into your drink with a small squirt gun when you ain't looking*

I don't know what you mean.

The acid! I'm totally tripping balls!

Originally posted by Blakemore
American Health Care Insurance Act to come next?

AH-CIA?

Really depends how the SC rules on the ACA. If they leave it be, if they blast it to nothingness, if they rule against enough parts that it becomes useless. Dunno know.

Millions and millions stand to lose insurance though if it goes away. Insurance companies are itching to drop people with preexisting conditions and others, as those people are "non viable" in the insurance companies' eyes, people that cost more in their medical bills than their monthly premiums bring in. As opposed to people like me who pay every month and almost never go to the doctor.

Do hope Kamala is able to push Biden towards medicare for all though. Regardless of how this falls.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really depends how the SC rules on the ACA. If they leave it be, if they blast it to nothingness, if they rule against enough parts that it becomes useless. Dunno know.

Millions and millions stand to lose insurance though if it goes away. Insurance companies are itching to drop people with preexisting conditions and others, as those people are "non viable" in the insurance companies' eyes, people that cost more in their medical bills than their monthly premiums bring in. As opposed to people like me who pay every month and almost never go to the doctor.

Do hope Kamala is able to push Biden towards medicare for all though. Regardless of how this falls. That raises a question.

There are many people who pay lots of insurance who almost never get sick and those without insurance don't get treated anyway, yet, when an insured person does need treatment, they still have to pay!

So my question is: Where the hell does the money go?

Isn't that just profit?

Time for America to roll out M4A.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump-backed challenge to Obamacare

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican bid that had been backed by former President Donald Trump's administration to invalidate Obamacare, preserving the landmark healthcare law for the third time since its 2010 enactment.

The 7-2 ruling declared that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to file their lawsuit seeking to nullify a law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage either through public programs or private insurers. The decision was authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. -snip



This will be the third time in a decade that the SC has struck down the GOP's attempt to destroy the ACA and rob millions of Americans of the healthcare they need, many due to being on the poverty level and/or having preexisting conditions. Big win for America, epic loss for the GOP.

Obamacare is a big loss for Americans and a big win for Insurance companies.

Originally posted by Robtard
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump-backed challenge to Obamacare

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican bid that had been backed by former President Donald Trump's administration to invalidate Obamacare, preserving the landmark healthcare law for the third time since its 2010 enactment.

The 7-2 ruling declared that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to file their lawsuit seeking to nullify a law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage either through public programs or private insurers. The decision was authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. -snip



This will be the third time in a decade that the SC has struck down the GOP's attempt to destroy the ACA and rob millions of Americans of the healthcare they need, many due to being on the poverty level and/or having preexisting conditions. Big win for America, epic loss for the GOP. Fantastic news for the people. Socialism rules

Originally posted by Klaw
Obamacare is a big loss for Americans and a big win for Insurance companies.


Then why do insurances companies want it gone, so they can go back to denying people they deem financially nonviable, people with preexisting conditions, such as bad liver or back, people who will cost more than their monthly premium could ever cover. Your gaslighting has been noted, Klaw.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fantastic news for the people. Socialism rules


Until a better option is viable, it absolutely is.

eg I have a friend, lifelong diabetic, which has caused him other medical problems. At times (between jobs) he has needed to go on Obamacare in order to get the meds that keep him alive at a reasonable price. Insurance companies would love to deny him, as someone like him is a financial liability to them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then why do insurances companies want it gone, so they can go back to denying people they deem financially nonviable, people with preexisting conditions, such as bad liver or back, people who will cost more than their monthly premium could ever cover. Your gaslighting has been noted, Klaw.

Those same companies would rather have Obamacare than M4A.

Originally posted by Klaw
Those same companies would rather have Obamacare than M4A.

That would be you moving the goalpost now, klaw.

But on the subject of M4A, it's one of the reasons why I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary election. This should seriously be looked into, it looks like a better option.

Obamacare is one of the worst things Obama ever did.

Originally posted by Klaw
Obamacare is one of the worst things Obama ever did. Why are you worried in Canada, they have almost as good a system as civilised European nations

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Why are you worried in Canada, they have almost as good a system as civilised European nations

not-eon

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
not-eon of course not Eon

F**king leftist Supreme Court judges. Commie bast*rds.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
F**king leftist Supreme Court judges. Commie bast*rds.

Can you imagine being such a loser that you are still fixated on taking health care away from poor people, this many years later? Nonsense.

A few high ranking Democrats commented on this being done now that the GOP have failed miserably three times in a decade to strike down the ACA, but I don't share their views. The GOP isn't done.

I'd still be open to the GOP having a better plan, but we've not seen one in 10+ years, it's just tear down and then vague 'do something much better'.