Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, what a tool. I'm sure I seem like a creature from another dimension considering my current residency is reality.
Or ignorance.
Please share with me how a plan which will leave 30,000,000 uninsured, equates to winners, and tell me how giving people $7500 subsidies, will reduce the deficit..
The working poor who couldn't afford healthcare previously, but can now due to subsidies.
Those poor folks who will specifically benefit from Medicaid expansions.
Those who were previously unable to access or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions.
Those who were previously unable to access or afford health insurance due to lifetime caps.
ACA critics work very hard to blind themselves, and perhaps others, to the fact that ACA is actually going to serve up very important, valuable benefits, in terms of reducing the human costs of our nation's previous healthcare system. I suspect that they do so because they only really care about themselves, and couldn't care less about others; and refusing to acknowledge the high human cost paid today by other people, who they would rather ignore rather than show human compassion toward, serves their avaricious interests.
In the end, and even though ACA critics will deny it and vacuously beat their chests in protest, it really comes down to human values: If all you value is your own money, then you're going to (literally) hate ACA. If you have a health balance of consideration of your own comfort and luxury with other people's basic needs, then you're going to support ACA.
We only see that your post which is full of baseless rhetoric demonstrates how blind ACA cheerleaders are.
If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" the ACA is a disaster to you. It emboldens the large insurance companies to raise premiums.
Your allegiance to Obama and inner hatred toward the tea party blind you to the terrible damage ACA has begun to do and will continur to do to our healthcare system.
Ask the Blue Dogs and the Republicans. I bet that radical leftists would approve your amendment as friendly.
And this is key: We live in community with others. What happens here must necessarily be a compromise between groups that very explicitly have different goals. That's not going to change just because you or anyone has inadequate patience or capacity for the ramifications of consensus, one of which is not being able to do the "best" thing because too many rich, powerful people benefit from not doing the "best" thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torpedos
If I don't fit in one of those catagories, then don't involve me.
I don't think you made a complete thought, there, but if I understand what you were trying to say, it is that the government should just cover those needs by forcing service providers to deliver service without any means of covering the costs of that mandate, bearing the entire burden of the cost of societal obligations themselves instead of doing the right thing, having society bear the cost of societal obligations. It sounds like all you care about is your own comfort and luxury, and care not at all about the human costs I mentioned earlier, or the other costs that myopic consideration of only one's own comfort and luxury may have on others and on the system as a whole.
Ask the Blue Dogs and the Republicans. I bet that radical leftists would approve your amendment as friendly.
And this is key: We live in community with others. What happens here must necessarily be a compromise between groups that very explicitly have different goals. That's not going to change just because you or anyone has inadequate patience or capacity for the ramifications of consensus, one of which is not being able to do the "best" thing, because too many people benefit from not doing the "best" thing.
I don't think you made a complete thought, there, but if I understand what you were trying to say is that the government should just cover those needs by forcing service providers to deliver service without any means of covering the costs of that mandate, bearing the entire burden of the cost of societal obligations themselves instead of doing the right thing, having society bear the cost of societal obligations. It sounds like all your care about is your own comfort and luxury, and care not at all about the human costs I mentioned earlier, or the other costs that myopic consideration of only your own comfort and luxury may have on others and on the system as a whole.
How do you not realize ACA moved healthinsurance further from single payer and closer to crony capitalism?
How do you not realize ACA moved healthinsurance further from single payer and closer to crony capitalism?
Asking a question that assumes as a premise the conclusion you're trying to prove demonstrates that you realize that your point has no merit. Thanks for making the deception you were attempting to perpetrate so easy to call-out.
Please share with me how a plan which will leave 30,000,000 uninsured, equates to winners, and tell me how giving people $7500 subsidies, will reduce the deficit..
Asking a question that assumes as a premise the conclusion you're trying to prove demonstrates that you realize that your point has no merit. Thanks for making the deception you were attempting to perpetrate so easy to call-out.
No it just demonstrates you have no idea what the ACA does.
Did you read it cover to cover? I do not think so.
Why do you think waivers are getting handed out to all of Obama's cronies like candy on Halloween?
No it just demonstrates you have no idea what the ACA does.
A comment that shows that you're so desperate to defend your ridiculously vacuous perspective that you'll say anything you think might dupe at least one reader into believing your nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
Did you read it cover to cover? I do not think so.
I'm sure I read far more of it than you did. However, what's really important is how your desperation is showing with these rather lame attempts to go off on tangents instead of admitting the core of what I said. I'll repeat it for you here, so you can make your desperation even clearer as you try to dodge and weave perspectives that are superior to yours that you have no ability to refute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The biggest winners are:
The working poor who couldn't afford healthcare previously, but can now due to subsidies.
Those poor folks who will specifically benefit from Medicaid expansions.
Those who were previously unable to access or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions.
Those who were previously unable to access or afford health insurance due to lifetime caps.
ACA critics work very hard to blind themselves, and perhaps others, to the fact that ACA is actually going to serve up very important, valuable benefits, in terms of reducing the human costs of our nation's previous healthcare system. I suspect that they do so because they only really care about themselves, and couldn't care less about others; and refusing to acknowledge the high human cost paid today by other people, who they would rather ignore rather than show human compassion toward, serves their avaricious interests.
In the end, and even though ACA critics will deny it and vacuously beat their chests in protest, it really comes down to human values: If all you value is your own money, then you're going to (literally) hate ACA. If you have a healthy balance of consideration of your own comfort and luxury with other people's basic needs, then you're going to support ACA.
Wow... I even predicted toward the end of my message your inane attempts to rationalize. But heck, everyone deserves a second (or tenth) chance... Post something in response to this that demonstrates that you understand the meaning of the term "human costs" and can appreciate the gravity of those human costs by those who have been paying them. Please include in your reply some compassion for those less fortunate.
those with pre-existing conditions, the uninsured,
Is that some kind of joke? The pre-existing condition provision is irrelevant because you have to buy insurance which is how insurance works to begin with. You can't be denied insurance if you already have it to begin with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
