In 2010, GOP Leadership Was In Favor Of Defunding ObamaCare (salaries, healthcare, how much)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by JimRom

I don't know a single individual who lives on Social Security.

I do. I guess that's part of the issue: The more different types of people you know, the more you understand the totality of America and the challenges that different Americans face. If you know a narrower range of people, then your exposure to the challenges will, naturally, be narrower.

Originally Posted by JimRom

I've noticed something with you, bUU. Every time someone argues against the ACA - and let's face it, there are plenty of problems with the ACA that deserve to be criticized - you bring up this whole selfishness perspective and dismiss the valid points of criticism.

I actually don't dismiss the valid points of criticism. For example, I practically always remain silent when people who support single-payer attack ACA, for example. I think part of the problem is that a lot of what you post are criticisms of ACA that miss the point of ACA, that deny the point of ACA, and/or that rely on your own personal prioritization of considerations in order to be significant and valid. For example, you clearly think that ACA was intended to make healthcare more affordable for you personally. I assure you your name is not in the legislation. The reality is that far more people will be able to afford healthcare under ACA than were able to afford healthcare prior to ACA. Until you can realize that and admit it, you're going to be unable to understand my comments.

But rest assured, if you come up with what I recognize is a truly legitimate criticism of ACA, I will not object to it.

Can we stop with the meta-discussion now?

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by bUU

Tell that to the folks who live on Social Security and rely on Medicare. I think that's really the issue: Your perspective fails to exhibit adequate caring about those who aren't in your position. It's apparently focused only on what's good for you and you alone, and doesn't actually express any superior approach, except from the standpoint of folks worried about affording that third television, or that more luxurious vacation.

You are making wild assumptions that are totally in left field regarding my financial status, which is far from ideal. But that aside .... these folks who must rely on programs like Medicare and Social Security must do so because of the factors created by these socialist programs and policies to begin with, and the tremendous amounts of wealth extracted from these people all their working lives in the form of taxes to pay for these ponzi schemes, and the associated loss of purchasing power due to inflation rooted in allowing government to tax and spend without limits.

What you dense bulbs don't understand is that these "programs" sold to the public as "social safety nets" serve a far different purpose than advertised. They provide the mechanism for wealth extraction on massive scales, funneling huge pools of money into the treasury which is then spent on whatever these corrupt bureaucrats decide to spend it on. Social Security being a classic example, as there is no "trust fund" holding SS funds collected ... every dollar collected goes straight into the general fund. Given that the government is operating in the red to the tune of 16 to 32 Trillion dollars (depending on who you trust), means that every dollar being paid out to provide these "benefits" must be borrowed from the Federal Reserve, adding to the national debt, and causing further inflation, which is a hidden tax, because inflation destroys the value of every dollar you have accumulated all of your life. The underlying reality here is that if the money needed to fund these programs must be borrowed ... where did the money go that was collected under the guise of Social Security payroll taxes? It went to fund whatever ill conceived program that these bribe takers in congress decided to spend it on ... be that Billions to Israel to build houses on the West Bank, to Billions in bail outs to Goldman Sachs, and a thousand other things having nothing to do with Grandma's Medicare or SS Check.

And speaking of the disaster that is Medicare .... the unbridled corruption in the Medicare system alone is cause enough to reject any further travel down such disastrous paths by allowing ObamaCare to take over. The entire premise of "health insurance" has been so perverted, that it is failure by design. The entire purpose of our modern day health insurance "scheme" has ONE PURPOSE .... to build a massive pool of funds to be tapped into by the health care industry at such extraordinary levels that no person could possibly afford individually. This is precisely what has allowed healthcare costs to skyrocket over the past few decades at rates exponentially greater than inflation, and exceeding by orders of magnitude any other industry, bar none. This explains why a week's stay in an average hospital cost more than a week's stay in the Penthouse Suite of a 5 Star Greek Isle Resort, with a private doctor to wait on you hand and foot. If individuals had to pay for this out of pocket .... no one could possibly afford such outrageous charges, and consequently, those fees would be restrained to what people could actually afford, just like everything else we buy. Of course, it's much easier to jack the price up on an aspirin tablet to $50, when the patient isn't on the hook for writing that check. Ask yourself if YOU would personally agree to pay Mercy General $200 for the four aspirins they gave you? Of course you wouldn't ... but you couldn't care less, since it's covered by "insurance". The bottom line here is health insurance is an insurance policy to the healthcare industry to provide huge bank accounts of money to which they can basically write their own checks, and has no interest in taking care of you. You are nothing to this system other than a human cow to be milked for every last drop they can extract out of you .... nothing else.

The gross lack of understanding of how this whole scheme works just shows how unsophisticated the general public is intellectually, and how easy it is to not only rob them blind .. but convince them to demand it and celebrate the theft. Much of that lack of thinking can be attributed to the greed and selfishness you're trying to assign me and those speaking out against this wholesale robbery of the public, when it is the likes of you and your ilk whose spines tingle with anticipation at the promise of any socialist freebie, willing to follow anyone off a cliff who promises you one. The big error here is that NOTHING is free ... and these promises are just bait for the intellectual midgets who are such easy prey for the beast whose sole goal is to consume them like a thanksgiving turkey.

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by bUU

I do. I guess that's part of the issue: The more different types of people you know, the more you understand the totality of America and the challenges that different Americans face. If you know a narrower range of people, then your exposure to the challenges will, naturally, be narrower.

I actually don't dismiss the valid points of criticism. For example, I practically always remain silent when people who support single-payer attack ACA, for example. I think part of the problem is that a lot of what you post are criticisms of ACA that miss the point of ACA, that deny the point of ACA, and/or that rely on your own personal prioritization of considerations in order to be significant and valid. For example, you clearly think that ACA was intended to make healthcare more affordable for you personally. I assure you your name is not in the legislation. The reality is that far more people will be able to afford healthcare under ACA than were able to afford healthcare prior to ACA. Until you can realize that and admit it, you're going to be unable to understand my comments.

But rest assured, if you come up with what I recognize is a truly legitimate criticism of ACA, I will not object to it.

Can we stop with the meta-discussion now?

No, I actually think the ACA should have made healthcare more affordable across the board. Remember, it's the "Affordable" Care Act. I used myself as an example in order to illustrate that you don't have to be living a luxurious lifestyle in order for insurance costs to drastically change your financial situation. That is a legitimate criticism of the ACA, it's just one that you don't have a valid answer for and therefore deflect with claims of selfishness.

[Cavaturaccioli]

Hey, they passed it without a single Republican vote. Let 'em fund it without a single Republican vote.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Swingblade

What I find absurd with the {R} argument is the part of gvt taking over health care, too me that would be single payer. What we have coming with Obamacare is
everyone has to purchase HC insurance from the private sector. But they are half right when you consider that those who can not afford get Medicade. Sometimes I wonder if there is just fake outrage considering the {R}s like the private sector in some cases taking over what the gvt does.

The problem with ObamaCare is that you and I can no longer sit down at the table with an insurance provider and agree on a health care policy that we both want. It might be a policy, that I might find perfect for me for the next 30 years, but ObamaCare can make it illegal for the insurance company to sell it to me, and punish me with fines, imprisonment or both, if i buy it.

The type of government we are slowly getting, is one that decides which products and services we can buy, or can be manufactured, and which may not. This is essentially making it illegal for anyone to manufacture or sell products and services we want, because some bureaucrat is deciding what they think we should be allowed to have.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by JimRom

No, I actually think the ACA should have made healthcare more affordable across the board. Remember, it's the "Affordable" Care Act. I used myself as an example in order to illustrate that you don't have to be living a luxurious lifestyle in order for insurance costs to drastically change your financial situation. That is a legitimate criticism of the ACA, it's just one that you don't have a valid answer for and therefore deflect with claims of selfishness.

Premiums Climbed $2,976 Since 2009, Despite Obama's Vow Of $2,500 Cut - Investors.com

And while annual premium increases have moderated over the past two years, that's due to trends in the insurance market largely unrelated to ObamaCare, and trends the law could actually reverse.

The Kaiser survey found that the average family premium this year is $16,351, up 4% over last year, and up 22% since 2009. After adjusting for inflation, premiums climbed an average 3.2% a year in Obama's first term, higher than the 2.7% average during President Bush's last four years in office

[bUU]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

You are making wild assumptions that are totally in left field regarding my financial status, which is far from ideal.

The only assumption I made in the quoted comments was that there were people in this country who are poorer than you. You've already made comments that make clear that you're not the poorest person in the nation.

If you think I made any assumptions beyond that in the quoted comments, then reread them, because you clearly misread them.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But that aside .... these folks who must rely on programs like Medicare and Social Security must do so because of the factors created by

... the structural impediments in our economy that precludes everyone willing to work from having a living wage job. ... the doubling of economic inequality in the last generation, a reflection of egoistic right-wing greed-mongering. And so on.

Want to try again?

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

and these promises are just bait for the intellectual midgets

Your self-motivated worry about the "intellectual midgets" apparently prevents you from realizing the legitimate concerns about "morality midgets".

The rest of your comments just provided resounding proof of my earlier characterizations of your rhetoric. I guess you didn't realize what you were typing.

Originally Posted by JimRom

No, I actually think the ACA should have made healthcare more affordable across the board.

But what you think should have happened doesn't change what actually happened.

Your desires don't automatically become reality. No one's does. Why would you ever assume that it would?

Originally Posted by JimRom

Remember, it's the "Affordable" Care Act.

And it shall indeed make healthcare affordable for more people. We already went through this. Did you simply not read what you replied to?

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by bUU

The only assumption I made in the quoted comments was that there were people in this country who are poorer than you. You've already made comments that make clear that you're not the poorest person in the nation.

If you think I made any assumptions beyond that in the quoted comments, then reread them, because you clearly misread them.

... the structural impediments in our economy that precludes everyone willing to work from having a living wage job. ... the doubling of economic inequality in the last generation, a reflection of egoistic right-wing greed-mongering. And so on.

Want to try again?

Your self-motivated worry about the "intellectual midgets" apparently prevents you from realizing the legitimate concerns about "morality midgets".

The rest of your comments just provided resounding proof of my earlier characterizations of your rhetoric. I guess you didn't realize what you were typing.

But what you think should have happened doesn't change what actually happened.

Your desires don't automatically become reality. No one's does. Why would you ever assume that it would?

And it shall indeed make healthcare affordable for more people. We already went through this. Did you simply not read what you replied to?

I'm not sure why I thought you would actually address the topic. Deflection is your mainstay, but I had hoped you would at least attempt to address the valid complaint that many people are going to be facing higher premiums without resorting to the "selfish" argument as you usually do. Not the first time my hopes for intelligent discourse on this board have been dashed.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by bUU

And it shall indeed make healthcare affordable for more people. We already went through this. Did you simply not read what you replied to?

There are a few people who see lower costs, but the vast majority of people will see increased costs, especially the healthy young people, who traditionally paid the lowest health care premiums in the past.

Most all of ObamaCare could have been replaced with a small 10 page law to allow people with preexisting conditions to receive health care insurance. We already had Medicaid and SCHIP and other state run health care plans to insure the poor. all we needed was a small tweak to the laws, and then go on to address the root causes of our rising health care costs, not a bloated, intrusive behemoth of a disaster called the Affordable Care Act.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by JimRom

I'm not sure why I thought you would actually address the topic.

I addressed the topic as much as the message I was replying to did. Perhaps you need a mirror.

Originally Posted by JimRom

Deflection is your mainstay

No: Deflection is your mainstay.

Are we done with the nonsensical meta-discussion now?

Originally Posted by JimRom

I had hoped you would at least attempt to address the valid complaint that many people are going to be facing higher premiums without resorting to the "selfish" argument as you usually do.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit that putting one's personal comfort and luxury so much higher than someone else's basic needs of life is a gross, immoral denial of basic human decency.

Sorry, Jim, but that prioritization you're advocating is immoral. It is. That's not a deflection. It's the actual issue, which you continually refuse to accept, despite me having explained it to you myriad ways.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the immorality of the prioritization you advocate for doesn't actually make it not a point. It just is a testament to your refusal, period.

Originally Posted by OICU812

There are a few people who see lower costs, but the vast majority of people will see increased costs

As someone made a point of earlier, it is the "Affordable" Care Act. It is not the "lower costs" Care Act. More people shall be able to afford healthcare this way as compared to the old way.

Originally Posted by OICU812

Most all of ObamaCare could have been replaced with a small 10 page law to allow people with preexisting conditions to receive health care insurance.

Don't forget banning lifetime caps.

And you're wrong, because such a change would have been ripped by right-wingers, moderates and even some left-wingers as an unfair burden placed on business, since it would be an overwhelmingly large unfunded mandate. I'm not going to argue their position - my point here is that you're putting forward nonsense. No reasonable argument can be made to support the sentence you typed there.