this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
560 points (83.3% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
758 readers
1078 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because the Dems let the GOP gut it to get it to pass. The ACA as it is now, and as it was passed back then, was not what we were promised, and we still haven't gotten the ACA we were promised.
In fact, Harris dropped support for M4A and didn't campaign on it, so is that an achievement too? The Dems giving up the fight before it even started? Like they did during this administration, literally bending over any time the GOP put up any kind of resistance to any of the Dems legislation?
The Dems let the Dems gut it. There wasn't a Republican that supported it. The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
I don't disagree. The original had more stuff in it that I liked.
True. The GOP rejected it for many stupid reasons.
This statement confuses me. Are you suggesting the Dems should have let the GOP gut it MORE? Are you suggesting the Dems should have dropped the legislation altogether to "keep the peace"? What are you saying the Dems could have done so "things are so fucked now"?
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn't deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol' whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.
...and...
The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering "make him a one term President" message from the GOP?
There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.
"make him a one term President"
There's always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
History doesn't support your statement.
Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn't passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn't find any.
There wasn't any, because of the move to block Republicans from the ACA. It's just like when the Democrats used the nuclear option for judges, it also bit them in the ass the second they were the minority party.
Wait, are you saying the the GOP only after the ACA passing on Democrat party line vote decided they would vote party line for every substantive legislative action?
Yes that was the original point. The ACA was the beginning of the extreme partisanship we've seen. It wouldn't be sunshine and rainbows if they had got some republicans on board, but it would have been less partisan.
The ACA was signed over a year after Obama had been in office. You should look at signed legislation from before the ACA. The hard GOP opposition was already there well before the ACA.
The negotiation started almost immediately though and the Republicans were told to fuck off. It was introduced in September of his first year, there wasn't anything else major in those first 8 months.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
What Obama signed with the ACA was far better than the situation before it.
Right, must be why I don't have health insurance via the ACA because it's unaffordable.
I make too much to qualify for actual help, but not enough to actually afford their awful health insurance plans with deductibles that negate the entire point of insurance to begin with.
And it's all about to be undone anyway, so let's keep singing the praises of the Democrat's least-failure in the last decade.
Which must be why the DNC has adopted "Progress is the enemy of our money."
Are you possibly living in a state where your GOP leadership refused to extend Medicaid which was part of the ACA? If so, you can't complain about what the ACA doesn't do for you if your state chose not to use it.
I live in a blue state in the Northeast, we went to Harris, and we've had a Democratic governor since at least the mid-2000s.
So am I allowed to complain?
Did you miss the "if so" in my post?
You're communicating you're making over $61k/year and saying you can't afford an ACA approved healthcare policy, correct?
I'm communicating I cannot afford ACA healthcare, you all keep throwing out the $61k/year salary. I did the math, even if I hadn't lost however much unpaid time off to depression this last year, the most I would have made between my salary and my disability was $58k.
When I put all of this information into my states ACA marketplace back in August of this year at the behest of my therapist, I was told I qualified for plans via subsidies, but made too much to just qualify for the state's plan.
The first plan I found that I felt was reasonable, reasonable, not good, just reasonable, was just under $400/month with the subsidy, didn't have my therapist in network, and still had a $6k+ deductible. The cheapest plan had a deductible over $10k, and cost around $260ish a month.
I can't afford that, I'm sorry, between my mortgage, my car, insurance, utilities, bills, food, gas, credit card debt, etc, I don't have an extra $260-$400 a month for health insurance. I just don't, I'm sorry, wish I was as financially astute as everyone else on here seems to be, so I guess just fuck me.
But I'm not, hence why I think the ACA being held aloft like some grand triumph is a joke, especially considering John Oliver even has a segment on the Medicaid gap, and how people who should be covered aren't due to a myriad of reasons.
Best health insurance I ever had was Tricare, which is literally what America should have, and is arguably one of the largest socialist programs in the US. We did single payer already, for the military, and it's amazing. The ACA are the crumbs the liberal elite felt we deserved, and I will never not be pissed about it when I've seen we know how to do it right.
I keep throwing that number out there because I don't have your specific info, and from the general info it looks like under $61k you should get subsidized, but you'd communicated you weren't. I'm also not asking you to disclose your private information on the public internet. I respect your privacy.
$10k deductible is usually considered "catastrophic" coverage. Its not supposed to be use to cover day to day health needs. It is designed for the young and generally healthy that don't consume lots of health care, but want to be covered if they have a catastrophic event that would otherwise cost them hundreds of thousands or millions in medical bills.
I'm sorry you are not benefiting from directly, but do you understand for many it has been a game changer for the better? Not every change is going to benefit each person equally. I'll be the first one to say the ACA is FAR from perfect, but compared to what we had before it was better and a step in the right direction.
I have only a little bit of knowledge of Tricare, but everyone I know that has it loves it. I'd be on board for that for everyone too. Does this mean you were in the military? I'm really beyond my knowledge now, but does that mean you would have VA health coverage (which I know has its own flaws)?
I didn't downvote you above, idk why anyone would, I didn't think you were being rude or anything.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't disagree that the ACA helped a lot of people. But it also left a lot of people out in the cold, and after over a decade of being told we should be happy we have it when it doesn't help us... It gets old, it's not what we were promised, and it hasn't been improved on, only ever on the chopping block.
A lot of my resentment comes from my disgust and utter disappointment with the DNC, which you can find plenty of examples of in my comment history (I did vote for Harris, begrudgingly, for harm reduction).
I don't remember every number, but that's another big part of the problem: I have an associates degree and have worked mostly blue collar jobs outside of the military. I'm not stupid, but I also don't have the energy or bandwidth to be a sudo-expert in everything society expects us to be: health insurance, retirement accounts, investing, budgeting, the law, etc.
I'm not a health insurance guru, I shouldn't need a degree in health coverage to work my way through these government websites and try to decipher all the jargon and legalese and what they mean by this and that. I understand there are services to assist people, but I've never had luck with my state outside of the DMV (and that's a nightmare too), and they're usually only offered during working hours with varying wait times.
And then not to add, I need to work, so when I do qualify for the state's insurance, I have it for a month at most because I can't afford to not work much longer than that. So it's dealing with every headache above, for assistance that you'll have to give up in a few weeks.
Again, I agree and am glad the ACA is helping people, but it's not the Progressive-Win that people online like to parade it around as. I was frustrated earlier (lots of that going around lately) and took some of it out on you, so for that, I apologize.
As for Tricare: it's amazing. You show up, and if the doctor says you need this med, you get that med, and it's free. If the doctor says you need a specialist, you're referred to the specialist. There's no middleman insurer bullshit who have a doctor who's going to "thoroughly" review your claim and medical history in 7 minutes and deny you. And it's free, it's paid for via our taxes, when you leave the doctor/pharmacy/hospital, there's no bill. No letter 8 months later saying you owe $9k cause the anesthesiologist was out of network, none of that.
I have access to the VA, but not all veterans do. You need to be rated a certain disability percentage (I think it's a minimum of 30%-60%) to have access to all VA healthcare, otherwise, you can really only be seen for your service connected disabilities. I am fortunate that I do qualify based on my percentage.
But like you said, there are downsides: many VA facilities are understaffed, under budgeted, and overburdened. The staff do great work for the most part, but they're approach can be more... Institutional. For example, I have depression, but I don't go to the VA for mental health and pay for a private therapist instead because I hate the VA mental health approach. They seemed entirely focused on you just not killing yourself: take this pill so you won't kill yourself, try this job so you won't kill yourself, here's a group to meet with so you won't kill yourself, we're committing you so you don't kill yourself, have you thought about killing yourself with all of this talk about killing yourself? Like, I have suicidal thoughts and a lot of veterans commit suicide so it's kinda their big PR focus, but for fuck's sake, it just bugs me...
There were no real decorations, just stone beige walls with maybe a plant here or there. You can't get at the root causes of the issue or build a rapport and a history with a therapist whose sole goal is to just keep you alive and make sure the meds are still working during a 30 minute appointment every 4+ months. All via telehealth (my therapist at least paints the walls behind her desk and has plants and it's bright and welcoming), so imagine how depressing it would feel in person. And that's not the individual doctor's fault, it's the VA not being staffed and funded properly with probably anti-fun decoration policies.
The VA also doesn't cover everything: I have VA healthcare, but I don't have access to their dental care because I'm not rated a high enough percentage and/or lack a dental disability. It's also not health insurance, so outside of certain ER visits, if you go to a private doctor without a VA referral, you're paying out of pocket.
So the VA is like the ACA: it helps a lot of people, but it's definitely nowhere near what we need. Tricare should be the end goal, single payer, and we shouldn't accept less than that next time (I'm assuming Trump and the GOP are going to repeal it finally, and I don't want excuses from the Dems next time that we have to reintroduce it as it is now and build from there).
No, this happens in states like MA/NY/Cali too.
"Who is eligible for health insurance subsidies?" source
Household size
If thats the case then @BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world is saying they make more than $61k/year and can't afford $264/month with a $6300 annual deductible?
Maybe you should look into what that bronze plan actually covers. if you have any real medical issues you're definitely losing of a minimum 15% of your income in just medical expenses. Never mind taxes, food, housing, transport, clothing, saving for retirement (which this hypothetical person almost certainly can't do on 61k). Never mind the idea of having your own place, a family, etc.
But I guess you think people should just work just so they can pay medical bills. :shrug:
Really? I haven't been rude to you yet in this conversation. Are you interested continuing in conversing together on the topic or your the strawman a requirement?
Never said you were rude. does pointing out the logical conclusion of the information you linked and how it related to my point upset you? it certainly should. it upsets me. Its why I pointed it out to you to begin with.
So exactly what were you trying to discuss with me in this thread. I was simply informing you that ACA is no legislative success even in wealthy and cooperative blue states.