Fake patriotism? **** you.
Affordable Care?
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Fake patriotism? **** you.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Absolutely.
Just follow your "own" logic here. So because "defense" is mentioned in the Constitution then it shouldn't be looked at or cut? Soooo it shouldn't be made more effective? Pork shouldn't be cut? But should remain bloated and expensive?
You call "entitlement" spending logically unsustainable. Yet... Spending over 4 times as much on defense as China or 8 times as much as Russia is?
Gee, thanks so much for caring about the welfare of our country.
You bitch about the Constitution yet make NO mention of the war in Iraq or Patriot Act? Why is that? Because Sean Hannity hasn't allowed you to?
Fake Patriotism might be an understatement describing you and your obstructionist buddies in DC. Perhaps traitors might be more accurate?
If "welfare" of the people doesn't somehow include health care then I don't know what is. It's pretty obvious that we've entered the "Great Depression" of health care. Desperately, MILLIONS of Americans either uninsured, going bankrupt, or refused health care, or dropped from their greedy as hell insurance companies need intervention from the federal government. Obamacare, as mentioned before, will go down in history as a significant step in the right direction. Perhaps it is the "New Deal" that will help bring us out of the "Great Depression" of ridiculous premium hikes, pre-conditions, and insurance write offs that have screwed over so many Americans.
Forget compassion, use logic. Why should only the most healthy and most well to do receive health care while those who need it the most be refused? I see no logical or moral explanation for refusing people with pre-conditions. Yes, I get it, insurance companies want to make money. But a healthy society, in the LONG TERM will benefit us far more than a short term view of instant profits by refusing to cover those sick.
This.
And a thousand other things "wrong" with it, do indeed seem to point to this intent. . . . .
Great talking points, but Obamacare and other Federal "solutions" aren't taking us in the right direction, either.
Our unconstitutional "two-party" system isn't a real two party system at all. There are fascists who call themselves democrats, and others who are DINOs too, as well as fascists who call themselves republicans, and other kinds of RINOs as well, and we have a major media "priesthood" who consider it their duty to direct the American mind to better suit the fatcat management team behind the scenes of it all.
Oh, and there are a few poor maladjusted folks who still think ordinary people can have a say in the Government of the Cartels, by the Cartels, and for the Cartels.
"Obamacare" was written by insurance industry moguls, major medical providers, major pharmaceutical folks, and a few well-connected government officeholders, totally beholden to the foresaid for their campaign financing. It was claimed by the lying Press that this was to solve the existing problems, cover the uncovered, etc etc. . . . but all any patient had to say to get all the care they needed, is "uninsured", and the "insured" would eventually pay the tab. It was claimed by the lying politicians that that "the Affordable Care Act" would reduce costs by implementing efficiencies dictated from the the government managers, but every claim was a knowing, huge, lie. Some folks wanted to stick it to the insurance companies, whose reputation for meanness is well deserved, but the insurance companies had their people involved in writing the bill, and it turns out they get to raise their premiums to cover all the increased costs of this government "efficiency".
We were told this would not involve any increase in taxes, but the fact is, the lying SCPTUS dug deep and used the claim that the government has the taxing power to skirt around other fundamental constitutional issues. Effectively justifying all the politicians who voted for it, for being liars when they fooled their constituents in telling them it would save them money. . . . and would not be a tax increase. . . .
"Obamacare" is a huge fatcat handout, and we're going to pay for it. A huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. And it makes the trillion dollar bank bailout "handouts" look like chump change.
candrew
Well-Known Member
It certainly does seem like President Obama learned from Clinton's mistake in 93 and will instead try to systematically install a "Euro-like" national health care system. ACA is just a bridge to that outcome. Maybe not this year and maybe not even under Obama; but I think it will be an inevitable part of the democratic platform. Perhaps, ironically, Hillary will flip that switch in 2016?
However, when I personally throw all the rhetoric out the window and just think about this issue in terms of dollars and cents I'm left with this: Like most folks, I have my health care through my employer. Right now, with premium payments and my FSA Account, I'm spending about 6K a year on my health care (pre-tax federal) - and that's only if nothing goes wrong with anyone in my family. I have to wonder. How much would my taxes go up to support a single payer system? One thousand dollars? Two thousand? How about Three Thousand? Hell, I'd still be wayyyy ahead of the game with plenty of money left over to put back into the economy instead of throwing it into this gigantic bureaucracy that stands between myself and the medical industry.
And before you talk about not being able to choose my own doctor or long waits - we're already there. My current plan makes it virtually impossible to go out of network without bearing almost all of the expense myself. I've had private insurance through various plans and various employers since 1994 and I've watched services deteriorate and cost go up to the point where the **** bags at my current provider are now offering separate insurance for my out of pocket expenses that they no longer cover - an "insurance for my insurance" if you will. So then I'm inclined to ask - why wouldn't a single payer system benefit me?
I've seen this in my own experience as well.
Some FDR-worshipping folks like Lyndon LaRouche can actually remember the old community-based hospital system. There were doctors all over the country, in rural areas, who were indeed helped by the Federal government in getting equipment and/or facilities for their local areas with Federal handouts, and it did improve the level of care available. Poor people also got care even if they couldn't pay, at least in some cases. . . . I'd never say there aren't people who just get nothing from any sort of top-down assistance plan. And there were in some, perhaps many, cases where local charity efforts pitched in significantly.
Democrats of the Hubert Humphrey mold are sympathetic characters to me, because you can take their sincerity to the bank, so to speak. What they did was meant to help the poor.
I've seen hospitals corporatized in my lifetime, with "shareholder value" based on profits become the whole point of having "hospitals", and I think there is a problem in that. Insurance started out as a sort of "cooperative" effort to pool risks and enable people to get care when they needed it, and I'm good with it in that sense. But Insurance companies have also gone purely corporate, and driven by the short-term profit equation, and I see that impacting day to day decisions that undermine the long-term issue of getting the care that will be most economical, and most life-saving, in the longer view. It produces decisions like I described above in this thread, where a new approach is denied "until it becomes the standard" of care, which delays implementation and deters innovation.
My most serious unhappiness about the ACA is that it seems to cut people out of the process in many ways. Yes, we were lied to, and yes it's going to cost more than we are willing to pay, and yes the corporates are all going to go to the bank with the money, and no, we won't get the care we really need, or the care we want. The "Act" was indeed written by industry insiders, and our politicians did indeed get big campaign donations for enacting it.
That part is a bold faced lie. Did I think Romney was going to win? Yes I did. However I did not belittle those who thought differently. To claim that I did is a lie and you know it is.
Which does not mean they won't have health care, just that it won't be employer provided.
In support of Stoked, he did not belittle people with a different opinion. He may have belittled the opinions, but we all do that.
Thank you sir. However I see far less people belittling even opinions than people claim. Disagreeing with an opinion does not always mean you are belittling it. It depends on your tone and how you do it.
I read somewhere that by 2016 the cheapest family insurance plan under the ACA would be 20k a year. Have you heard anything about that?
I have not. It might be true. I'm currently paying a little over 10K annually right now for my not-cheapest family plan, and with the employer contribution it might well be close to 20K. Add in a little inflation, and it's over 20K even for the cheap plan.
However, since the ACA provides for discounts based on need, people do not get priced out of care.