Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? Answer: four. Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.

ruveyn

That's pretty funny

admittedly i worded that poorly.

there is such a thing as tact.

Hasn't social security's obituary been written several times in the past? I suspect when twenty years comes and goes, and it's still here, people will still be foretelling it's demise.

if all these righties were to be collectively placed into the WABAC machine and taken back to their beloved dog-eat-dog 1890s they would soon come running back to the shelter of the modern social contract.

Medical bankruptcy is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US so your imaginary Ayn Rand housekeeper is just a bum in waiting. If she or one of her three unfortunate kids have a major medical need they will rack up massive bills that they cannot pay. That all comes back to hit the premiums of the insured and the coffers of the state through various programs. You seem to expect not only a fee lunch but the most expensive kind of free lunch.

But if we get her into a program where she can pay part of her way and get her checkups rather than a late stage cancer panic at the ER we might save some money while getting her family real care.

why waste your time with him? he will never get it.

Ain't that the truth.

Baggers...

Social Security is not that bad off. There are lots of levers to pull and years to pull them. And eventually we power through the baby boomer glut (meaning they die) and things will be fine. Medicare is in more immediate need.

Gosh, you'll believe that Obama will miraculously improve everybody's insurance coverage, and lower everybody's rates, all without adding a dime to the deficit, and yet you won't believe little old me? I'm wounded, Sah, wounded.

Not only does she live two doors down, her daughter was over here to babysit a few weeks ago, and I took one of her boys to an airshow this summer. As imaginary families go they're pretty solid. And while she is exceptional, I can think of a few more people who probably qualify for some kind of government assistance yet choose not to apply for it. Not everyone is eager to become a dependent of the State. I knew you wouldn't understand this.

Should catastrophe strike, medical or otherwise, my friend and her kids will want for nothing. I don't know if I'd make the same choices she has -- I don't have that many friends, for one thing, and don't want to belong to a church -- but they are her choices to make. What gives you, Obama, or anybody else the right to stick a gun in her face and compel her to bend to your will?



At gunpoint. Because you know better than they how they ought to spend their money.



That's the problem. I read the original bill, the one that the people who voted for it couldn't be bothered to read, and tons of speeches and articles since, and there haven't been any arguments. Only wishful thinking, castles in the air, arbitrary unsupported assertions, straw men, ad hominems, and general smears of anyone who voices opposition -- such we're seeing right here.



You lost me with that one. Oh, did I forget to mention the option where she pays a big fine and gets nothing in return? Somehow I doubt that she will go for that.

I believe that all transactions among adults should be voluntary. You believe that it is sometimes desirable to drive people like cattle. We're just going to disagree about that.

What did you expect? Take a look at some of the ridiculous legislation passed in Florida based solely on the fact that it will hinder the implementation of the ACA.

The biggest reason that the rates are going to get lower is because the insurance companies will have tens of millions of new policies being paid for, precisely because coverage is required. In the long run, with that many people receiving screening and preventive care, less money will be paid out by the insurance companies for expensive, advanced disease.
From both a financial and legislative standpoint, the Act is very well designed.
My theory:
When one side doesn't have to make so many concessions that throw in tons of pork and/or makes so many exceptions to gain a bipartisan vote, legislation could be designed more efficiently. Most of the soundest and most effective legislation over the centuries has been written and passed by a one or the other party almost (or entirely) alone.

How about we wait a few years and see how ACA actually performs?

If it is as bad as the opponents say, then surely Congress will demolish it.
If it is as good as the proponents say, then surely Congress will stick to it.

And if it is somewhere in between (more likely), then Congress can make the appropriate adjustments.

Anyway, the US has to do *something* to battle runaway health care expenditures, so it's not like you can simply cover your ears and eyes and ride out the storm.

How many pieces of bad legislation has congress gotten rid of ever? Who do you think congress will side with, individual Americans or the insurance executives who's pocket books are being fattened?

Obamacare does nothing to control prices, they will continue to skyrocket. Now you get fined if you don't want to pay for health insurance.

But ya, the results will speak for itself. The incompetence shown during its implementation is a sign of things to come. I can see why you guys want government run health care, quality only the post office can give you.

Last edited by Jacoby on 24 Oct 2013, 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No doubt about that.

You are making multiple claims about the effects of ACA (price control, quality) that are currently unknown.

Given the complexity and fragmented nature of the US health care system compared to almost any other country, how can you claim to have foreknowledge of the effects of ACA?