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.
Sorry, but I'm one of those Democratic voters that doesn't hope for government to give me things, I believe you have to make the effort yourself to get ahead. That being said, I don't believe voting for a party that believes in stomping on people's throats is good, either. That's the fundamental difference between you and me. You believe in the same thing I do, but you believe in if you make a mistake, you deserve to burn for it. I don't.
You have whitewashed your own ideology by saying that those who make mistakes don't deserve to "burn" for it. What you're not saying is how many mistakes you will accept before you finally decide it's time to "stomp on people's throats." And that's the problem. You see no reason to set limits on the amount of goodwill (ie. handouts) the USG should give.
That's the difference, and it's HUGE. You're just afraid to admit that that's where you stand.
Sorry, but I'm one of those Democratic voters that doesn't hope for government to give me things, I believe you have to make the effort yourself to get ahead. That being said, I don't believe voting for a party that believes in stomping on people's throats is good, either. That's the fundamental difference between you and me. You believe in the same thing I do, but you believe in if you make a mistake, you deserve to burn for it. I don't.
No, I believe that first people have to admit they made a mistake, then learn from it. You believe in handing them money so they can make the same mistake again.
"Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct."
Good article that shows that all the rightwing talking points about the ACA have proven to be untrue.
That is all political rhetoric.
First, the Republicans were locked out of having any input on this bill.
Secondly, the insurance companies are the ones who crafted this so called Affordable act, and we all know insurance companies have no compulsion to make anything affordable.
Third and finally, the Dems said "we need to pass it in order to know what's in it!" Can someone explain how or why a bill of this size could be passed without being understood? If this isn't a testament to bad lawmaking and a breach of public service, then I don't know what is.
In my more than 5 decades of life, I've never heard a Representative say they MUST pass a bill ad hominem.
I'd also point out that the roll out was a disaster, and Obama had postponed so many parts of the ACA that it looks like Swiss cheese. Just wait until all those mandates do kick in. We are going to see companies offloading millions of people to the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC to TheUnBrainWashed
You have whitewashed your own ideology by saying that those who make mistakes don't deserve to "burn" for it. What you're not saying is how many mistakes you will accept before you finally decide it's time to "stomp on people's throats." And that's the problem. You see no reason to set limits on the amount of goodwill (ie. handouts) the USG should give.
That's the difference, and it's HUGE. You're just afraid to admit that that's where you stand.
The people who are receiving their gifts from Obama Claus are getting exactly what they voted for. They'll never have to admit how it has damaged the economy, because they care less about where the money comes from and more about getting it.
The polls speak to the perception of the effects of the ACA. The article speaks to the facts of what has actually transpired following the implementation of the law. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.
I see the polls. I read the numbers. I don't require someone to analyze, interpret and tell me what to think. That is the root of the difference between us.
You have whitewashed your own ideology by saying that those who make mistakes don't deserve to "burn" for it. What you're not saying is how many mistakes you will accept before you finally decide it's time to "stomp on people's throats." And that's the problem. You see no reason to set limits on the amount of goodwill (ie. handouts) the USG should give.
That's the difference, and it's HUGE. You're just afraid to admit that that's where you stand.
What is my ideology? Right now, how would you describe it?
First, the Republicans were locked out of having any input on this bill.
Secondly, the insurance companies are the ones who crafted this so called Affordable act, and we all know insurance companies have no compulsion to make anything affordable.
Third and finally, the Dems said "we need to pass it in order to know what's in it!" Can someone explain how or why a bill of this size could be passed without being understood? If this isn't a testament to bad lawmaking and a breach of public service, then I don't know what is.
In my more than 5 decades of life, I've never heard a Representative say they MUST pass a bill ad hominem.
More recycled talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts of how the ACA is performing.
Originally Posted by steven_h That is all political rhetoric.
First, the Republicans were locked out of having any input on this bill.
Secondly, the insurance companies are the ones who crafted this so called Affordable act, and we all know insurance companies have no compulsion to make anything affordable.
Third and finally, the Dems said "we need to pass it in order to know what's in it!" Can someone explain how or why a bill of this size could be passed without being understood? If this isn't a testament to bad lawmaking and a breach of public service, then I don't know what is.
In my more than 5 decades of life, I've never heard a Representative say they MUST pass a bill ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
More recycled talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts of how the ACA is performing.
The ACA isn't performing! It has expanded Medicaid, which is basically ER care and is the most expensive and worst of coverage. Again, let's talk about all the exemptions, and the mandates that have been postponed.
This is typical of the cult, to see a broken leg and when Obama puts a Band-Aid on it everything is great!
It's a joke!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh
It's only performing for some of the people who didn't get screwed by it.
EXACTLY!!! And even worse are the millions of people who are going to be coldcocked in 2016. I swear people are so gullible these days.
Not in Michigan.....we had BC/BS....but, when the yearly income was put in....all we could get was Medicaid.
Unless we lied and said we have more income on our 1040 taxes page.....then our 1040 will not match our insurance information.
Our business insurance broker was who sent the forms in.
Same thing here in Cali. I would have had to lie about my income and raise it artificially, pay taxes on income I didn't earn, to qualify for a decent plan. It sucks
Did you read the article? Do you disagree with the data presented?
I read it and have to wonder how anyone could read it and take it seriously.
Here are their points:
"1. Obamacare is mostly just signing up customers who already had insurance. The basis for this claim was a preliminary survey conducted by McKinsey last year, well before the first enrollment period for Obamacare was complete. It generated massive coverage in the right-wing media. Since then, newer data has shown much higher figures. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that 57 percent of enrollees lacked insurance previously."
The 'data' that 47% was based on was a survey of 742 people. Again, less than 800 people nationally. You consider that a valid data source?
Additionally, you do realize that most private insurers offered extensions to companies which aren't set to expire for the next 6 months or so, meaning until early to mid-2015, enrollment numbers will be skewed to the uninsured.
"2. Obamacare isn’t even significantly reducing the ranks of the uninsured. "
You obviously didn't read the poll they used to counter this point. Did you miss the line in the conclusion of the original Gallup poll that said "However, without strong efforts to maintain retention, some newly insured Americans may not continue to pay for their insurance on an ongoing basis, thus potentially causing the uninsured rate to rise over time."?
"3. Insurance will be so expensive that few people will want to buy it. We spent weeks and weeks debating “rate shock.” Also, nope. The average plan purchased on exchanges costs customers only $82 a month. "
So they didn't bother to look at the cost of plans with equal quality of care? If someone pays the same per month, but their deductible doubles or triples, you cannot keep claiming "they pay the same"
Additionally, the 'data' they used for this point were projections from now until 2016. Not Actual numbers.
Did you honestly read the content, or did you see the headline and slap it in a post? What part of the data is there to take seriously?
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.