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.
The libs call it "healthcare". Like if Obamacare doesn't happen, nobody will ever get "healthcare".
But we're talking about the Liberal mind here. My take is that conservatives are stupid and liberals are evil, and our odds are probably better being ruled by stupid people than by evil people.
Conservatives, people who want you to pay your own way so in your mind that is evil.
You can post this until the cows come home. The cons on this forum will deny it. Their usual tactic -- as demonstrated on this thread -- is to deflect and pretend that the only time this kind of program was ever considered in the history of this country was in the vote on the ACA. Romneycare doesn't exist in their universe, let alone the Heritage Foundation's role in creating this model in the 1990s. Or Nixon's ideas in the 1970s.
The other popular option, for those who are uncomfortable with rewriting history, is to argue that Romney was a liberal back then.
Always good for a laugh, anyway.
uhm Romney did not win the election. Obamacare forward, enjoy the consequences.
huh? ACA was passed with zero Republican votes. Bipartisan support and input was not needed, and thus was not sought. Now that ACA is imploding, you want to go back and blame the right for ACA? I've seen revisionism, but your post might well win a grand prize for revisionism.
Meh, ya, revisionism, indeed.
Quote:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act consists of a combination of measures to control healthcare costs, and an expansion of coverage through public and private insurance: broader Medicaid eligibility and Medicare coverage, and subsidized, regulated private insurance. An individual mandate coupled with subsidies for private insurance as a means for universal healthcare was considered the best way to win the support of the Senate because it had been included in prior bipartisan reform proposals. The idea goes back as far as 1989, when it was initially proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer health care.[49] It was championed by many Republican politicians as a market-based approach to healthcare reform on the basis of individual responsibility.
There are significant penalties for not having insurance when you drive a vehicle, yet many choose not to buy it. If the government can't enforce the auto insurance mandates, how do you expect them to enforce ACA?
You just said I had no facts that supported insurance mandates = higher numbers of people have auto insurance. Of course they do, because people respond to incentives. People will respond to this incentive. That doesn't mean that everyone will have health insurance because of the ACA. I never said the ACA will mean that everyone has health insurance. In fact, I think that everyone won't have health insurance is the greatest flaw in the ACA.
Isn't it a fact that some mandates have been delayed because the very special interests liberals so galvanize around demanded delays or exemptions? How is it that the very people who pushed through ACA are exempt from it? You seem to have no problem with a class difference in healthcare for some yet demand to remove it for everyone else. Very convenient for your arguments.
Actually, I don't think you know what my argument is. I never suggest the ACA was perfect, or the most desirable outcome and I never said anything at all about delays or exemptions.
The SCOTUS declared ACA financial impositions a tax. Since the rules changed and it was judged to be something it is not and was not disclosed at the time it was voted on, how is that any form of representation?
I am not sure what you're arguing against here, because it's not something that I brought up.
Have you thought about what happens when someone decides not to pay for health insurance but still requires it? Are you going to sit in judgement of them and deny them healthcare?
Well, that goes back to what I said previously. Health care costs money, it isn't free, even if you don't pay for it. Because the slope of the demand curve for health care is so steep, the costs will be borne by those of us who have health insurance, thus making it necessary in my opinion to ensure everyone has health insurance. Now before you go talking about the ACA again, I never said, and I don't think that the ACA accomplishes that.
Shouldn't auto insurance rates decrease because now, according to you and the democrats, everyone will have health insurance? Healthcare is one significant driver of high auto insurance rates because so often, injuries are inflicted upon people in car accidents. Since everyone will have healthcare through ACA, isn't the coverage provided in liability insurance for the purposes of covering injuries to other people a duplication of insurance for which people are now mandated to pay for?
Again, never said the ACA would ensure everyone has it. I said everyone needs it and the government could do that. The ACA doesn't do that.
No doubt you will say that this is beyond the scope of ACA to address. Like most things that come from haste and democrats, no one thinks past the immediate gratification of votes and favors. Consequences do not matter because then it is just another call to action for the liberal mind.
What's interesting here, is that you, like others on this site love to talk about the "liberal mind" which seems to consist of you having imaginary arguments against positions you think I take, even though I haven't taken them. If you want to argue, argue with what I said, not with what you think I mean. I say what I mean, if there are blanks that need to be filled in, you could ask.
Romney did not win. Do you have any idea WHY he didn't win? NOT because your trash was any better, but because most Republicans did NOT like Romney. For some reason, this fool got what he needed to beat out all of the other jokers, (with exception of one), for the nomination.
In the beginning, you would hear Republicans left, right, up, down, and sideways talk about how much they loathed Romney. They could not stand the guy. I would watch the debates with fellow Repubs, and we would talk online while it was going on. They hated him.
But he got the nomination. And all of those who absolutely hated him had three choices:
1) "hold their nose" (as they said), and vote for the lesser of the two evils
2) Vote for Ron Paul, or write their vote in, if their state allowed it.
3) not vote at all.
Some went for 1, some went for 2, some went for 3. Well, when you add all of that up, so many Republicans disliked Romney so badly, that more opted for 2 and 3 than did 1. That's why he lost. Because he sucked, Republicans didn't like him. VERY few Republicans actually liked him, and actually wanted to vote for him...
Everything costs more in MA compared to places like Idaho and Utah. You mean you didn't notice?
In any case, your question is completely irrelevant to my post about the history of the Obamacare model.
Sorry. Post fail.
Yes, but why does it cost more in Massachusetts? Are the states fundamentally different? The reason everything costs more is because of taxes and regualtion that is unique to Massachusetts and imposed by liberals over several decades.
And it is relevant because it's in regards to the brainchild of Obamacare...Romneycare. You mentioned previously that in Massachusetts, where Romneycare is still active, prices for healthcare and health insurance are lower. That is not true. Prices for both heatlhcare and insurance are higher in Massachusetts, (and the rest of the Northeast) and they are because the tax and regulatory structure in Mass has been concocted by liberals for decades. That brings me back to my original question...Why is it that healthcare and insurance costs are lower in red states? Theoretically, Massachusetts is high population with high economic activity so premiums should be lower because th "pooling" effect exists because large numbers are covered. In Idaho and Utah, the states are sparsely populated and economically less developed which would lead one to believe that the premiums would increase because of the lack of competition, but that isn't the case.
So again....Why is that?
And before you throw back some petulant retort about relevance....I can assure you that it IS relevant because it lends to the strength of this program on the national level.
Ah, going for the "rewriting history" option, I see. Good choice!
@jmqueen...I apologize, I misread your post for someone elses that you captioned in a comment...my bad!
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.
