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.
Here's how it goes. A person is low income and cannot afford private insurance for their family. If you go to Obamacare site you plug in your income numbers and if they are too low you are sent over to Medicaid in states that expanded it. I suppose people should say no, I won't insure my family because that would be "taking". It would actually be a form of child abuse to refuse to insure your child when it is offered at no cost. Imagine if the kid got sick and could not be properly treated because mom didn't want to "take" medical insurance available. Let's get real.
Take that one step further and imagine you plug in your income and it is too low for Obamacare, but your state has refused to expand Medicaid. Now imagine what that feels like, when your child gets cancer and you know the only reason they won't receive adequate long term care is because you have a Republican state government that thought it was more important to stick it to Obama and the Democrats than it was to ensure the people in their state got the medical coverage that was available to them.
This is politics of the worst sort, putting party before people.
Take that one step further and imagine you plug in your income and it is too low for Obamacare, but your state has refused to expand Medicaid. Now imagine what that feels like, when your child gets cancer and you know the only reason they won't receive adequate long term care is because you have a Republican state government that thought it was more important to stick it to Obama and the Democrats than it was to ensure the people in their state got the medical coverage that was available to them.
This is politics of the worst sort, putting party before people.
Because none of that has to be paid for........if you want to argue that the GOP only gives lip service to paying for things, once again, my place is not to defend the GOP.
I'm condemning those who thought that was a good plan to start with and still refuse to acknowledge it has failed. It doesn't matter who is at fault in the fact that it failed.
Why is it so controversial to simply do the right thing?
Because none of that has to be paid for........if you want to argue that the GOP only gives lip service to paying for things, once again, my place is not to defend the GOP.
I'm condemning those who thought that was a good plan to start with and still refuse to acknowledge it has failed. It doesn't matter who is at fault in the fact that it failed.
Why is it so controversial to simply do the right thing?
What is the "right thing"?
Would the right thing be to have a plan in place that is tested and proven workable for everyone BEFORE repealing the ACA?
Would the right thing be to challenge the house Democrats to come together with the Republican caucus to design from scratch a system that would better serve EVERYONE before scrapping the only thing that is available at this time?
What the heck is wrong with these retards? They're yelling at each other from down the hall when they should be sitting side by side and defining what it is the people need, what kind of system would best serve those needs and stay locked in a freak'n cooler until they get that done!
I've never witnessed such a chit shower of stupidity among adults. A high school committee designing the next prom agenda could do a better job than these self interested boobs..... BOTH PARTIES!
They are completely unconcerned that the people they profess to represent are suffering out there.
while they're arguing over party lines.
I'm just curious how many times I'm going to have to address this.
Quote:
Would the right thing be to have a plan in place that is tested and proven workable for everyone BEFORE repealing the ACA?
Absolutely BUT I AM NOT HERE TO DEFEND the actions of the GOP. Why is it that so many jump to the conclusion that by condemning one failed program that you are defending another? If you are simply going off on the ineptitude in general and not specifically asking me, I understand that.
Quote:
Would the right thing be to challenge the house Democrats to come together with the Republican caucus to design from scratch a system that would better serve EVERYONE before scrapping the only thing that is available at this time?
What the heck is wrong with these retards? They're yelling at each other from down the hall when they should be sitting side by side and defining what it is the people need, what kind of system would best serve those needs and stay locked in a freak'n cooler until they get that done!
I've never witnessed such a chit shower of stupidity among adults. A high school committee designing the next prom agenda could do a better job than these self interested boobs..... BOTH PARTIES!
They are completely unconcerned that the people they profess to represent are suffering out there.
while they're arguing over party lines.
I've argued that we seriously need to look for answers outside of the two parties.
I'm just curious how many times I'm going to have to address this.
Absolutely BUT I AM NOT HERE TO DEFEND the actions of the GOP. Why is it that so many jump to the conclusion that by condemning one failed program that you are defending another? If you are simply going off on the ineptitude in general and not specifically asking me, I understand that.
I've argued that we seriously need to look for answers outside of the two parties.
No one is arguing or suggesting you're defending anything other than appearing to endorse the repealing of the ACA to resume something even worse.
You've addressed everything but the unbridled obsession with repealing the ACA only to return to what was acknowledged as an abject failure before!
Was the ACA even just a teeny bit better? Even a smidgeon should dictate leaving the thing in place until you design something demonstrably better.
You seem to be defending the burning down of the new three bedroom bungalow because it didn't include an attached garage only to return to the two bedroom duplex with parking down the street.
No one is arguing or suggesting you're defending anything other than appearing to endorse the repealing of the ACA to resume something even worse.
I have NEVER come anywhere close to that. Nowhere have I even suggested that.
Quote:
You've addressed everything but the unbridled obsession with repealing the ACA only to return to what was acknowledged as an abject failure before!
Was the ACA even just a teeny bit better? Even a smidgeon should dictate leaving the thing in place until you design something demonstrably better.
You seem to be defending the burning down of the new three bedroom bungalow because it didn't include an attached garage only to return to the two bedroom duplex with parking down the street.
I don't get it.
Obviously. Even after it's been pointed out to you.
People are living on average one less year today thanks to Obamacare.
They meant well.
Repetition won't make it any truer. There are many factors that can make people have a shorter life...like the growing obesity epidemic. It takes years to sort out causes in many cases. To attribute it solely to the ACA, especially within such a short time frame, is asinine.
Repetition won't make it any truer. There are many factors that can make people have a shorter life...like the growing obesity epidemic. It takes years to sort out causes in many cases. To attribute it solely to the ACA, especially within such a short time frame, is asinine.
That is funny. How many years do we have to let this program go on before it is decided that Obamacare kills more than it saves?
We have a precedent here.
Between 1959 and 1964 there was a steep drop in the poverty rate. Then came the Great Society; the war on poverty. The poverty rate today is about what it was in 1965.
The fact is once liberals put a program in place they go on to their next folly. They never measure if the program did what it was supposed to do.
Funny how it is life expectancy stats that liberals use the most when comparing the USA healthcare to other nations. The obesity epidemic did not begin in 2009.
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.
