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.
The objective of Obamacare is to lower the price for those who need health insurance the most, which is the objective of any insurance group as no company would enter into the insurance market to simply cater to sick people at no profit.
The objective of Obamacare is to lower the price for those who need health insurance the most, which is the objective of any insurance group as no company would enter into the insurance market to simply cater to sick people at no profit.
The poor has suffered the last eight years. If you simply wanted to rant about today's (D) party why didn't you simply redundantly do that?
Yes the poor didn't do well and the uber rich got richer so of course the rich would continue supporting Democrats. The poor will continue to suffer as long as they expect government to legislate their prosperity or expect someone else to do it for them. Want proof? Look at the generations of poverty.
Look at your parents or your role models, for there you go if you don't do something different.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
What safeguards? Should we overcompensate? Safeguard... that the American people have a right to make so much before they are forced to support others, before they are forced to buy insurance that doesn't fit their needs so others have it?
I gave you an example in my post. Do you support removing all non discrimination laws ????
If not, then you indeed support safeguards, there are just certain ones you dont support.
Yes, and they will continue to suffer as long as they expect government to legislate their prosperity. And notice the rich got richer so of course the rich would continue supporting the Democratic party.
I saw NO Republican condemn the Socialist welfare programs for Wall Street. (other than Ron Paul)
The same can be said about Conservatives. Conservatives in the classic sense never supported bailing out failed businesses. They didn't support intervening in countries that have done nothing to us.
Classic liberals are not today's Libertarians either. There is some overlap but classic liberals have always supported the idea of helping out the lower classes. Libertarians do not.
I get labelled as a Liberal in many instances but my positions are classical Conservative in many of these areas.
Libertarians most certainly wish there to be safety nets for those who truly need it. What we do not want is a welfare state which ends up going down the rabbit hole of failed socialist central planning.
Libertarians are more like moderate JFK liberals and Goldwater conservatives. You only need to read up a Milton Friedman to understand our positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I saw NO Republican condemn the Socialist welfare programs for Wall Street. (other than Ron Paul)
Of course not! Neither party condemned it and the Dems not only condoned the first bale out, but added 2 more. They could hardly be against something they created when Glass Stegall was repealed.
Both parties colluded with the global banks to pull off the largest heist in the history of the world. No banker has gone to jail yet.
I gave you an example in my post. Do you support removing all non discrimination laws ????
If not, then you indeed support safeguards, there are just certain ones you dont support.
I'm a woman and I'm told I'm discriminated against, I know different. I refused to be a victim allowing someone else to hold power over me mentally. This worked out well for me.
If you want to argue that it did not meet every objective, you would be right, but when you try to argue that prices rose beyond the previous percentage of rise or that cost didnt fall for those at the bottom, you are wrong.
All 3 make anecdotal arguments about some individual out there or the few people looking for insurance who cant afford it, all 3 articles mention that those at or near poverty actually get it cheaper than they would have before Obamacare. 2 of the 3 mention the percentage of uninsured dropped and for those who went through the exchange, cost was lower than previously when they attempted to get insurance.
In short, saying one person's insurance went up, doesnt negate the fact that 40 people's went down.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
I'm a woman and I'm told I'm discriminated against, I know different. I refused to be a victim allowing someone else to hold power over me mentally. This worked out well for me.
Are you saying no women has ever been discriminated against, or are you saying that since it has been stomped out (in your opinion) that we should remove all discrimination laws?
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.
