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.
It is not my job or the government's job to pay for your health care. Period.
So I suppose if a poor kid or cancer patient died from lack of accessible, affordable health care, I suppose you'd be okay with that. In fact, you'd probably be relieved that the person was dead because he/she was no longer a drain on society. After all, sick people hold us back and make others--you know, decent people, people with a soul and a conscience--want to help them. The nerve.
And you say conservatives care more about the poor than liberals. BS. Pure and total BS.
So I suppose if a poor kid or cancer patient died from lack of accessible, affordable health care, I suppose you'd be okay with that. In fact, you'd probably be relieved that the person was dead because he/she was no longer a drain on society. After all, sick people hold us back and make others--you know, decent people, people with a soul and a conscience--want to help them. The nerve.
And you say conservatives care more about the poor than liberals. BS. Pure and total BS.
Do you or anybody here know anybody or even anybody that knows anybody that died because they could not get medical care?
I know some who died because of a lack of medical care but that was because they ignored it or outright refused to go or refused until it was too late......had nothing to do with money
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
What a patently childish suggestion. It's like suggesting that, since a wider highway is needed in a congested urban area, the city should take down the highway "and start a FRESH dialogue about" how to serve the needs of those who currently clog that highway. Were you concered even a little about the lack of logic in what you were typing?
Even if ACA was in a "10-run rule" situation (it isn't - the only part of ACA that his hurting is the health marketplaces, and even then, only for those states too cheap to build their own), the mature, honorable approach is to put a new law in place, better than ACA, accomplishing its goals in a manner superior to how ACA did, with the old law superseded by the new law on the new law's effectiveness date.
Of course, knowing your past posting history, your comment is also thoroughly disingenuous: You don't object specifically to the implementation of ACA, as you imply in your posting. Rather, you object to its objectives, affordable health coverage for those who otherwise couldn't afford healthcare. Do you really think the people reading your comments are so stupid as to not recognize that disingenuousness?
No... a childish suggestion is coming up with an analogy that is like suggesting you should take the whole highway down. The highway would still be there although the clog would remain. If the ACA were repealed tomorrow, health care would still be available but yes the problems would remain. The fact is that the ACA does nothing to reduce health care costs. That was obvious from day one and has been proven over and over. You however fail to see that. It can't work. And just like most social programs it will inevitably implode under its own weight. The only thing that none of us knows is how it will end up. Another sucking festering wound that the next generations will be paying for like so many other programs that started out with the right intentions, or is it a plan of design to fail so that we go to single-payer? My guess is the latter. A complete and utter disaster sold to the American people (at least those dumb enough to believe it) as a plan to "save" us all. Seems to me that I'm not being disingenuous as much as being a realist. And you know I'm right.
So I suppose if a poor kid or cancer patient died from lack of accessible, affordable health care, I suppose you'd be okay with that. In fact, you'd probably be relieved that the person was dead because he/she was no longer a drain on society. After all, sick people hold us back and make others--you know, decent people, people with a soul and a conscience--want to help them. The nerve.
And you say conservatives care more about the poor than liberals. BS. Pure and total BS.
What we did was similar to buying Mercedes Benz's for everyone when the problem was a lack of access to public transportation. To properly address this everyone is going to have to lose some to gain some but only the middle class taxpayers was asked to lose anything here.
To do this, costs have to be addressed but never were. Tort reform has to be addressed but never were. The costs to become a doctor have to be addressed but never were.
So rather than address a good public transportation system we bought the poor, the doctors, the universities a new Mercedes Benz.
I feel that the biggest difference, what it all boils down to is this:
Those of us for the ACA (and particularly those that would have liked a one payer system) see access to health care as a right NOT a privilege.
Those opposed see it as a privilege and not a right.
I see it as a right because, ultimately access to it is a matter of life and death, making it a necessity. Being treated for ailments makes a difference in suffering for not suffering on levels that would be considered inhumane.
It is the ONLY life necessity that carries a price tag most luxury items do. In most cases, procedures, surgeries are priced higher than homes.
Indeed, if you don't have a car or a boat or a plane or the latest TV or gadget , you won't die. Therefore those items don't qualify as a right.. you have to earn the privilege of owning those items.
However, just because you aren't earning a high 6 figure or above salary shouldn't mean that you then suffer and die due to lack of access to healthcare.
I know I care that everyone, regardless of how much money they earn, has access. I don't feel that I'm more deserving of that than any other person, whether they make less or more than me.
And, I feel that access shouldn't mean that people loose everything they have worked for.
I think if we could all agree that healthcare is a right and not a privilege there would still be some disagreement about the ACA, but I think we would be closer together on it than we are. Heck , our healthcare system may not have gotten so bad in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
That is because you obviously have a well balanced and calibrated moral compass. Those are not as ubiquitous as we'd like them to be and no amount of healthcare can fix the ones that are off-kilter. I agreee with you 110%.
You obviously cannot comprehend that the ACA moves further from your philosophies not closer.
Classic right-wing evasion, followed by classic right-wing rationalization for its "emotionally stunted, socially crippled" perspectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
No... a childish suggestion is coming up with an analogy that is like suggesting you should take the whole highway down. The highway would still be there although the clog would remain. If the ACA were repealed tomorrow, health care would still be available but yes the problems would remain.
Incorrect. 25 million Americans would go back to not having affordable access to adequate healthcare.
Another puerile attempt to deceive - perhaps yourself.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Classic right-wing evasion, followed by classic right-wing rationalization for its "emotionally stunted, socially crippled" perspectives.
Incorrect. 25 million Americans would go back to not having affordable access to adequate healthcare.
Another puerile attempt to deceive - perhaps yourself.
So 25 million who didn't have insurance now do... great. But the jury is still out on how many are going to lose their insurance and won't be able to afford the "new" policies and don't qualify for the subsidies.
Add 25M... subtract a possible 25M... your at a zero sum gain of insured person's. All you've done is move the insured from one income level to another. And we haven't even hit the largest percentage of folks who are sure to lose their employer-based insurance. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we don't gain 25 million insured... but lose 50 million... and that's going to work out financially isn't it?
This isn't about caring or not caring about a certain part of the population. This is simply about the numbers. They don't work. I will readily admit to not being a financial genius, but in 30+ years of running a household, I've managed to keep us above water by simply not having more outflow of cash than inflow. And this is what is going to occur here. More outflow. The American people were sold a bill of goods that the ACA would lower costs. It won't. It can't. It's impossible the way the law is currently written. And you are buying it. I think most people would have jumped on board more than willingly if the numbers worked (well maybe a few die-hards wouldn't have), but most would. So you tell us.... just how you see the numbers in this working... change my mind... show me how costs are going to come down, your going to add millions/billions to a business's liability (because that's what insurance is..business), and how a whole different subset of citizens (the middle class) are not going to get screwed? And make it balance... I rather doubt you can, but give it a go......
So 25 million who didn't have insurance now do... great. But the jury is still out on how many are going to lose their insurance and won't be able to afford the "new" policies and don't qualify for the subsidies.
How about you come back when you have actual truth to talk about instead of just blathering FUD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
Add 25M... subtract a possible 25M...
Thanks for proving so clearly that you have absolutely no intention of being even remotely grounded in reality in your vacuous, speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
This isn't about caring or not caring about a certain part of the population.
Right-wing perspective has proven to be utterly devoid of any sense of "caring about" anyone other than one's self, so this whole line of discussion you're trying to put forward makes no sense coming in support of right-wing rhetoric.
I've never seen so much blatant, disgusting lies ... or perhaps it's just clueless rambling from the liberal ideologues ... who knows which, since both are common traits ... But, the truth is ....this claim of 25 million is absolute GARBAGE. The ACA website couldn't even enroll a dozen. Aside that, all of the reports show that millions will lose coverage ... and those that dont will pay double, triple or more!
The larger truth is, this is by design. And contrary to what many critics suspect, this isn't about intentional failure to promote a single payer system ... No .... This is another element of the deliberate crushing of the economy, and driving out of business everyone but the "connected" players in healthcare, because it was they who wrote the legislation to begin with!!!!
I'm so SICK of hearing Obama's name attached to everything ...Obama-care, Obama-phones ..Obama-this and Obama-that ... He is just the front man for this gang of gangsters wrecking the country, as the liberal nitwits bow and cheer. What a bunch of brain dead sheep!
Like all of the other acts of legislation from this den of vipers in the District of Criminals, you need only look at the Orwellian title to know what to expect ...Affordable Care Act ..... ha, ha, ha, .... this is the only clue a thinking person should need to realize that we cant afford to let them do this to us.
I've never seen so much blatant, disgusting lies ... or perhaps it's just clueless rambling from the liberal ideologues ... who knows which, since both are common traits ... But, the truth is ....this claim of 25 million is absolute GARBAGE. The ACA website couldn't even enroll a dozen. Aside that, all of the reports show that millions will lose coverage ... and those that dont will pay double, triple or more!
The larger truth is, this is by design. And contrary to what many critics suspect, this isn't about intentional failure to promote a single payer system ... No .... This is another element of the deliberate crushing of the economy, and driving out of business everyone but the "connected" players in healthcare, because it was they who wrote the legislation to begin with!!!!
I'm so SICK of hearing Obama's name attached to everything ...Obama-care, Obama-phones ..Obama-this and Obama-that ... He is just the front man for this gang of gangsters wrecking the country, as the liberal nitwits bow and cheer. What a bunch of brain dead sheep!
Like all of the other acts of legislation from this den of vipers in the District of Criminals, you need only look at the Orwellian title to know what to expect ...Affordable Care Act ..... ha, ha, ha, .... this is the only clue a thinking person should need to realize that we cant afford to let them do this to us.
Reall...all one has to do is watch Faux news...pfftt
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.
