Stonedtone

Tell that to the many that are now covered that could not be before because of preexisting conditions

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea

Just because some people now have insurance that they didn't have before, does not mean "it's working." A million things could possibly go wrong to screw up the entire system. Costs and premiums could skyrocket, making it difficult for the newly-insured people to afford that insurance. Or any number of other things.

I'm not saying it's not going to work (I have mixed feelings about it, personally). I'm just saying it's waaaay too early to judge whether it's going to be a success or not. Maybe it'll end up working more-or-less as advertised, or maybe there will be a thousand unintended consequences which will make the whole program unworkable. We just don't know yet, and the only way to find out is to wait several years to see what happens.

__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here

Stonedtone

again, there are many that see the system working very well. The millions of young people that are permitted to be on their parents plans and all the people that couldn't get coverage before because of preexisting conditions.

Xurtio

It doesn't particularly matter. As long as they're paying their fines they're contributing to the safety network.

The whole point was the health care was already a mess and costing the government a lot of money to manage haphazardly. Both dems and reps had their solutions (and they weren't functionally all that different really).

Fining people is one way to recoup costs from when those fined people go to the emergency room without a plan. They don't need to get a health insurance plan for ACA to work, they just need to pay their fines and the fines need to be sufficient to outweigh the costs of uninsured injuries.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Stonedtone

What was the Republican solutions again? They wanted to keep the obvious very failed system

Wpnfire

lol. The Republican plan was this: .............die.

__________________

Last.FM

My RYM Ratings

My Glitchwave Beta Profile

Xurtio

No, both sides recognized the financial problem and tried to address it. The Rep solution was built on a system lovingly called RomneyCare that was adopted by Mass.

Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

One of the criticisms I hear of it (I don't really know, because I'm not going to actually ever read either policy) is that it didn't cater to the filthy poors as much as Obamacare did.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Stonedtone

The GOP was very far from accepting Romney care. It is Obama care with more meat. How could they accept that and then try to repeal OC almost 50 times.

djchameleon

I think it's the other way around. Obamacare has more meat because it's on a larger scale.

The sentiment is still the same though, republicans didn't want anything close to Romneycare since it's essentially the same thing as the ACA but on a smaller scale.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Xurtio

Because of which party it comes from. The leaders of political parties often prefer rhetoric and power games to reason.

The GOP plan wasn't exactly Romneycare (which was a state-based initiative) but I'm pretty sure it was based on it (with some economic spins added by Paul Ryan). CNN (I think...) did a comparison of the two healthplans during the second debate, but I can't find it.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉