And of course we all know, health insurance reform has no change whatsoever on peoples health care
Is it change worth enrich a corrupt industry that was dying under it's own weight? Change worth establishing the precedent that the public can be forced to buy junk products from for-profit industries? Change worth kicking a public option down the road anther decade at least, and longer than that for single payer?
Except for people who now get healthcare, people who get cheaper health care etc.
On the backs of the poor, in the ultimate form of Lemon Socialism. A working stiff making $22k a year pays the exact same amount in deductibles and copays as a person making $66k per year or a $122k per year. So what's going to happen? The working stiff is going to be paying premiums for care he cannot afford, thus making it cheaper for the middle and upper classes.
This bill comforts the already comforted, while leaving those most in need of help still high and dry.
It shows that the republicans were never really against the plan.
It shows there are huge amounts of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are hacks for pushing Single Payer for decades, only to hail the Heritage Foundation plan as the greatest thing since Medicare once it was their guy pushing it. And Republicans, who have been trying to push mandates for over 20 years, now scream bloody socialist murder once their own plan was passed by a Democrat.
Ah, the chutzpa of the American winger. Call bullshit, then spout off a bunch of nonsense that's nothing but bullshit.
And free government health care ends up not covering many expensive treatments, so only the rich get care.
Bullshit. If that were the case, you'd be rattling off how this single payer country doesn't cover cancer treatments, and that one doesn't cover organ transplants. You don't because you can't.
In the United States, federal law requires hospitals to provide everyone life saving care whether or not you can afford it.
Bullshit. They only have to get you healthy long enough to get out the door. And their bill collectors will hound you as long as they are legally allowed to and quite possibly past that as well.
So what Democrats are pushing for would lead to only the rich getting care
Which Democrats are those? Certainly not the ones in the White House or in Congress, since they are the right wingers who first killed the possibility of single payer, then traded away the public option to the hospital lobby, and finally passed the Heritage Foundation plan/Romneycare.
I call my American doctor and see him the next day if I'm sick. The hospital nearest me currently shows no ER wait time on its web site. Your experiences are far from universal.
Nice deflection. Here: you can see a doctor right away if it's urgent, otherwise be prepared to wait. Same as it is there, wherever "there" is. But "there" you will pay less money for better care.
Oh no, no, no. ACA was passed on a party line vote. It was what the Democrats would support that was the limiting factor. As it was they passed it by hook or by crook, with plenty of pork bribes to key holdouts.
You already tried this nonsense a few days ago and it was debunked then, too. The ACA is a Republican plan and has been for decades. No, don't bother with that link showing the Heritage Foundation disavowing their own policy proposal from the nineties, since they were just fine with Romneycare years before Obama made it national.
Shorter version: they should pay more money for worse care. Other options, like hiking taxes on the rich or slashing military spending to create more revenue, would just be hippie nonsense.
Retire at 60 with, have better health care for less money, and get a first-rate education without starting with 5 or 6 figures in student debt! The horror!
FTFY. The Republicans were using blackmail to try and force a change in legislation they did not have the votes for. The only reason you're claiming their tactic is legit is because you agree with what they were trying to do - if the Democrats had taken Congress in 2006 and refused to grant Bush an increase in the debt ceiling unless a gun ban was passed, you would have been screaming bloody murder.
Which is really the messed up thing about politics.
Liberals are thought of as big government and increased spending while Conservatives are thought of as small government and less spending.
What else is messed up: thinking politicians are "liberal" or "conservative" based on their party affiliation, rather than what they actually do. We haven't had a liberal president since Nixon, and that's judging him by today's standards.
That isn't true. Under Carter and Clinton the public debt went up every single year [treasurydirect.gov]. In fact, the last time we managed to actually pay down the debt was in 1957.
Cute how you left out the oil shocks, Nixon's inflation, and the enormous Reagan/Bush deficit that was left in Clinton's lap.
Go ahead. Just be sure to add every loophole and tax deduction that was available during Eisenhower's times.
No.
Otherwise you're just advocating confiscation of wealth, which is not such a lovely road for us to go down.
Of course it is. You tax 91% of Bill Gate's wealth, and he's still one of the richest people on the planet. You tax 91% of the Walton fortune, and their descendents will still be exempt from having to work for the next few hundred years. Whereas if you cut social services for the poor, people will literally suffer and die.
Tax hikes don't necessarily mean increased revenue (they have actually decreased revenue at times).
Yes, the "Laffer Curve", otherwise known as bulllllllshit. Low taxes for the rich are about only one thing: allowing the rich to reap the benefits of the society they live in without having to pay an honest price for it.
Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."
Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."
That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform, but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.
1. They're upset that they have to buy all new cables and that the cheap cables they enjoyed for years are now gone.
On some other planet where they couldn't buy a new 4S or refurbed iPad 3, for less money, and keep using their old accessories? The only part of the product line where you would need a Lighting cable is with the iPad Mini.
Looks like you haven't actually done any research.
Because repeating your biases from the Hateboi Reality Distortion Field is "research".
Since you skipped it the first time, here it is again:
Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.
Why don't you pay attention instead of playing a fool for for a lost cause.
Why don't you give up the partisan tribalism that's killing this country. The IRS has all of two political appointees, and the one in charge was a Bush appointee. Why don't put down Glenn Beck fauxrage for a while and pay attention to the fact that both parties are coming for your job, your rights, and your retirement, none of which have anything to do with the IRS, or Fast & Furious, or whatever other crackpot squirrel that's been dangled in front of your face this morning.
Well, if you were 18 when you first voted for Obama, then you'd be on your parent's insurance through his entire term of office (long enough to support him twice and then support his, presumably, Democrat successor) BEFORE you start to suffer some of the effects of his policies; By the time you get hit in the face (and wallet) with the realities, you'll be older and wiser and more likely to vote for some more fiscally responsible candidates and the next Democrat candidates will have shifted their propaganda to the next generation of know-nothing morons with no life experiences.
That's rather complicated. A more simple explanation is that the ACA threw out enough improvements for the upper middle class, i.e. those who make enough money to keep paying for insurance for kids or in the event of an illness, so they would join the establishment in telling the working poor and hippies to STFU and support fascist Obomneycare.
But yea, the dates were an obvious tell. If the ACA was really going to be a hit with voters, Obama would have made sure it took effect before he ran for re-election in 2012, not after.
The list price for the treatment she actually received in the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death was about $300,000, but I only paid about $500 - her premiums were far less than the list price of her treatment.
Sorry to hear about your wife. But that sounds like excellent employer-provided insurance, but the ACA doesn't provide for good insurance, much less excellent. The 'most affordable' plan, Bronze, caps your out-of pocket expenses at over $6000. Which is better than $300k, but more than enough to bankrupt many families.
Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.
Right. That's why he negotiated away the public option in secret to the for-profit hospital lobby a year before signing the actual bill. Or making the same deal with the same lobbyist that he slammed in a campaign ad when he was running for president. Because he was just a Helpless Bystander.
If you're playing multiplayer online, obviously. I wonder if the parent sagely states that no one buys football games for consoles because he doesn't play them.
For what it is worth, the grandparent probably went too far.
Not even. 1967 was a war started by Israel with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force. 100% of the territory they gained in that war, most of all the West Bank, is illegal under international law and belongs to the Palestinians. Forcible removal of all settlements and settlers is a generous gesture when the leaders of Israel should be in the Hague for war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it change worth enrich a corrupt industry that was dying under it's own weight? Change worth establishing the precedent that the public can be forced to buy junk products from for-profit industries? Change worth kicking a public option down the road anther decade at least, and longer than that for single payer?
On the backs of the poor, in the ultimate form of Lemon Socialism. A working stiff making $22k a year pays the exact same amount in deductibles and copays as a person making $66k per year or a $122k per year. So what's going to happen? The working stiff is going to be paying premiums for care he cannot afford, thus making it cheaper for the middle and upper classes.
This bill comforts the already comforted, while leaving those most in need of help still high and dry.
It shows there are huge amounts of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are hacks for pushing Single Payer for decades, only to hail the Heritage Foundation plan as the greatest thing since Medicare once it was their guy pushing it. And Republicans, who have been trying to push mandates for over 20 years, now scream bloody socialist murder once their own plan was passed by a Democrat.
So you're a mundane moran, as opposed to a blindly partisan tribalist moran?
Okay, noted.
Ah, the chutzpa of the American winger. Call bullshit, then spout off a bunch of nonsense that's nothing but bullshit.
Bullshit. If that were the case, you'd be rattling off how this single payer country doesn't cover cancer treatments, and that one doesn't cover organ transplants. You don't because you can't.
Bullshit. They only have to get you healthy long enough to get out the door. And their bill collectors will hound you as long as they are legally allowed to and quite possibly past that as well.
Which Democrats are those? Certainly not the ones in the White House or in Congress, since they are the right wingers who first killed the possibility of single payer, then traded away the public option to the hospital lobby, and finally passed the Heritage Foundation plan/Romneycare.
Reality has a well known anti-cold hack bias.
Sounds like one of the annual half dozen food recalls for e-coli here in the US, Captain Anecdote.
Nice deflection. Here: you can see a doctor right away if it's urgent, otherwise be prepared to wait. Same as it is there, wherever "there" is. But "there" you will pay less money for better care.
You already tried this nonsense a few days ago and it was debunked then, too. The ACA is a Republican plan and has been for decades. No, don't bother with that link showing the Heritage Foundation disavowing their own policy proposal from the nineties, since they were just fine with Romneycare years before Obama made it national.
So are you a racist, elitist concern troll, a classist, elitist concern troll?
Shorter version: they should pay more money for worse care. Other options, like hiking taxes on the rich or slashing military spending to create more revenue, would just be hippie nonsense.
Retire at 60 with, have better health care for less money, and get a first-rate education without starting with 5 or 6 figures in student debt! The horror!
FTFY. The Republicans were using blackmail to try and force a change in legislation they did not have the votes for. The only reason you're claiming their tactic is legit is because you agree with what they were trying to do - if the Democrats had taken Congress in 2006 and refused to grant Bush an increase in the debt ceiling unless a gun ban was passed, you would have been screaming bloody murder.
Insignificant next to spending trillions on tax cuts for the rich and trillions on illegal wars.
But you knew that already.
What else is messed up: thinking politicians are "liberal" or "conservative" based on their party affiliation, rather than what they actually do. We haven't had a liberal president since Nixon, and that's judging him by today's standards.
Cute how you left out the oil shocks, Nixon's inflation, and the enormous Reagan/Bush deficit that was left in Clinton's lap.
No.
Of course it is. You tax 91% of Bill Gate's wealth, and he's still one of the richest people on the planet. You tax 91% of the Walton fortune, and their descendents will still be exempt from having to work for the next few hundred years. Whereas if you cut social services for the poor, people will literally suffer and die.
Yes, the "Laffer Curve", otherwise known as bulllllllshit. Low taxes for the rich are about only one thing: allowing the rich to reap the benefits of the society they live in without having to pay an honest price for it.
That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform, but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.
It's hard to get a man to understand something when his ideology is dependent on his not understanding it.
Nice clown shoes you got there.
Debunked 20 years ago in Japan. Mathematically.
No you didn't.
On some other planet where they couldn't buy a new 4S or refurbed iPad 3, for less money, and keep using their old accessories? The only part of the product line where you would need a Lighting cable is with the iPad Mini.
Because repeating your biases from the Hateboi Reality Distortion Field is "research".
I wonder if you sagely state that no one buys football games for consoles because you don't play them.
Since you skipped it the first time, here it is again:
Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.
Why don't you give up the partisan tribalism that's killing this country. The IRS has all of two political appointees, and the one in charge was a Bush appointee. Why don't put down Glenn Beck fauxrage for a while and pay attention to the fact that both parties are coming for your job, your rights, and your retirement, none of which have anything to do with the IRS, or Fast & Furious, or whatever other crackpot squirrel that's been dangled in front of your face this morning.
That's rather complicated. A more simple explanation is that the ACA threw out enough improvements for the upper middle class, i.e. those who make enough money to keep paying for insurance for kids or in the event of an illness, so they would join the establishment in telling the working poor and hippies to STFU and support fascist Obomneycare.
But yea, the dates were an obvious tell. If the ACA was really going to be a hit with voters, Obama would have made sure it took effect before he ran for re-election in 2012, not after.
Sorry to hear about your wife. But that sounds like excellent employer-provided insurance, but the ACA doesn't provide for good insurance, much less excellent. The 'most affordable' plan, Bronze, caps your out-of pocket expenses at over $6000. Which is better than $300k, but more than enough to bankrupt many families.
Right. That's why he negotiated away the public option in secret to the for-profit hospital lobby a year before signing the actual bill. Or making the same deal with the same lobbyist that he slammed in a campaign ad when he was running for president. Because he was just a Helpless Bystander.
If you're playing multiplayer online, obviously. I wonder if the parent sagely states that no one buys football games for consoles because he doesn't play them.
Not even. 1967 was a war started by Israel with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force. 100% of the territory they gained in that war, most of all the West Bank, is illegal under international law and belongs to the Palestinians. Forcible removal of all settlements and settlers is a generous gesture when the leaders of Israel should be in the Hague for war crimes and ethnic cleansing.