3 million Californians insured under Obamacare - is "full repeal" realistic anymore?

[JohnR! 5,495]

That's why the Party of No has no real plan. There's no way out of their hard line stance that government involvement of healthcare can never work without involving public policy.

The interesting thing is that Obamacare has a lot of elements from a plan concocted by the GnOP... In fact, a lot of it is based on Romneycare which was good before it became part of Obamacare in which case it is bad.

[UncleBeer 244]

I hope the Dems running for re-election don't turn spineless and run from Obamacare this fall. They need to stick by it, run on it.

I couldn't agree more.

[Danno 1,228]

Repeal is nearly impossible, it died with Mits run for the white House.... even then the odds were not good.

-When you give people stuff..... especially a Promise of something grand......

it is very hard to take it away, nearly as hard as if they had worked for it.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Between social security and medicare and ACA, the federal government is basically an insurance company that does a bit of brokering on the side.

[Danno 1,228]

Between social security and medicare and ACA, the federal government is basically an insurance company that does a bit of brokering on the side.

But are they solvent?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Between social security and medicare and ACA, the federal government is basically an insurance company that does a bit of brokering on the side.

And poorly, I might add.

[UncleBeer 244]

-When you give people stuff..... especially a Promise of something grand......

it is very hard to take it away, nearly as hard as if they had worked for it.

Truer words were never spoken. Might as well call him "Santa Claus Hussein Obama".

I'm sure the bills will come due . . .... some day.

[Boiler 45,525]

But are they solvent?

Nope

California even less so

[mota bhai 2,675]

But are they solvent?

If you can print your own ballots, you'll never lose.

It's the same with printing your own money.

[Peikko 1,575]

Because the tax bill for health care for the uninsured is so very low in comparison

[mota bhai 2,675]

Because the tax bill for health care for the uninsured is so very low in comparison

What use is money if you are no longer free?

[Boiler 45,525]

10% of GDP?

Sounds quite a bit to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, now with Obamacare we get to stick it to the young and healthy. That's much more fair, right?

It was stuck to the young and healthy and everyone else that carried insurance all along. You make it sound like that's a new feature. It isn't. Only now those young and healthy and others that used to be free riders no longer get a free ride. Everyone's on the hook for health care. And that's exactly how it should be if everyone has a right to be treated in the ER regardless of the ability to pay.

[Boiler 45,525]

Most people who have signed up get Medicaid (free) or Obamacare heavily subsidized (mostly free).

[unsmiley 111]

It was stuck to the young and healthy and everyone else that carried insurance all along. You make it sound like that's a new feature. It isn't. Only now those young and healthy and others that used to be free riders no longer get a free ride. Everyone's on the hook for health care. And that's exactly how it should be if everyone has a right to be treated in the ER regardless of the ability to pay.

Nope. Absolutely incorrect.

The young and healthy previously had an option not to purchase, and therefore not subsidize, other's healthcare. This group by definition is the healthiest cohort and utilizes very little resources from our health care system. There was no "free ride" if they were not taking anything. Making them pay now is simply a new transfer of their money to the older (and hence less healthy) older citizens.

Additionally, everyone always has had - and continues to have - access to emergency treatment regardless of ability to pay. It is the law of the land, and it was enacted well before Obamacare.