Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,142 posts, read 10,713,172 times
Reputation: 9799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Let’s make a deal: you will pay no taxes of any kind. But as a result, you will not be allowed to use public roads, water systems, sewer systems, police protection (sucks to be you if you’re robbed), fire protection (be careful with those candles!), or education. I suppose your kids will be well prepared for success in the 21st Century with that education from the local fundamentalist Christian Church. And you will not be allowed the services of anyone who was educated in a public school or university.

Have fun. Go off and get a horse and live in the mountains somewhere. Hope you don’t have a heart attack, stroke, or other serious medical issues. When you get old and can no longer take care of yourself, I guess the wolves can eat you for food.
So, you want roughly 40% of Americans to stop using public roads, water systems, sewer systems, police protection, fire protection, and education? Odd, we all thought that you were trying to help out impoverished people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:01 PM
 
693 posts, read 357,257 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
No, it isn't more affordable than what was offered before. How is it more affordable to pay an average 60% increase in premium along with an average 500% increase in deductibles?

Being more affordable would mean that something costs less than what it did before, not less than it may or may not have cost had x,y, or z happened.
Oh my god....you're not really getting it, are you?????????

Without the ACA, premiums would have increased by MORE. Let that sink in. Rate of increase has DECREASED.





What the hell planet do some of you live on where you believe insurance premiums would not have increase had it not been for the ACA?????????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:05 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,375,883 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Quite right. Look at Venezuela for a socialism effects.
Should we then look at Flint for capitalism effects?

And why not look at Sweden, or Denmark for socialism effects?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,113,905 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
Individual policies were available without lifetime caps all the way up until the full ACA mandate. I know. I had one.

Additionally, nice try, but being against the ACA doesn't make someone against affordable birth defect coverage. That could still be handled with a different approach.
You're the who's calling people irresponsible for buying that policy and paying the premiums.

Again, you're the one calling people who can't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition irresponsible.

Maybe next time find a better argument b/c it feels like you don't agree with yours anymore...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:06 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,226,860 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Should we then look at Flint for capitalism effects?

And why not look at Sweden, or Denmark for socialism effects?

The inherent risk of socialism is you could run out of other people’s money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:07 PM
 
33,316 posts, read 12,534,999 times
Reputation: 14946
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
That's a feature of Medicaid. Deductibles are a feature of the private market. If you don't want to pay deductibles, maybe you should fight for a way to get the gov't to be your insurance provider.
^^^^^ Essentially a non answer. Doesn't answer my question, which is more of a philosophical question. I don't want a lower deductible, I want a higher one to mitigate a premium. It's interesting though that you see this through a lens of potential jealousy, rather than that of a philosophical difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:08 PM
 
693 posts, read 357,257 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
The inherent risk of socialism is you could run out of other people’s money.
And the inherent risk of pure capitalism, is that you could run out of money to go around, because so much of it is being hoarded by the top wealthy.


A nice healthy mix of the 2 doesn't hurt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,113,905 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
^^^^^ Essentially a non answer. Doesn't answer my question, which is more of a philosophical question. I don't want a lower deductible, I want a higher one to mitigate a premium. It's interesting though that you see this through a lens of potential jealousy, rather than that of a philosophical difference.
IF you wanted to have a philosophical discussion on why we should do more for people who have less, we could have that. Just don't randomly switch the conversation when we're talking about the actual nuts & bolts of the thing. But also, this isn't the thread for that discussion anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,113,905 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
The inherent risk of socialism is you could run out of other people’s money.
That's also the inherent risk of capitalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 03:13 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,498,932 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimrom View Post
so, you want roughly 40% of americans to stop using public roads, water systems, sewer systems, police protection, fire protection, and education? Odd, we all thought that you were trying to help out impoverished people.
lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top