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.
So basically, you like the parts that benefit you, but you don't like the parts that benefit others, or pay for the parts that benefit you.
I have found a few instances of right-wingers being honest about what they intend with their perspective, but you're correct that very few right-wingers are willing to admit their true intentions toward those most vulnerable in society.
Make up your minds: Is forcing doctors to accept Medicare rates for services slavery or not?
By "most vulnerable in society" do you mean children who can't vote to stop deficit spending or the working poor who have to compete for jobs with people who entered the country illegally?
By "most vulnerable in society" do you mean children who can't vote to stop deficit spending or the working poor who have to compete for jobs with people who entered the country illegally?
No, he means the leeches who think picking other people's pockets against their will is ok.
I mean the folks who are closest to, or beyond the point, where they don't have access to jobs that pay enough to allow them to pay their own way in society. I hope that clears up your confusion.
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.
How can it be a "right" if somebody else has to pay for it?
You may have a right to access; but you don't have a right to have it paid for by someone else. In other words, nobody should be able to stop you from seeing a doctor. You may do so by your own volition. You have the freedom. But you may not force someone else to pay your bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
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.
Again, "access," means to have the ability to gain entry. Nobody is stopping you from that. But that does not mean, "free." You do not have the right to free services (except that under the law, emergency service must be rendered regardless of your ability to pay).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
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.
Why should somebody provide services to you for free? Medical equipment costs money, the R & D required to innovate and produce new technologies is expensive, a hospital must pay staff and other costs, all of which are expensive. The money to pay for these things doesn't come out of thin air. Why do you feel entitled to it without paying for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
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.
There's that word "access" again. You have access. No one is preventing you from "access." Open the door and walk in. It's that easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
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.
That's why we have insurance. And ObamaCare is destroying the best health insurance system, and the best health care system in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
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.
Sorry. I don't agree that it is a right. You have a right to see a doctor. You don't have a right to expect his/her services for free.
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%.
When did it become "moral" for one to expect a service to be provided by someone else for free?
I think those against the ACA are primarily politically motivated. It could be a win for Obama, so it must be painted as the end of the world. They probably deep down care about their fellow citizens, they just don't care for their fellow citizens as much as they hate liberals. A strange place to be.
So far, it's not looking much like a "win," is it. More like an epic failure.
And the Web site not working is not the whole problem. The entire scheme is unworkable. It simply isn't practical, because it does not function like insurance. It is not based on risk assessment, forces someone to pay for things they do not want or need, it removes choices, and removes competitive pricing so that everything costs more. This is because all plans offered, no matter the company, must meet the standard set by the government. There is no room for innovation. A company may only offer what the government tells them they may offer.
I have not read a SINGLE post were someone said the poor should not have health care. Find one and post it here...however I have read MANY posts that call out ObummerCare as a failed law.
Did any of you stop and think that we are not against health care for all. We just realize and understand that the morons plan doesn't and will not work? What I find most amusing is you voted against the very man who successfully gave health care to all the folks in Massachusetts yet put the village idiot back in the whitehouse.
If you folks would stop pretending the world is out to get you and start thinking about what you can contribute verses take things would be different.
10's of millions lost their health care plans that worked. New plans are unaffordable.. What part of doesn't work don't you understand? You were lied to and taken as fools yet you still support his failed policies as if you have Stockholm Syndrome. It's concerning very concerning.
Your victim mentality is getting very very old.. The rich this the rich that they are taking food stamps away your racist if Bush had its Bushes fault you want to get rid of Social Security it's a never ending blather of you loosing something verses coming up with a solution that doesn't involve taking something from someone else to satisfy your wants.
Really? Because several posts have stated that for the most part they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare. Conversations then denigrate to calling me out as having a victim mentality. No where in my original post did I say that.
I also do understand the constitution, although have been accused of not because I feel that healthcare is a right. My opinion of right verse luxury is not taken from the constitution but from simple human compassion. Something sorely lacking when discussing access to medical care.
Nor did my post speak of free healthcare. I merely stated access and not that we should all just have it for free. However being able to pay what you can toward healthcare is what I believe to be fair. Socialized medicine is just that. It is a shared system of healthcare where each contribute a percentage of their earnings to a system that they utilize when there is a need and simply because one person makes less doesn't mean they don't get to the help they need when they need it. Free is reserved for those that are the most needy of four society, the elderly, and the young and those that do work but are still impoverished.
Your claim that 10s if millions health plan worked is completely unfounded. While there are a few that have lost otherwise good plans that didn't meet requirements, most of the plans that have been cancelled were crap. The only reason people have not discovered it was crap yet is merely that they hadn't faced a more serious illness under it's supposed protection.
while there are things in obamacare that i do like, such as the preexisting conditions clause, among others, my problem with the law is all the new regulations that are coming down like a saturn v rocket that flamed out at 5000ft. and it will hit with the power of a nagasaki bomb against the economy. people are going to be very upset when they end up having to pony up $10 grand before the insurance kicks in, and also when their copays jump up. and then there are the new taxes in the bill, as well as the fact that the IRS is going to be enforcing the penalties. this law could have been done so much better than it was had our lawmakers on both sides of the isle just sat down and actually negotiated a proper bill, rather than foist the monstrosity they did on us.
I want to be able to buy homeowner insurance after my house has burned down. Why not? Pre-existing conditions should be covered.
The "pre-existing condition" clause is why premiums are skyrocketing. What is it liberals don't understand about this concept? If I know you have cancer at the time you buy insurance, why would I give it to you at the price I charge everyone else? Under ObamaCare, I have to charge everybody more because I have to cover everybody, regardless of their cancer. I'm not going to simply absorb that cost. I would be a fool.
The problem with the ACA is the ACA. Period. There is nothing good about a government run insurance program. The only program that makes sense is a free market program. Period.
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.
Ever stop to think that people believe government unnecessarily drives up the cost of health care thereby limiting access to people, especially the poor.
That we don't like Obamacare because more government interference because it will make health care even more expensive. If we got govt out of healthcare altogether prices would drop significantly overnight. And poor people would be able to afford it on their own.
Doubt you ever considered that because you think government can somehow make things cheaper. Even though the laws of economics prove otherwise. You can't add more rules, more paperwork, more bureaucrats and expect a product to get cheaper. It must get more expensive. There is no way around it.
So good for you, you think making a product more expensive, more cumbersome, more inefficient is desirable because it makes you feel good.
If you wanna help the poor then help the poor. There is a great sense of satisfaction in helping others. You get no moral credit in forcing others to do as you want via govt edict. It's self-righteous, bullying, laziness.
P.S. it is a right to keep the fruits of my labor. The day you come and take my money to pay for something else you have violated my rights. You can justify any way you want. But you have still violated my rights. Period.
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.
