ObamaCare is the single greatest act of terrorism ever perpetrated upon the American public (Harry Reid, generation)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

the way this thing seems to playing out is a lot of benefits for those that can't afford insurance at the expense of those that can. The only thing "affordable" about this thing is if your poor.

I suspect you don't realize that your statements are internally contradictory. You correctly imply, in the first sentence, that the second group of people you're talking about "can" afford insurance. That remains true even with price increases, since if not, then those folks would find themselves qualifying as part of the first group, i.e., the "poor", for which in your second sentence you acknowledge ACA establishes the parameters of affordability.

I'm parsing your comment very deliberately, to show that what's going on in your rhetoric is a ridiculous deception - perhaps self-deception - about ACA. ACA is intended to make health coverage affordable for many of those who previously could not afford healthcare. That's what it is supposed to do, and indeed that's what it does, reducing the number of people who cannot afford healthcare from 55 million down to 30 million. Note how I used the word "afford" consistently, while you used it inconsistently. That inconsistent use of the word in your comment is the deception/self-deception I referred to. Just because something costs you personally more money doesn't mean it is no longer "affordable". As long as you have enough money to pay for all the essentials of life, including health coverage under ACA, then it is affordable, by definition. Many critics of ACA try to dupe themselves or others into believing otherwise on the strength of the fact that some people have to cut their spending on non-essentials to still afford the essentials, but the fact is that under that circumstance the essentials are still affordable. Which, again, was ACA's intention.

Now: Why is affordability of the essentials of life more important than one's discretionary spending? Well, if you find yourself asking that question, I fear that there may be no way to help you understand the answer. Concepts such as the inherent priority of essentials over non-essentials are axioms - things people know instinctively based on the most basic, logical foundations.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

It doesn't fix the fundamental issue which is cost.

Which is why it wasn't called the Low-cost Care Act. Its intention is to increase how many people can afford health coverage. The inability to afford healthcare is an overriding concern. Inadequate healthcare poses severe risks. By contrast, having to buy a less expensive television or make one's vacations a little less extravagant don't carry comparable risks. Affordability is the first priority. Once society's has secured affordable access to health coverage for basically everyone, then it makes sense to start working on lesser priorities, like cutting costs, in precisely the same way that hospitals triage incoming patients to the ER... those with life-threatening conditions treated preemptively, while less critical needs wait until there are no patients with unstable, life-threatening conditions.

The reality is that there isn't even enough political will right now to accomplish the higher priority. The RWNJs running red states have very deliberately left a gap wherein 30 million Americans are still left without affordable access to health coverage. And that's the best we were able to do at this time. Suggesting that society should expend its scarce resources support more affluent people being able to afford better televisions and vacations, while there are still 30 million Americans where the first priority remains unsatisfied, is indefensible.

So many right-wingers insist on blinding themselves to the moral imperatives and bury themselves in fixation on money, making it impossible for them to make responsible decisions for a society that is made up of human beings. That's the real problem. If all the energy that has been poured into trying to rationalize prioritizing better televisions and vacations for the affluent, at the expense of the life and health of those most vulnerable in society, was instead poured into making the satisfaction of the first priority more cost-effective, then everyone would have benefited.

[Goinback2011]

I would call it an act of stupidity and leechery, not terrorism.

Luckily, it contains the seeds of its own destruction, as well as the seeds of destruction of the rabble advocating it.

Reduce your expenses. Reduce your income so you don't pay federal taxes. and then sit back and watch it unfold.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by highcotton

Has anyone in this country (with over 300,000,000 people) been found to have signed-up for ObamaCare yet? If so, I am guessing they are not young (20-35) and healthy.

Why would the typical person under 26 years old not rely on dependent health insurance? Why would the rest of those you mentioned not rely first on employer-sponsored health care? Why would you assume that those who aren't otherwise barred from affordable health coverage from other sources, such as private insurance, wouldn't avail themselves of those options instead? Your comment makes it sound like you don't realize that the Health Insurance Marketplace is the option for people who have no better options. The whole point of ACA is to make health coverage affordable for more people who couldn't afford it otherwise. While many people will find that the Health Insurance Marketplace does offer them a better option than their other options, that's not its intention - its intention is to ensure that people have at least that one affordable choice.

Originally Posted by highcotton

The young and healthy are the people that dumbass Obama needs to sign-up for ObamaCare and pay highly inflated premiums to pay for other people's insurance.

Your childish characterization of the President discredits your comments and has no real impact on the President's credibility or intelligence. So basically with such a statement you underscore how little worth there is in the perspective you're expressing. Regardless, it is not uncommon for insurance pools to include people with lower risk and with higher risk, and invariably the former subsidize the latter. That's how insurance pools work. The reality is that if you eventually face a high risk, you will appreciate that you live in a society where you're not thrown over the cliff because your condition dampens the extravagant non-essential discretionary spending of others.

Originally Posted by highcotton

Of course a high percentage of young people don't even have a job...and they won't get one for a long time because employers are getting rid of employees due to ObamaCare.

Right-wingers are quick to remind everyone that such jobs are intended for teenagers and retirees, to earn a little spending money, rather than for adults to support themselves and their family. So according to right-wing perspective, there's no great loss in the loss of those jobs anyway. So what if some teens cannot afford the latest iPod? The "having it both ways" brand of rhetoric nonsense doesn't hold water.

Personally, I support leaders with ideas to change the economy so that we go back to having plenty of living wage jobs where Americans live. Which is superior? People suffering from inadequate healthcare, serving rich people coffee for a few hours, emptying trash cans for a few hours, and then valet parking cars for a few hours, earning less money than it costs them to live? Or people going back to living healthy and productive lives, working full-time jobs that pay living wages?

[skoro]

Originally Posted by BirchBarlow

How could Obamacare be anything less than terrorism? From day one, Obama was designed to pillage and plunder the productive class of American citizens until we're broke and penniless in order to transfer all of our wealth and property to the Democrat Party, Democrat Party donors, Democrat Party voters, and Mexican nationals (future Democrat Party voters). This has been the plan from day one. Once we the people are broke and penniless, and therefore no longer of any practical use, the exterminate phase begins. Death panels are as real as you and I and no one will be except once they are deemed to be useless. Osama Bin Laden could never have even dreamed such an elaborate and effective plot, let alone executed it. If you recall, Osama Bin Laden once said that Al-Qaeda's goal was not so much to destroy the country by killing people, but rather to destroy the country by chipping away at the economy. Obamacare does just that in one fell swoop. Wherever Osama Bin Laden is, one thing is for sure, he's smiling up on Barack Obama and the Democrats from hell.

Millions of lives in ruin. Hunger and famine. Death and despair everywhere. All in one stroke of a pen.

Look on the bright side though... Nasty Nancy, Babs Boxer, FrankenFeinstein, and Dingy Harry and all of their corporate and government cronies will reap the rewards for years to come. You get to slave away the rest of your life so that they can become even richer and more powerful. You get to slave away until you drop dead so that the EBT crowd can live large. What's not to like?

Blinded by hatred.

[Kracer]

"ObamaCare is the single greatest act of terrorism ever perpetrated upon the American public"

The News media relinquishing their role as our watchdog, entrusted to shine the bright light of truth on our governmenrt, is the greatest tragedy to befall America. Obamacare was only possible because the media abandoned us and turned propaganda machine for the Obama regime.

The media has made obamacare and other crimes like the IRS criminal acts, fast a nd furious and solyndra debacle possible. The media has allowed a classless incompetent ideolog to get away with crimes yet to be named.

Obamacare is a crime because no one who approved it, read or understood it. We hired people to represent us and they failed to read the contract yet they sigfned it, bound us to the law and then exempted themselves. It is difficult oto undserstand why anyone would support such irresponsible people.

In an ethical government, sweeping legislation would never pass by nuclear option, it would be created by parrtisan co-operation. This law in no way is valid.

[tinytrump]

God sees that hatred masked as patriotism... we can be fooled, but NOT Him!

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Kracer

The media has allowed a classless incompetent ideolog to get away with crimes yet to be named.

This is awesome. "crimes yet to be named" - for when you really, really hate somebody but just can't verbalize what (s)he's done wrong.

[remoddahouse]

The media has made obamacare and other crimes like the IRS criminal acts, fast a nd furious and solyndra debacle possible. The media has allowed a classless incompetent ideolog to get away with crimes yet to be named.

Sorry, but the media has done and continues to do a ton of coverage on healthcare reform. That it's not ALL they cover is probably why you're whining. The right wing nut jobs that live in their parent's basement and write the blogs you read might only talk about that, but that's not journalism.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by bUU

That remains true even with price increases, since if not, then those folks would find themselves qualifying as part of the first group, i.e., the "poor", for which in your second sentence you acknowledge ACA establishes the parameters of affordability.

So what you are saying is this law wasn't intended to make insurance affordable but instead drive costs up to make more people dependent on government. That's exactly what your comment would imply.

Which is why it wasn't called the Low-cost Care Act.

They should of called it the Affordable Care Act for the poor on the backs of the Middle Class then.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

So what you are saying is this law wasn't intended to make insurance affordable but instead drive costs up to make more people dependent on government. That's exactly what your comment would imply.

No it isn't, but I respect your right to deceive yourself into thinking that that is what my comment would imply. I don't respect your right to try to deceive others into thinking that.

ACA is intended, specifically, to make health coverage affordable next year for those who could not afford healthcare this year under the prior system.

That's the entirety of what my comment implies. I know you want to apply your typically perverse corruption to what I wrote, just so you have something negative to say about ACA, probably because you don't like how it will result in you having to cut back a little on your own comfort and luxury, but resist the petulant temptation. Lying about my comments again will just earn ridicule for those lies.

I personally would have skewed the whole thing more progressive, placing more of the burden on those making over $100K and even more so on those making over $250K. But unlike you, I recognize that I live in a nation with other people, who have different perspectives on how progressive such things should be. I recognize the current manner as a compromise - a reflection of responsible governance in a society which has people of many different perspectives. Perhaps that's something you need to start working on accepting, yourself?

Originally Posted by thecoalman

They should of called it the Affordable Care Act for the poor on the backs of the Middle Class then.

I'm sure the rich people would be upset with you for minimizing the impact of the ACA on their comfort and luxury. It seems your callous disregard for others is not limited just to the poor. Instead, it seems your callous disregard for others is even more generalized - your comments make it seem like you couldn't care less about anyone other than yourself. Let's fix that, if you don't mind: Please express aspects of your perspective that specifically support things that benefit other people, and don't benefit yourself in anyway. Please help us understand how your comments here are aimed at something other than fostering your own personal advantage. Thanks!