Jump to content

Why ObamaCare is not popular

Rate this topic


zybathegeek

Recommended Posts

This chart indicates why young people 27+ are not signing up for ObamaCare. The chart speaks for the reasons why.

 

 

1739927

 

 

Seniors are not impressed either...

 

 

1739928

 

 

 

Obamacare is certainly not popular amongst the general population as well.

 

Is it because we are too stupid to know what is good for us?

 

 

1739930

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is the Heritage Foundations solution for health care in the USA and now they are pretending that they never had anything to do with it.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is the Heritage Foundations solution for health care in the USA and now they are pretending that they never had anything to do with it.

 

Finish your sentence please.

 

While parts of Heritage Foundation form the basis of the Frankenstein bill known as ObamaCare, the rest is pure Democrat wishlist, gerrymandering, and ideological input. They own it.

 

Now the worst is happening, the very people needed by Obamacare to survive - the young contributors - are avoiding this like the plague, no amount of rhetoric will save it.

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finish your sentence please.

 

While parts of Heritage Foundation form the basis of the Frankenstein bill known as ObamaCare, the rest is pure Democrat wishlist, gerrymandering, and ideological input. They own it.

 

Now the worst is happening, the very people needed by Obamacare to survive - the young contributors - are avoiding this like the plague, no amount of rhetoric will save it.

 

Young people don't ever think they will get sick. The simple point is that the key to Obamacare’s success isn’t getting young people to sign up. It’s getting healthy people to sign up.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young people don't ever think they will get sick. The simple point is that the key to Obamacare’s success isn’t getting young people to sign up. It’s getting healthy people to sign up.

 

Best you do some research on age related health actuarial tables, before spending more time defending this financial fiasco.

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aca is not about reducing the overall costs of healthcare, it is about means testing and subsidies.

 

It does nothing to help some folks, if anything it hurts them, my policy went up >$600 for this year, which is about a typical increase.

 

A single payer would have reduced overall health care costs. Obamacare is a reward to private enterprise.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single payer would have reduced overall health care costs. Obamacare is a reward to private enterprise.

 

so would many other things.

 

Competition, for example.

 

Or the consumer being forced to shop and pay attention to price, for example.

 

Single payer is the "its lower because I say its lower approach". It also leads to reduced quality and rationing via committee (as opposed to rationing via the choices of the individual being served).

 

"Single payer would reduce costs" is similar to saying "staying home cuts travel expenses". True, but not useful.

I won't tolerate your intolerance, because I hate hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single payer would have reduced overall health care costs. Obamacare is a reward to private enterprise.

 

Yes it would. It has been proven. A single payer system is cheaper and the rationed healthcare is why. So if, as a first-world country, we want to go backward and get a fraction of the care we have now, we should move to a single payer system.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aca is not about reducing the overall costs of healthcare, it is about means testing and subsidies.

 

It does nothing to help some folks, if anything it hurts them, my policy went up >$600 for this year, which is about a typical increase.

 

Why is it named the Affordable Care Act if the intention was not to reduce overall costs? So what you're saying is that "affordable" really means "redistribution"

 

Lying bastages.

America, the country so great that even its haters refuse to leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it named the Affordable Care Act if the intention was not to reduce overall costs? So what you're saying is that "affordable" really means "redistribution"

 

Lying bastages.

 

Under Obamacare, your income (can afford) and age (young are healthy) have a big affect on the amount of money you pay for a comprehensive policy. So for most people making $75K a year their pricing structure won't change unless they were buying one of those catastrophic policies where they only thought everything was covered.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would. It has been proven. A single payer system is cheaper and the rationed healthcare is why. So if, as a first-world country, we want to go backward and get a fraction of the care we have now, we should move to a single payer system.

 

Medicare is a great system. Ask your parents.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so would many other things.

 

Competition, for example.

 

Or the consumer being forced to shop and pay attention to price, for example.

 

Single payer is the "its lower because I say its lower approach". It also leads to reduced quality and rationing via committee (as opposed to rationing via the choices of the individual being served).

 

"Single payer would reduce costs" is similar to saying "staying home cuts travel expenses". True, but not useful.

 

That is pure BS. Medicare is a great health care program.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for the life of me don't understand why some people not only feel it's acceptable, but almost embrace, having the government tell them which type of health insurance they should carry. Can you not think for yourself, and if you can't, is it too much to ask that you stay the **** out of the business of people, like me, who can?

#otterlivesmatter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...