First Obama-Care, then Coffee-Care

Post Reply New Topic

Please have a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCb9g8plGF8#t=0

ruveyn

If only the lemming considered what they were really going to get before they supported it.

The problem is that lemmings have a tendency to actually believe politicians.

False equivalencie. Maybe if not having coffee was a life or death decision, and taxpayers had to subsidize people who got emergency coffee because they desperately need it but can't afford it. Or if you could be denied coffee because youvwere sick or disabled.

Your hidden premise is: Medical care is a right that must be fulfilled on Need. This implies that a person needing medical care ought to be able to compel someone to provide it.

ruveyn

But the with the ACA, everyone under a certain income level will be subsidized with taxpayer money, even when they don't need care. Costing even more than how it was before. It's a net loss for everyone. Well, except the insurance companies who we're toasting champagne with Nancy Pelosi when it passed.

It's not a good analogy and it doesn't even come close to the actual reality of health care in America. With coffee you know what it is you require day after day. If you like your coffee with nothing in it, chances are you won't change that formula. If you do, you might take a little cream and sugar. Starbucks adds these for free.

With health care, you have no idea what it is you will require in the future. You cannot predict what kind of health crises you will face. So, you are going to have to be insured for all of it. Of course men are not going to need to buy any birthing or OBGYN options, that's for women of child bearing age and lordy it's expensive last I checked. Women have to pay out the bazooka just to birth one child unless they qualify for Medicaid, then it's actually affordable then. They practically require you to sign over your first born child just to give birth to it. Ridiculous. I swear the health care industry is too costly. All of it. It needs a major overhaul. Obamacare is just a fragile scab. The real problem is much worse and Obamacare will not solve it. America is headed toward a single payer system except for the expensive Cadillac luxury policies the upper classes can afford.

It's just too expensive. That's the bottom line. Actually, health insurers show obscene profits. The industry needs better regulating. .The money is there.

The failure of the ACA may all be part of a bigger strategy to get people to be more accepting of a single payer system.

The whole health care industry is rife with problems. The main one being that it's an industry. Profit motive on every level has undermined the whole thing. It shouldn't even be called "health care" , it's "sick care".

It's not a strategy. Health care costs are soaring on their own they won't need the AHCA. It will just collapse on it's own or the premiums will be so high, only the rich will be able to pay them. That's where it's going, anyway.

I'm going to come right out and say that it's a human right.



Under the previous system, the American taxpayer had to pay the full emergency room bill of anyone who couldn't or didn't pay their bill. I will agree, however, that the insurance companies engineered the infamous mandate. America is dominated by corporate interests, although nobody from the government would ever dare to admit it. It's also why I find arguments about the merits of the public and private sector so amusing. The government and the private sector are practically symbiotic at this point.

I read the title and suddenly wanted a cup of coffee. Great advertising!

Ia it a problem if all, poor and rich alike, had affordable healthcare access?

...Haven't had the time to read the whole thing ~ But , wow , see how the people are all being herded into concentration camps because of the ACA ? Oh no !

Yeah, sure. People should be compelled to provide medical care to whomever needs it. If that's a problem, they should choose another field to work in...

I was under the impression that the Hippocratic oath said "above all, do no harm." how is letting somebody lacking means sicken and die when it could be prevented/treated NOT doing harm? if, instead of saying "I am not obligated to help you afford health care," righties said, "do not include me and my money in your pathetic attempt to stay alive, you can suffer and die for all I care!," it would at least be more forthright.

This entire healthcare crises could have been settled 50 years ago had Congress extended Medicare to every man, woman and child in the U.S. But of course, this is the United States, where the dollar reigns supreme above everything else.