Under GOP control, Senate finally passes bill to repeal Affordable Care Act

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?

Imagine if everyone had worked together to make the ACA work.

What a concept.

You mean if Michelle hadn't flubbed up the official website by outsourcing to her friend in Canada, if the big boss hadn't made exemptions for his favorite peeps, if only businesses didn't stop hiring full time... Even if the whole GOP had voted for it how would that have changed it? The ACA is what it is because the Democrats made it that way.

NO. Apparently that's an issue of yours.

I meant only what I said.

Instead of working together to make something work. To fix issues.

There was only one goal by the Right --- and that was to destroy.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was the best plan ever conceived. DESTROY was the only goal.

a reply to: Annee

oh what issues did you want fixed? Really this would be education for me. I cant wait to find out what you think needs fixed because I thought ACA was supposed to fix everything. And now you want the GOP to fix the ACA instead of repealing....

originally posted by: riiver

$695 is a fraction of what I would pay in premiums for a policy with a deductible so high I'd never in a billion years reach it. over $200 per month just for my little self and a $12,000 deductible? Nah. I'll take the fine any day.

Is the cheapest bronze plan of Obamacare any different?

originally posted by: Aazadan

You already get to $1000 per month or $12,000 per year. At 18,000 the tax rates between city/state/local work out to about $3000 in taxes. So just right there, $12,000 in living expenses, $3000 in taxes, and $4000 in medical costs simply doesn't work at $18k income. Which is right back to why he has to stop working, then he can get a rent subsidy and have his medical expenses covered.

A person who make 18k pays 3k in local taxes, he needs to move...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes. It is. $200x12=$2400, just for the premiums. $695 is a far cry from $2400.

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes. It is. $200x12=$2400, just for the premiums. $695 is a far cry from $2400.

Don't you find it a little wrong that a young healthy person doesn't want to pay 2400 per year with about 6000 cost before the plan kicks in and is then charged with a 700 fee?

I do...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?

Imagine if everyone had worked together to make the ACA work.

What a concept.

I think the people who wanted to be involved were. It was written insurance companies for insurance companies.

And THAT is where it went off the rails. If we are going to make any health care affordable, the first step is gutting the insurance companies. THEY are the ones who profit from our bad luck.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?

Imagine if everyone had worked together to make the ACA work.

What a concept.

I think the people who wanted to be involved were. It was written insurance companies for insurance companies.

And THAT is where it went off the rails. If we are going to make any health care affordable, the first step is gutting the insurance companies. THEY are the ones who profit from our bad luck.

We are Capitalists. The right of America to make money off others.

I actually lean socialist. I don't fully support Capitalism. So, how does that work?

What is your solution to do as you suggest?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
A person who make 18k pays 3k in local taxes, he needs to move...

Federal/State/City combined.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Holy crap...So the GOP struggles for years to pass a bill ...and it is 100% for pandering purposes and will be immediately vetoed. How useless can one political party become?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xtrozero
A person who make 18k pays 3k in local taxes, he needs to move...

Federal/State/City combined.

Ok you first said city/state/local, but even with Fed with zero deduction on 18,000 it is 788 in taxes, what does the state charge?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Ok you first said city/state/local, but even with Fed with zero deduction on 18,000 it is 788 in taxes, what does the state charge?

Sorry for city/state/local I meant federal on one of those. It's what happens when posting late at night and half awake. It was an estimation on taxes, but federal with zero deductions on 18,000 is more than 788. You'll pay 10% on the first 9000ish which is 900 on it's own and then 15% on the remainder.

Here's the state which is actually quite reasonable in my opinion, his local taxes are higher than the state rates.
www.tax.ohio.gov...

originally posted by: Aazadan

Sorry for city/state/local I meant federal on one of those. It's what happens when posting late at night and half awake. It was an estimation on taxes, but federal with zero deductions on 18,000 is more than 788. You'll pay 10% on the first 9000ish which is 900 on it's own and then 15% on the remainder.

Here's the state which is actually quite reasonable in my opinion, his local taxes are higher than the state rates.
www.tax.ohio.gov...

No problem hehe I do it all the time. With Fed you get 10,000 single deduction so he would pay 10% tax on 8000, the tax table had 788, for state he would pay about 300 so a total of about 1200. My state is a little better it's tax is zero.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JDmOKI

Hey, I'm ALL for fixing the ACA. Let's do it! But repealing it? HA! If you think paying taxes for not having health insurance is bad? Just wait.

I know it would be bad at first, but I think the Health Insurance and Pharma Industry all together should be disbanded and forced out of business. It would cause prices to collapse when people do not have 200,000 dollars out of pocket for a procedure that costs 200 bucks in another country.

I'm not about those industries either, but forcing businesses out of business because you don't like them is anti-capitalistic in nature.

There are a lot of overpaid people in the industry that need to take a paycut in this globalist utopia.
I have an acquaintance making over 300K a year as a Pharma salesman 'selling' pills to doctors while gifting them at the same time. Nice gig when other people are paying for it. He is at the bottom of the totem pole, so imagine the millions execs make with other peoples money.

I work for a Pharmaceutical company and I don't make that much money. I'm in IT, but not everyone in this industry is making money hand over fist.

It is time to put an end to the outrageously overpriced and overpaid insurance and pharma thieves before we do anything else.

To be honest, universal health care would fix both of these problems. Health insurance could be for the people who can afford it and pharmaceuticals would be available to everyone for cheap (just like the rest of the world).

originally posted by: milom

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Well they at least tried to do what they promised during the last election. Even though it will not go anywhere, it's all on the democrats shoulders now.

This is also a snapshot of what a bernie sanders presidency will look like. Most of his bills will die in the other branches of government.

Snapshot of what a Ted Cruz presidency (or any of the other clown-car conservitard candidates for that matter) would look like too. We are too far gone as a nation to ever come together on anything. We should probably get a divorce.

The only thing the TP Repub's have done for 5 years is try to repeal the ACA. Not a single infrastructure bill, no movement on veterans care, suicide or homelessness, nada.

Give Jesus-land back to the Tea Party. They can be a bible-thumpin' third world Libertarian paradise on their own dime.

But then who would subsidize your ACA, the entire purpose of this argument? It seems you havent thought this one all the way through. Someday you libs will realize youre poor for a reason.

I'm not poor. I live in a prosperous purple state with both job and housing growth. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only good thing the ACA did was make it possible for those with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. That's still better than anything proposed by the GOP party-mouth in decades.

As far as thinking goes, we spend more per capita on Healthcare in this country than any other country in the world, and get results comparable to a central American kleptocracy. Clearly, there are efficiencies left to tap.

Also: the money comes from people who innovate and produce the products the world demands. It never comes from praying, being terrified of non-white people, shooting tin cans or installing garage doors.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, universal health care would fix both of these problems. Health insurance could be for the people who can afford it and pharmaceuticals would be available to everyone for cheap (just like the rest of the world).

I'm not sure about this part. Some one needs to pay for the development cost of medications and considering the failure rate it's something like 4 or 5 billion per drug. Then you have to consider that most diseases are relatively rare, you're only treating maybe 20k or in a high case 50k cases per year. And on top of that you have a limited amount of time on your patent. This creates a situation where you only have maybe 300,000 people that need to come up with the 5 billion to pay for a medication and that creates a high cost per treatment.

It seems to me that the only way to fix this is to get more countries to agree to use our drugs, but no individual country really has an incentive to do so. Why should they pay our drug company $500 per pill when they can domestically produce a knockoff for 10 cents per pill to cheaply treat their citizens?

My concern here is that the promise of cheap pharmaceuticals is going to end new drug development. If we don't pay per pill we're going to pay by more heavily subsidizing research and either results in the US paying the bulk of the cost for the world.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, universal health care would fix both of these problems. Health insurance could be for the people who can afford it and pharmaceuticals would be available to everyone for cheap (just like the rest of the world).

I'm not sure about this part. Some one needs to pay for the development cost of medications and considering the failure rate it's something like 4 or 5 billion per drug. Then you have to consider that most diseases are relatively rare, you're only treating maybe 20k or in a high case 50k cases per year. And on top of that you have a limited amount of time on your patent. This creates a situation where you only have maybe 300,000 people that need to come up with the 5 billion to pay for a medication and that creates a high cost per treatment.

It seems to me that the only way to fix this is to get more countries to agree to use our drugs, but no individual country really has an incentive to do so. Why should they pay our drug company $500 per pill when they can domestically produce a knockoff for 10 cents per pill to cheaply treat their citizens?

My concern here is that the promise of cheap pharmaceuticals is going to end new drug development. If we don't pay per pill we're going to pay by more heavily subsidizing research and either results in the US paying the bulk of the cost for the world.

You didn't hear? Wonder drugs are created by cute little elves and are free for everyone!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, universal health care would fix both of these problems. Health insurance could be for the people who can afford it and pharmaceuticals would be available to everyone for cheap (just like the rest of the world).

I'm not sure about this part. Some one needs to pay for the development cost of medications and considering the failure rate it's something like 4 or 5 billion per drug. Then you have to consider that most diseases are relatively rare, you're only treating maybe 20k or in a high case 50k cases per year. And on top of that you have a limited amount of time on your patent. This creates a situation where you only have maybe 300,000 people that need to come up with the 5 billion to pay for a medication and that creates a high cost per treatment.

I work in the pharmaceutical industry. We are already aware of such things. They are called Orphan Drugs and the government already subsidizes drug development if the drug you are researching is going to be used to treat an orphan disease.

It seems to me that the only way to fix this is to get more countries to agree to use our drugs, but no individual country really has an incentive to do so. Why should they pay our drug company $500 per pill when they can domestically produce a knockoff for 10 cents per pill to cheaply treat their citizens?

My concern here is that the promise of cheap pharmaceuticals is going to end new drug development. If we don't pay per pill we're going to pay by more heavily subsidizing research and either results in the US paying the bulk of the cost for the world.

Something needs to be done though. Prices are getting out of hand for prescription pills. If the industry cannot survive with an insane markup in one country to cover the low prices in every other country then there is something wrong with the way the industry is setup.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, universal health care would fix both of these problems. Health insurance could be for the people who can afford it and pharmaceuticals would be available to everyone for cheap (just like the rest of the world).

I'm not sure about this part. Some one needs to pay for the development cost of medications and considering the failure rate it's something like 4 or 5 billion per drug. Then you have to consider that most diseases are relatively rare, you're only treating maybe 20k or in a high case 50k cases per year. And on top of that you have a limited amount of time on your patent. This creates a situation where you only have maybe 300,000 people that need to come up with the 5 billion to pay for a medication and that creates a high cost per treatment.

I work in the pharmaceutical industry. We are already aware of such things. They are called Orphan Drugs and the government already subsidizes drug development if the drug you are researching is going to be used to treat an orphan disease.

It seems to me that the only way to fix this is to get more countries to agree to use our drugs, but no individual country really has an incentive to do so. Why should they pay our drug company $500 per pill when they can domestically produce a knockoff for 10 cents per pill to cheaply treat their citizens?

My concern here is that the promise of cheap pharmaceuticals is going to end new drug development. If we don't pay per pill we're going to pay by more heavily subsidizing research and either results in the US paying the bulk of the cost for the world.

Something needs to be done though. Prices are getting out of hand for prescription pills. If the industry cannot survive with an insane markup in one country to cover the low prices in every other country then there is something wrong with the way the industry is setup.

In order to bring down prices, you have to get other countries to pay their fair share. The problem is that the US is subsidizing everyone else. We spend the money to develop the wonder drug and in order to recoup the investment, we have to charge an inordinate amount to US consumers because the socialized countries are not paying their fair share.

In addition, government has to streamline the approval process AND reign in the bottom feeding lawyers looking for jackpot wins.

a reply to: Edumakated

Do you realize that Europe has its only regulatory department for drugs as well? Do you realize that drugs are developed in Europe as well?