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.
Of course you're a taker, that's the entire premise of the ACA. Be proud, there's nothing wrong with taking something you've worked hard to steal when you're a liberal.
I guess you're proud of being a taker when you get your subsidized healthcare too, then, right? You are no less a taker than anyone else here.
I work full time and get no money from any entitlement programs, and never have. I pay taxes every year, but had no employer-based healthcare. I get a subsidy for the healthcare policy that I bought through the exchanges.
There are many people like me out here, who work hard and who pay taxes, who simply don't have access to the employer-subsidized healthcare that you most likely have. (And yes, your healthcare is subsidized, and always has been.)
We are not takers.
Jude, I support people receiving subsidies who work and can't afford hc premiums. In fact, I support full-time working people receiving partial government benefits for food and housing, which is not allowed now. I don't think anyone should go without basic healthcare. I do think Ocare is not the way to accomplish the goal of healthcare for all Americans, for many reasons. As written, it is unsustainable financially for this nation and there are more fiscally responsible ways to accomplish the goal.
Jude, I support people receiving subsidies who work and can't afford hc premiums. In fact, I support working people receiving partial government benefits, which is not allowed now. I don't think anyone should go without basic healthcare. I do think Ocare is not the way to accomplish the goal of healthcare for all Americans, for many reasons. It is a unsustainable and unrealistic.
Thank you for not calling me a taker. I sincerely appreciate that. I agree, I don't think the ACA is the best solution, either, but having been without insurance for over a decade, having it is definitely better than not having it.
I guess you're proud of being a taker when you get your subsidized healthcare too, then, right? You are no less a taker than anyone else here.
Jude you can't start a thread like this accusing all Republicans of something they never said and not expect for people to call you out. If you are ok taking a government subsidy then do it, just don't act like it's wrong for me to dislike how screwed up this law has turned out to be.
I asked a question if you pitch in and you answered no. I don't expect anything less than you run away when confronted with your words verses your actions, frankly.
Well, if you're going to just make stuff up now and fail to define "pitching in," you've got nothing.
I pay for my health insurance, like everyone else. Which means I "pitch in" like nearly all the population... and like you do as well, most likely.
Now, if you're asking if I toss in tons of money to pay for other people's healthcare just for fun, no, I don't - and I assume you don't either.
So, there are the answers - depending upon how you define "pitch in" to meet your agenda...
Jude you can't start a thread like this accusing all Republicans of something they never said and not expect for people to call you out. If you are ok taking a government subsidy then do it, just don't act like it's wrong for me to dislike how screwed up this law has turned out to be.
And yet, you call me a taker and accused me of "stealing," when you are also getting subsidized healthcare if you get it through your employer, yet somehow that is not "stealing." I guess you have been "stealing" for a long, long time now, huh? Who is the bigger taker here?
Well, if you're going to just make stuff up now and fail to define "pitching in," you've got nothing.
Rambler, you were the one who espoused "pitching in". You are the one who defined it. You are the one said you don't "pitch in" yet are angry others don't want to "pitch in". In my view, you are a taker, a talker and a hypocrite of the highest order.
Rambler, you were the one who espoused "pitching in". You are the one who defined it. You are the one said you don't "pitch in" yet are angry others don't want to "pitch in". In my view, you are a taker, a talker and a hypocrite of the highest order.
Oh, so now we're to the "picking fights and lying" part of this discussion?
Here's what I said:
1) The right-wing lunatics were angry that the poor got "Free health care" before the ACA.
2) The ACA requires everyone to pay at least some nominal payment for healthcare (the penalty for not having health insurance), which means everyone must "pitch in" - as in "pay for part of their health care costs vs. free-loading completely."
3) The right-wing lunatics were then angry about that, which is funny because the ACA fixed the "not pitching in at all" part of the problem that they so hated.
So, the phrase "pitching in" as I used it means "paying for part of your own health care."
I do that (as does anyone who has health insurance or who just pays with cash) - and I never said I didn't, nor did I say I "don't pitch in." You simply made that up - pathetic!
Since it seems you lack the honor and integrity to address what I have written vs. putting words in my mouth and making drek up to suit your agenda, don't waste any more of my time.
Last edited by Rambler123; 06-23-2014 at 04:56 PM..
"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."
Exactly. I worked with these type of right-wing lunatics for years, and they were a joke.
On the one hand, they'd rant and rave about "those people" - except they'd use the n-word - in the "ghetto" who "didn't pay a dime and got free healthcare and stuff!"
Then, the ACA passes, which forces everyone to pitch in, and now the right-wing stooges are angry about that, despite the ACA eliminating the "free ride" they so hated.
Of course, when it comes right down to it, what they really hated was that the poor and "those people" might be able to afford health care, and - worse! - some of THEIR money might go to help "those people," and they just hated that and were very vocal about hating it!
These are the same clowns that gave me a KKK recruitment speech, think the 1st Amendment covers lynching people, and can't go a week without blaming the "n-words" for ruining "mericah!" so what else is to be expected...
The final irony? The company's health care premiums went up LESS the first year into the ACA than in any previous year in a long, long time... but Obama is still "the worst president ever" and the whining continues...
1. Everyone isn't chipping in
Only those making 200k or more are paying extra in medicare surtaxes and it's a double whammy for self employed who get whacked with 40% premium increases or having their max out of pocket deductible double or both.
2. And the exchanges affect the individual market right now. So it has nothing to do with the employer market.
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.
