Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: afraidfortherepublic

Why must there now be an Obamacare “replacement” instead of a flat-out repeal? Socialist b@stards.


4 posted on 11/01/2015 9:50:04 AM PST by peyton randolph (I am not a number. I am a free man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: peyton randolph

Because “repeal” leaves the country with NO health system besides cash on the barrel head. Most of the health insurers have already gone out of business.


7 posted on 11/01/2015 9:55:01 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

Why must there now be an Obamacare “replacement” instead of a flat-out repeal? Socialist b@stards.


why? Because the liberals and the media have decided that the old status quo was unacceptable. Tens of millions uninsured and all that; we can’t go back to that, say the liberals.

This issue is a good example where the liberals and the media are setting the terms of the debate; setting up the parameters of what should happen. They have decided that we can’t just repeal Obamacare and start over. Instead, if anything happens, it needs to enhance or deal with aspects of healthcare which Obamacare didn’t adequately address.

The unanswered question here is, how could there be any problems with Obamacare, when the big Dem. majority in both houses of Congress at the time rammed this through? In their wisdom, did they create a program with flaws?? Good Democrats passed legislation which caused unforeseen consequences???/ Nancy P. is this true????? Say it ain’t so......


8 posted on 11/01/2015 9:55:43 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

The part of Obamacare that should be rescinded and illegalized is the MANDATORY nature of the provisions.

Hell, if people want to spend twice or three times as much for the delivery of medical services, then they should be given the opportunity. But almost nobody does choose this option.

For the rest of us, poor old dummies we are, let us muddle through and buy medical services just like any other services provided for a fee to the public. And if you don’t want to use them, then the burden of paying for something you cannot and probably never will use should not be falling upon you, but onto the other guy over there who needs a sharp lesson on the credo of “you get what you pay for”.

“Opting out” is also a form of dealing with medical expenses. You or some member of your family may die because of refused services, but the chances of survival under long extended wait times for delivery of services, or inadequate services delivered, tend to diminish pretty sharply too.


28 posted on 11/01/2015 10:33:54 AM PST by alloysteel (Do not argue with trolls. That means they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: peyton randolph

yeah a chickem in every pot


59 posted on 11/01/2015 5:12:11 PM PST by ronnie raygun (better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson