The Health Care Subsidy Argument was Always a Lie...
...and that Obamacare Subsidies are a Complete and Utter Failure as Health Policy as they EXPLODE Health Care Costs (Up 30% this year). Just like Government Subsidized University Tuitions, it's inflation on steroids. The higher the subsidies, the more medical professionals can charge patients in a self-fulfilling pricing cycle prophesy of ever higher cost.
"Larger and ever-increasing subsidies will bring down healthcare costs," Democrats insist. @@
The Expiring Covid Era "Enhanced" Subsidies were always just a boondoggle to increase the original government subsidy amounts AND greatly expand the number of enrollees eligible for subsidies by doubling the Max qualifying Income level from $96k per year to $193k per year
Republican origins: The ACA was modeled on “Romneycare,” the health reform law passed in Massachusetts under Republican Governor Mitt Romney in 2006. That plan included an individual mandate, subsidies, and insurance exchanges — the same pillars later adopted nationally.
ReplyDeleteObama’s assumption: By proposing a Republican‑designed framework, President Obama expected bipartisan support. Instead, the ACA became a partisan battleground, with repeated repeal attempts despite its conservative pedigree.
Political inversion: What began as a Republican idea was reframed as “Obamacare” and attacked by Republicans, showing how political identity often overrides policy substance.
(Via Copilot).
Romney was a Never-Trump UniParty ally, Derv. Why do you think I (and many other Republicans) didn't vote for him in 2012? Mr. Hedge-fund was heavily invested in Medical Care company investor flipping schemes... like one the VP Joe Biden's brother pushed at the time Obamacare was being formed.
DeleteHedge funds and insurance company (exchange) middle-men made billions off Obamacare. They sucked up all the government Obamacare subsidies, and then some.
Americore Health, a for-profit healthcare company founded in 2016 in Lauderdale, Florida, acquired and managed rural hospitals in the United States. The company aimed to revitalize rural communities and emphasize preventative medicine. Americore encountered financial and legal difficulties, including lawsuits alleging financial misconduct and health violations, ultimately leading to bankruptcy. Grant White and James Biden were involved in the company's operations.
DeleteMitt Romney... the bain of American Healthcare.
DeleteI don't like that the ACA is based on a republican idea. What we need is a national health care program. First pushed by President Truman, 72 years ago.
DeleteVia Copilot...
⚖️ Why Removing Subsidies Wouldn’t Lower Prices.
...healthcare is one of the sectors where the “invisible hand” doesn’t work the way it does for, say, consumer electronics or groceries.
🔍 Why the Free Market Struggles in Healthcare.
Inelastic demand: People don’t shop around when they’re having a heart attack. Healthcare is often urgent and unavoidable, so demand doesn’t respond to price changes.
Opaque pricing: Unlike buying a phone or a car, patients rarely know the cost of care up front. Prices vary wildly between hospitals and insurers.
Market concentration: Many regions have only one or two hospital systems and insurers. That lack of competition means prices stay high.
Adverse selection: If subsidies are removed, healthy people may drop coverage, leaving insurers with a sicker pool. That drives premiums up, not down.
📊 Evidence from Other Countries.
Nations with national health systems (UK, Canada, France, Germany) spend far less per capita on healthcare than the U.S. while covering everyone.
The U.S. spends about double the OECD average per person, yet still leaves millions uninsured.
National systems achieve lower costs by pooling risk, negotiating drug prices, and eliminating profit‑driven middle layers.
[end]
The ACA is what we have and is better than nothing. Which is what you want. But getting rid of the ACA and replacing it with the "free market" won't work. Health savings accounts won't work either... as recently proposed by the moron donald trump. But, according to you, it is good that the country is being lead by a moron.
It might work if, like hiring a lawyer, you paid for the 'outcome' (health) and not all the services and procedures leading up to it. The incentive would lead to doctors providing or restoring physical health, not expensive, redundant and often unnecessary medical services.
DeleteInstead of insurance, I want to put my doctors on a retainer, and only pay a bill after my health has been restored.
That is a completely unworkable suggestion. A human body isn't like a car. You can hold you mechanic responsible if he doesn't fix your car's problems. You can only hold a doctor responsible when they are negligent. The reason is because we don't know everything about how the human body works. There is a lot of guessing based on what has worked in the past. This is something that (as an alleged smart person) you did not know?
DeleteThe law was devised by men. The human body was not. The two (medicine and the law) are not analogous. You'd need to be a special kind of stupid to not realize this.
lol! Is your brain the size of a pea? You thing barbers you to charge by the leech?
DeleteVia Copilot...
Delete📊 Current Doctor Shortage in the U.S.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) projects a national shortage of 57,000+ physicians in 2025, rising to over 81,000 by 2035.
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the U.S. could face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036.
Shortages are especially acute in primary care and rural areas, where access to doctors is already limited.
States like South Carolina report deficits of thousands of physicians, expected to persist for decades.
⚖️ Why Results‑Based Pay Could Worsen Shortages.
Uncertainty of outcomes: Doctors can’t control all factors — patient compliance, genetics, environment, and chance all affect results. Paying only for “success” would make medicine financially risky.
Avoidance of complex cases: Physicians might refuse to treat high‑risk patients (e.g., those with chronic illnesses) if their income depends on guaranteed outcomes.
Burnout and attrition: Medicine already faces high burnout rates. Adding financial penalties for outcomes beyond a doctor’s control could drive more doctors out of practice.
Deterrent to new entrants: Medical training is long and expensive. If the career path looks unstable or punitive, fewer people will choose it.
[end]
What does it say about a person's intelligence if all the "solutions" they think are awesome will quite clearly make everything much, much worse?
You are like donald trump in this regard, and he is obviously a complete moron @@
Remove DEI from Education and many less Med School students would drop out.
DeleteYou should ask Co-Pilot about what's good about the idea.
Put doctors to work restoring health instead of performing useless and redundant tests... just think how many would be freed up...
DeleteVia Copilot...
DeleteThat’s a provocative claim, and while it’s framed negatively toward DEI, we can still explore what someone might see as “good” about the idea, even if the reasoning is debatable.
🔍 Possible “Good” Aspects (from the commenter’s perspective).
Focus on academic rigor alone: Some critics argue that removing DEI initiatives would shift emphasis back to traditional academic metrics (grades, test scores) without additional considerations. They see this as ensuring that admitted students are “better prepared” and thus less likely to drop out.
Reduced administrative overhead: DEI programs require funding, staff, and institutional resources. Removing them could free up resources to be redirected toward tutoring, labs, or clinical training.
Perceived fairness: Opponents of DEI sometimes believe admissions should be “race-blind” or “identity-blind,” claiming this would create a meritocratic system where only academic performance matters.
Simplified admissions process: Without DEI considerations, admissions criteria might be more straightforward, which some argue reduces complexity and potential controversy.
⚠️ Important Counterpoints.
Evidence doesn’t support the claim: Research often shows that DEI programs help students from underrepresented backgrounds succeed by providing mentorship, community, and support systems. Removing them could actually increase dropout rates, not reduce them.
Medical field diversity matters: Diverse medical professionals improve patient outcomes, especially in underserved communities. Removing DEI could harm long-term healthcare equity.
Dropout causes are multifactorial: Students leave medical school for financial, personal, or academic reasons. DEI programs often address these challenges rather than cause them.
🧩 How to read this comment.
The “good” about the idea is really about simplicity, resource reallocation, and a narrow definition of merit. But the claim that it would reduce dropouts is speculative and not backed by strong evidence. In fact, many institutions argue the opposite: DEI initiatives reduce attrition by supporting students who might otherwise struggle in environments not designed for them.
So, the “good” here is less about actual outcomes and more about the values behind the critique — efficiency, meritocracy, and resource focus. But whether those values translate into fewer dropouts is highly questionable.
[End]
Me: You say dropout rates would increase, but I think his argument is that people who are not enrolled can't drop out.
DeleteCopilot: Ah, yes — you’ve caught the rhetorical sleight of hand in that comment. It’s not really about reducing dropout rates by supporting students, but about redefining the denominator:
🧩 The logic of “no enrollment, no dropout”.
Exclusion as prevention: If fewer students are admitted (because DEI programs are removed), then fewer students are present to potentially drop out. By shrinking the pool, the raw number of dropouts decreases — but only because opportunity was denied at the front end.
Numerical trick: It’s like saying “if we don’t let anyone onto the bus, then nobody will get off early.” True in a narrow sense, but misleading in terms of access and fairness.
Hidden premise: The argument assumes that students admitted through DEI initiatives are more likely to drop out, so excluding them “solves” the dropout problem. That’s a claim that would need evidence, and in practice DEI programs often reduce attrition by providing support.
🎭 Why this is rhetorical spectacle.
It reframes exclusion as a kind of “success metric.”
It uses the illusion of efficiency: fewer dropouts look like improvement, but it’s achieved by narrowing opportunity rather than increasing success.
It’s a ceremonial inversion: turning absence into proof of strength. The dropout rate is lowered not by helping students thrive, but by ensuring they never enter.
⚖️ The deeper tension.
Meritocracy vs. equity: Critics of DEI often argue that admissions should be purely merit-based, even if that means fewer students from underrepresented backgrounds.
Access vs. attrition: Supporters of DEI argue that broadening access and providing support creates more doctors overall, even if some face challenges along the way.
So yes — the commenter’s “good” spin is that non-enrollment eliminates the possibility of dropout. But that’s a hollow victory: it reduces attrition by reducing opportunity, not by increasing success.
[End]
Affirmative Action places Black at colleges that are ill matched to their abilities. Proof.
DeleteThanks neoracist liberals!
ps - "Not enrolled" = dropped out.
Deletepps - It took me 4 years to get my undergrad degree (and I spent 1 of those 4 years at sea). It took me 1 year to earn my graduate degree from USC (while also working full time for Bethlehem Steel). The chart linked to was after 6 years pursuit of a degree.
DeleteThe Country is Closed, and due to Cucky Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and a few other Lefties the ENTIRE Country coming unglued and unhinged
ReplyDeleteThe so-called “Party of Compassion, the Party of the People, and the Party of the Progressives” those leftist Radicals just proved once again that it’s willing to punish the American people to protect a failed political monument, Obamacare. The Democrats’ decision to shut down the government wasn’t about healthcare, fairness, or compassion. It was about power, control, and forcing a radical agenda down the throats of taxpayers who are already struggling to stay afloat.
I'm going to give you a case study from this morning. Lefty is becoming unhinged. Lefty does not like that the border has been closed, and Lefty does not want to hear that our economic problems are mainly due to 37 trillion dollars of debt, and the bill has come due, poor government policies, and a wide open border for decades. You can't reason with Lefty any longer, they listen to nothing that the right says, they present almost no logical arguments, and are great at calling names like "Nazi's, or Hitler"
For weeks, 40 long days and nights, Americans faced needless pain, paychecks delayed, essential services suspended, and uncertainty spreading through every corner of the country, all because Democrats refused to pass a funding bill unless their sacred cow, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), got another infusion of taxpayer cash.
The “Affordable” Healthcare Act That Never Was
Let’s stop pretending the ACA was ever “affordable.” From day one, the numbers didn’t add up. Families watched their premiums skyrocket, their deductibles soar, and their supposed “coverage” vanish behind layers of bureaucratic red tape. Millions of Americans poured millions of dollars into a system designed to never let them reach their deductible caps, while politicians patted themselves on the back for “reforming healthcare.