President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I understand why someone might roll the dice. But sadly, if someone is sick enough, that might be the best deal they are going to see and pay. One problem is that those who are ill or at risk are signing up for Obamacare. If you earn to much to qualify for a subsidy and are in your 60's you can be getting hammered. I do not think that narrow portion of the population on Obamacare should be forced absorb all the costs of the non-Medicaid, non-Medicare seriously ill. I actually think that the high risk pool the Republicans introduced would be a great idea if it was adequately funded.

If that happened the rates for the rest of the Obamacare recipients would decline. It also draw more insurance companies back into the marketplace because they would face less risk of getting stuck with a lot of high risk customers.

 

Somehow, I think if you had just received a cancer diagnosis you would sign up as fast as you could.

 

How about children? Once you have them, you have many doctor visits and you need insurance just for normal stuff, not catastrophe. Kids get sick a lot, especially in the baby-toddler early years.

 

Wonder how many of these people who whine about health care eating up 30-percent of their take home also have a new Dodge Ram in the driveway and the highest priced cable package?

 

And a brand new i-phone.

 

Liberals hate economic freedom. They want to stop any spread of it like it was an unborn child's beating heart.

 

Which decisions do you think individuals should be allowed to make?

 

Weak even for you. A decision not to buy something you need because you can't afford it is the very opposite of freedom.

 

I think not buying insurance is nuts, but it's not my business to force people into living the way I think they should, nor is it the government's.

And your certitude regarding what people need is the least surprising thing on this thread.

 

How about dealing with real numbers rather than hypotheticals? My one wish in discussion is that people do not fall for when someone throws out a hypothetical to color the discussion. E.g., "there's waste in the system, so let's cut the programs (public education)." Of course there's waste, where is there none? But does that justify cutting? No. Every system has frictions, waste, key is how much? Show me how much, is it 1%? or 25%?

"How many people pay for insurance don't use it?" Sure, given the probability, a couple at least, but does that justify taking 14 million off insurance? That's the decision. I've paid for my insurance for my family and its a helluva a lot every year, so the new rules can only help me. But I'm willing to pay more to keep those people with insurance.

 

Nope, not my point at all. My point is, if the things the NEA funds are so crucial, private citizens can step up and fund them. Much like I believe billionaire sports owners should pay for their own damn stadiums.

 

Heh. One of the cars in my driveway came off the assembly line when Steve Spurrier was coaching . . . at Duke.