The Big Fundamental Difference Between those For and Against Obamacare (lawyers, ideology)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.

FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.

Attracting talented people to fulfill the jobs they left was tough enough with so many good men joining up, and the govt's wage controls made the situation worse when employers found they couldn't offer higher wages to get people to hire on. Whether this was justifiable, not to say effective, by the war emergency is debatable.

EMployers screamed bloody murder as their businesses approached collapse due to unfilled jobs, and government announced they could offer benefits in lieu of pay to attract workers. One benefit was a tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance.

This helped somewhat, but with an employer only able to offer a few insurance plans, it locked employees into fairly uncompetetive market unless he changed jobs. And FDR's relatively new policy of "tax withholding" was extended to the employee part of the payments for insurance, further insulating the employee fro the gut-check of having to write weekly or monthly checks to the insurance company.

Employers offered "Cadillac" plans in their efforts to attract workers, and the employees seldom saw the actual cost of those expensive plans, which often paid for routine medications and office visits formerly not covered by real insurance plans. That, plus the lack of competition most insurance companies found themselves facing, removed a lot of their impetus to pare costs. And employees became used to health care which "seemed free", and started thinking of it as something akin to a "right", since it (sort of) appeared to cost nothing.

When the war ended, government did NOT remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance even though the curcumstances that made it desirable were now gone. And so health insurance has existed in a strange nether world ever since for most people, with employees of a company locked into the few (or one) insurance plan offered by that company with little likelihood they will ever leave it. At the same time it appeared to cost little or nothing, with even routine services (far beyond the major-event coverage real insurance is for) included and seeming "complimentary".

Fast forward to the 21st century. Now we have self-serving politicians screaming from the rooftops that health care is somehow a "right", though it comes nowhere close to resembling a right to liberty, right to speech, right to self-defense etc. - all of which are based on the fundamental right to be left alone and to associate only voluntarily with others. And most people, used to generations of "free" health care that was caused by that very government long ago, are actually believing it, despite the clear unworkability of the idea.

The cockeyed notion that we somehow have a "right" to have a broken arm set or an infection cleaned and treated by others, came (as so many cockeyed ideas do) from government intrusion into private matters in the first place.

We should be thankful that the government didn't offer tax breaks for food purchased by one's employer. Or by now, the same deluded people would be screaming that they had a "right" to food (some actually beelieve this one too, after generations of food stamps). Ditto for rent, phone service, etc.

Weaning Americans off these destructive addictions to "free" necessities and "rights" that aren't rights and never were, will be painful, as breaking an addiction always is. But it is no less necessary, if we are to survive as sovereign citizens in a free society.

It is too late. The liberal freaks with their communist "entitlement" mentality have won. The US will not survive the century. We are destined to follow the same path as the USSR now. It may take 50 or 60 years, but our demise is inevitable.

[cw30000]

Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom

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) because others are paying for it.

Those opposed ACA because they have to pay for those who favor it.

Here I fixed it for you.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by my54ford

Tough...

I imagine that it would be, if you indeed believe that the nation should be all about serving you.

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

If they couldn't afford it under the old system they can't afford it under the new system.

False. But thanks for trying.

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

We could have given them subsidies to buy insurance without fundamentally changing the old system.

So the question is whether you actually believe that nonsense or you've been duped into believing it. ACA had to have the support of the blue dogs, conservative Democrats, and had to be acceptable enough to Republicans that those in the Senate didn't choose to filibuster it. These are political realities that you nonsensical throwaway comment was clearly ignoring.

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

Lots of people can't afford food. We give them foodstamps. We don't have to put the entire country on food stamps to accomplish the goal of feeding them.

The blue dogs and Senate Republicans both would have rebelled against ACA if it was simply expanded Medicaid (which is effectively what you were saying). Again, ignoring political realities.

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

You don't understand what a right is. You don't have a right to someones work. That work is their property. Plain and simple.

You don't understand what money is. You don't have a right to money without complying with the terms and conditions of the monetary system, including government taxation. The monetary system is society's property. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

The reason healthcare has gotten worse is because of government.

False. The reason healthcare has gotten worse is because of the profit motive. And both the profit motive, and government, are the causes of healthcare getting better, as well.

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

And wanting government to get more involved when it is well known that costs rise and quality suffers when they do, is insane.

And leaving the system to the selfish devices of those with economic power is well known to cause additional injustice. You being unable to afford the newest tablet is simply less important than an indigent person being unable to afford cancer treatment. Even if you petulant refuse to acknowledge that moral truth.

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

What next, people shouldn't be homeless so you're going to force a homeowner to allow the homeless to stay at the homeowners house?

You've posted a ridiculously logical failure (no big surprise), since no one suggests that you share your hospital bed with someone else, or breaking a pill of medicine in half, taking a half-dose, so someone else can have the other half of the pill. How about posting an analogy that is just a tad less silly?

Originally Posted by Tassy001

So the $1,200 deductible, that under the ACA is now $12,000 with almost 3 times the premium is ok???

Try comparing apples and oranges. It just so happens that my deductible is $2,500. (It's been that way for ten years - unchanged.) There were some points in time during that period when I had to pay more, and even once when I switched to a different plan, because the $2,500 deductible was my aim. The $12,000 number you talk about is the out-of-pocket maximum for the lowest level of health insurance available. You want better coverage then pay for it. Stop complaining that you can't get the crap insurance you had before which didn't meet the basic standards that are in place now.

Originally Posted by Tassy001

All we did is take insurance that people were able to afford, inflate the premiums with higher deductibles......to give a certain group of people insurance they basically will get for free. I don't consider that a minor issue.

Of course not: Before, some people couldn't afford coverage. Now, fewer people can't afford coverage. That's a big deal. What's a "minor issue" is that part of the ramifications of that fantastic improvement is that the folks who always have been able to afford insurance, and by the way still can, perhaps cannot afford the latest, thinnest computer tablet, and may have to settle for last year's model. Or will find themselves stretched to afford some other luxury which might have been easier last year. Get over the petulant selfishness driving your antipathy for ACA, because it isn't going away. The reality is that anything that is proposed to change ACA will assuredly be measured against it in the most specific ways. Already we see Republicans standing up and publicly promising that they - they - will protect the Guaranteed Issue provisions of ACA come heck or high water. That's going to have to get paid for, and as Republicans you can be sure that any changes that they promulgate to change ACA while protecting the Guaranteed Issue provisions will result in added costs to you (assuming you're not one of the Koch brothers). And I'd love to see the political rhetoric that would actually result in public support for doing away with the subsidies, to counter the faces of poor children who will have adequate healthcare ripped from them by the selfishness and self-centeredness of the right-wing. Yeah, good luck with that. What a lot of right-wingers refuse to face is the fact that morality - fairness and justice - will always win in a fair fight, will always win in a public contest, will always win in the voting booth. The only way for right-wingers to pursue and prevail in their effort to double economic injustice for the second time in as many generations is through subterfuge, under-the-table exploitation of their power, etc.

Originally Posted by Tassy001

So people who were in far worse shape ( not having insurance) now will get if for free......while the rest of us are screwed and will not be able to afford to use the high price insurance with inflated deductibles.

Stop lying about the reality. You'll still be able to afford coverage this year. I won't challenge your claim that it will perhaps cost you more, but you won't be faced with having to choose between food and healthcare this year, if you would not have been in that predicament last year as well, as a result of ACA. So many right-wingers fail to understand the meaning of the word "afford". It's like pregnancy - you either are or you are not. It's not a matter of degree, for an individual person. What is affected by the higher costs you allude to is not your ability to afford essentials, but rather your ability to afford non-essentials - comfort and luxury. Otherwise, you'd be receiving the subsidies to bridge the gap created.

The only people who really have a right to complain this year are those poor folks, earning less than 133% FPL, who live in states run by right-wing nut jobs. And their beef is with those egoistic Republicans who refuse to acknowledge basic human decency by neglecting to expand Medicaid to address the basic needs of their own constituents.

Originally Posted by Tassy001

I will make sure someone reminds you of your words - when you and your cohorts - realize the left's purpose of the ACA, is not healthcare for everyone - it's about control and power.

Where's that "tiniest violin" smiley? It would go well here. The left's purpose of ACA is to start reversing the doubling of economic injustice that right-wing exploitation of political power has promulgated over the previous generation. There are myriad resources showing the unequivocal impact - how wages have been flat since 1975 (and really, declining in real terms over the last decade) while productivity leading to profitability has continued to skyrocket. You talk about "control and power" - ha! Denying the reality of the class war promulgated by those egoistic right-wingers you support does little to add to your credibility, except those who get their information from the same echo chambers as you.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I was addressing the blatantly false claim that 25 million had ALREADY signed up ...

So in other words, you misread what I wrote, and decided to try to blame your reading failure on me. Typical right-wing silliness.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

This is how you characterize a billion dollar boondoggle? "Had some problems"?

The development of healthcare.gov cost $350 million [Source: GAO and Washington Post], but heck you don't really care about being truthful in your rhetoric so don't worry about it.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But one big error you make here is assuming that I suffer the same delusions you suffer ...but I don't.

The right-wing delusion is that all that matters is their own personal comfort and luxury. What you consider left-wing delusion is actually acknowledging political realities and the fact that doing the right thing is never going to be a straight line as long as selfish people, such as those you support, have a say in how things go.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

This false left-right debate is a game for fools, and you're obviously trapped in it ... hopelessly.

And apparently all you have to say in response to moral repudiation of the offensive perspective you support is vacuous mud-slinging. I recognize the "reason" behind the offensive perspective you support and advocate for: Egoistic avarice. It's not stupidity. It's not lack of knowledge. It's blatant, excessive self-interest and antisocial antipathy for human decency. Disreputable, but not "foolish" or otherwise the result of any mental deficiency. Until you come to respect the opposing perspective as reasonable, though driven by other objectives, you'll wallow in a quagmire of lack of understanding of the reality of the situation.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

So much for your left-right delusions!!!

Perhaps the biggest right-wing delusion is that inane rationalizations that you come up with obviate any of the moral repudiation for what you support.

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

Let's put all the practical considerations aside and address the initial question. People are in favor of ACA because healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Nobody should die because they can't afford healthcare.

I think calling it a "right" distracts right-wingers from the ability to understand what is being said. They latch onto that word and plunge right down into an irrational abyss, because they're unwilling to accept that reasonable people disagree about what priorities are rational. Instead, I prefer to explain this is a difference between morality and amorality. Right-wing perspective extols excessive self-interest and exhibits a callous disregard for others. It eschews human decency and instead fosters an "emotionally stunted, socially crippled" understanding of the purpose of society. By contrast, liberals view society as concentric shells of social connection, starting from the closest social connection at the center (one's self, and family), and projecting out from there to broader social connections, with the individual having some measure, albeit less intense measure, of responsibility all along the way. In that context, all the lessons of the development of human civilization come into context, including the lessons of our major religions (Eastern and Western) which charge the right and powerful to be compassionate and empathetic toward those most vulnerable in society. Arguably, the amorality of the right-wing developed as a bulwark against the moral fiber that they once had, that which would dissuade them from such an self-serving antipathy for social conscience and civic responsibility.

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

Here's my problem with that. Even if we had a single-payer system, there is no way the country to afford to save every life.

I'd love to see the research proving your assertion. Regardless, you're definitely going to have to defend your chosen means of deciding who should live and who should die. It's real ballsy of you to place yourself on the death panel, but now that you've done so, let's hear you defend your perspective. Without equivocation. Without dodging or evading. Be clear and explicit, and state precisely who will live and who will die, and what on moral foundation you build your edicts.

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

Do you think there is a organ for every person who needs an organ transplant?

Yet, UNOS has developed a remarkable fair system. Why shouldn't all of basic healthcare be allocated in a similar manner?

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

My point is the line must be drawn somewhere.

I'm going to hold you to account for providing that very clear and explicit explanation of precisely where that line is, and what moral foundation you have for it, so don't think you can just make such a comment as a throwaway and then avoid having to fill in the details.

Originally Posted by aus10

Show me the numbers. Make it work... Prove me wrong.. that Obamacare is going to bring down costs.

That's not what ACA is for. Again: Life on earth isn't all about you. ACA's objective is to make basic healthcare accessible to more Americans, not to make it less costly for you specifically. The logical failure in the right-wing perspective is the refusal to acknowledge that something could be more costly but still affordable, because the corrupt right-wing perspective on this issue cannot withstand the reality of what the word affordable actually means.

If your side wants to have a "Lower-cost Care Act" then propose it. But your side won't. They won't want pharmaceutical company-, medical device manufacturer-, or medical service provider-profits to take a hit; they won't abide turning doctors, nurses, etc., into veritable slaves (neither will the left, for that matter). The free market aspects of the healthcare industry will be defended doggedly by the right-wing (and the left, for that matter).

[aus10]

Originally Posted by bUU

That's not what ACA is for. Again: Life on earth isn't all about you. ACA's objective is to make basic healthcare accessible to more Americans, not to make it less costly for you specifically. The logical failure in the right-wing perspective is the refusal to acknowledge that something could be more costly but still affordable, because the corrupt right-wing perspective on this issue cannot withstand the reality of what the word affordable actually means.

If your side wants to have a "Lower-cost Care Act" then propose it. But your side won't. They won't want pharmaceutical company-, medical device manufacturer-, or medical service provider-profits to take a hit; they won't abide turning doctors, nurses, etc., into veritable slaves (neither will the left, for that matter). The free market aspects of the healthcare industry will be defended doggedly by the right-wing (and the left, for that matter).

Buzzz... thanks for playing but you can't do it! You can't give one single example of the ACA doing what we were told it would.

Did Obama say that costs would go down? Yes he did. And you mean they didn't? Gasp... You mean we were lied to?

Didn't he say that if you liked you insurance you could keep it? Another big gasp. Another lie?

Didn't he say that we weren't going to be taxed, we were going to be penalized for not having insurance? Oh.. wait... in order for it to be constitutional it has to be a tax. Another lie??

Weren't we told that Obamacare would not increase the deficit? But wait... aren't we hearing that the more likely scenario is that it will increase the deficit by 6.4 trillion dollars? The lies are heaping up now aren't they?

Didn't he in fact say that Obamacare would create jobs? Let's see... is that happening? LOLOLOLOLOL

I'll even help you out playing here...Yes.. he did say that the pre-existing condition would be address. And yes... this is a good thing. One truth.. several lies...

No life isn't about me. It's about us. As a country. It's not about regulating morality like your side seems to think. And you know what.. I could get behind your morality concepts if your side could add 1+1. I can see the reality of the word affordable, I deal with it every day. I have to make choices about each and every decision my family makes based on the affordability. Your idea of affordability is it doesn't matter what it costs the American Family... as long as its not coming out of my pocket, right?

[Proud2beAMom]

Originally Posted by cw30000

Here I fixed it for you.

That is most immature and childish.

As if everyone for the ACA doesn't work or pay taxes.

Grow the hell up.

I work just as hard as you and I pay taxes as well.

I just have a more mature and less self centered understanding of a society.. and I for one have no issue paying taxes in which those taxes are used to help others and our society.

[lionsgators]

Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom

That is most immature and childish.

As if everyone for the ACA doesn't work or pay taxes.

Grow the hell up.

I work just as hard as you and I pay taxes as well.

I just have a more mature and less self centered understanding of a society.. and I for one have no issue paying taxes in which those taxes are used to help others and our society.

don't forget how our tax dollars go to kickbacks and to grease local politicians. I love paying taxes so that charlie rangel can drive a $75,000 car on me.

[Proud2beAMom]

Originally Posted by lionsgators

don't forget how our tax dollars go to kickbacks and to grease local politicians. I love paying taxes so that charlie rangel can drive a $75,000 car on me.

Simply because I said what I said doesn't mean that I don't think that kind of nonsense occurs.

But I"m not going to sit here and advocate against doing anything because someones hands may get greased in the process.

[Sparks69]

Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom

That is most immature and childish.

As if everyone for the ACA doesn't work or pay taxes.

Grow the hell up.

I work just as hard as you and I pay taxes as well.

I just have a more mature and less self centered understanding of a society.. and I for one have no issue paying taxes in which those taxes are used to help others and our society.

I will take that bet. I average about 70 hours per week from April through October and about 55 hours per week November through March. I have a company cell phone that is with me 24/7/365, even on vacations. I answer the phone all hours of the day.

[Sparks69]

Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom

Simply because I said what I said doesn't mean that I don't think that kind of nonsense occurs.

But I"m not going to sit here and advocate against doing anything because someones hands may get greased in the process.

P2M, you are correct. This is only one example of how our tax dollars are wasted. If we could just stop the waste then it would probably cut our taxes in half.

[Proud2beAMom]

Originally Posted by Sparks69

P2M, you are correct. This is only one example of how our tax dollars are wasted. If we could just stop the waste then it would probably cut our taxes in half.

Yes, there is waste. Yes, there is government corruption.

We need to REMOVE big money from government...Unfortunately citizens united decision just made it worse.

Governing is not the problem.. but money influencing governance is.

But , it's no excuse to do nothing,as some would like to argue.