Republicans now 60%+ favorites to win the Senate

Originally posted by sh76
You can expand Medicaid to cover many of the people that were not covered (as the ACA did).

I have no problem with some of the rules; like preventing arbitrary cancellations or covering pre-existing conditions (in some cases) for people not eligible for Medicaid because otherwise they'd never be able to get coverage. But the ACA goes too far. Requiring my p ...[text shortened]... ther have Medicare for all than the ACA. At least that might reduce per capita healthcare costs.

Medicare for all would have been simpler, easier to implement and probably more efficient.

Unfortunately, Congress wouldn't have passed it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What "good changes" do you expect a Republican Senate to propose to the health care system?

Nothing.

The GOP will continue to bitch and moan about Obamacare, hoping to gain more votes from it.

The sad truth is that people will continue to look to one of the 2 parties for answers, and finding just more of the same.

Originally posted by sh76
- Prohibiting yearly limits
- Requiring coverage of dependents 25 and younger
- Regulations that require choice of doctor
- Requirements of free preventative care
- Requirement to cover birth control
- Requirement to cover drug abuse treatment
- Prohibiting requiring referrals certain services
etc.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad ideas for ...[text shortened]... who is purchasing it.

Sure, some abusive practices should be banned, but the ACA is overkill.

No doubt, the GOP will tweek it and embrace it. They were never serious about repealing it.

And so it goes. The GOP is not serious about enforcing the borders or substantially cutting government spending and expansion either.

What can I say, I'm through with the GOP. You kids can vote them into office this November devoid of help from Whodey.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Medicare for all would have been simpler, easier to implement and probably more efficient.

Unfortunately, Congress wouldn't have passed it.

Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke. It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

The place to have added the uninsured and uninsurable would have been Medicaid.

This would have had similar bad effects due to enlarging the number of dependent people, and the government's interest in health care.

Originally posted by normbenign
Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke. It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

The place to have added the uninsured and uninsurable would have been Medicaid.

This would have had similar bad effects due to enlarging the number of dependent people, and the government's interest in health care.

Medicare is being diverted to help fund Obamacare.

But hey, with the relatively new mandates from Congress to sue estates to recoup the losses perhaps it can last a bit longer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/17/1248425/-Medicaid-Estate-Recovery-ACA-Unintended-Consequences

Originally posted by whodey
No doubt, the GOP will tweek it and embrace it. They were never serious about repealing it.

And so it goes. The GOP is not serious about enforcing the borders or substantially cutting government spending and expansion either.

What can I say, I'm through with the GOP. You kids can vote them into office this November devoid of help from Whodey.

How many Presidential Orders did GW reverse?

I expected him to allow the American people back on government land, but he kept the Clinton orders in place.

Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by normbenign
Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke. It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

The place to have added the uninsured and uninsurable would have been Medicaid.

This would have had similar bad effects due to enlarging the number of dependent people, and the government's interest in health care.

Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke.

Medicare cannot go "broke" as long as there are taxpayers willing to fund it.

It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

So? How many universal health care systems do you think provide "full" coverage? Hint: zero.

This would have had similar bad effects due to enlarging the number of dependent people, and the government's interest in health care.

In a democracy, the government will always have an "interest in health care."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke.

Medicare cannot go "broke" as long as there are taxpayers willing to fund it.

It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

So? How many universal health care systems do you think provide "full" coverage? Hi ...[text shortened]... ealth care.[/b]

In a democracy, the government will always have an "interest in health care."[/b]

Tax payers do not get to decide what to fund. To describe it as such is misleading.

A better description would be as long as politicians that are provided by the super rich continue to fund it, it can't go broke. As long as China is willing to fund the US debt, the US won't go broke.

If the politicians put in the place by the rich decide not to fund it, then it goes broke.

If China or other countries do not fund US debt, the US will go broke. If the US goes broke so does Medicare.

The US taxpayer gets to vote for tweedledee or tweedledum. I suppose the third option is if the taxpayers actually take things in their own hands through a violent revolution, which is highly unlikely.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke.

Medicare cannot go "broke" as long as there are taxpayers willing to fund it.

It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

So? How many universal health care systems do you think provide "full" coverage? Hi ...[text shortened]... ealth care.[/b]

In a democracy, the government will always have an "interest in health care."[/b]

Medicare is a senior program and seniors are the most dependable voter constituency. Still Obama care passed with about $700 Billion snatched from Medicare, and already underfunded program.

If this had been a private insurance plane, the act would have been criminal and easily prosecuted.

In the US, little government interest in controlling health care showed itself until the 1960s. Until then the VA was probably the only Federal health care plan, that and Congressional insurance plans.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Medicare is funded by FICA taxes, and is going broke.

Medicare cannot go "broke" as long as there are taxpayers willing to fund it.

It also requires most seniors to pay a premium and for a separate private policy to be anywhere near fully covered.

So? How many universal health care systems do you think provide "full" coverage? Hi ...[text shortened]... ealth care.[/b]

In a democracy, the government will always have an "interest in health care."[/b]

The present unfunded mandates of Medicare by 2075 will consume almost the entire present GDP of the US. Will the GDP grow? Doesn't look like it now. If it does, it will have to be real growth, not just more QE inflation. Otherwise the unfunded mandates get inflated as well.