|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 21 2017 03:54 MyTHicaL wrote:
I don't understand how obamacare wasn't good.. I mean it wasn't perfect but people's main complaint seems to be about it not being able to sustain itself yet healthcare is supposed to run on a loss.. You're not supposed to make money through it..
a few ansewrs:
1) republicans decided to make a point of claiming obamacare was bad and hating on it all the time and undermining it.
as a result a lot of partisans followed that.
2) obamacare was a kludge that really didn't work that well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kludge
"A kludge (or kluge) (/klʌdʒ/, /kluːʒ/, /kluːdʒ/) is a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain. This term is used in diverse fields such as computer science, aerospace engineering, internet slang, evolutionary neuroscience, and government."
3) while the net effect may have been positive, more individuals were hurt by it (by a small amount) than were helped by it (who were helped by a large amount).
This means a lot of people have a personal incentive to vote against it. There was a good graph for this, but sadly I can't find it right now.
I don't remember exactly, but the gist of it was that something like the bottom 20% were helped a bunch, but everyone else had to pay somewhat more. this especially upset people in the 20-60% percentile of income, who had to pay somewhat more, and had to pay more ofr their insuirance than what it was worth, but who allegedly didn't get enough subsidies. (often they could have gotten enough subsidies, but they didn't do it right, in part cuz the system was so complicated it's hard for people to get all the subsidies they're eligible for, and the system didn't do a good job of ensuring people got them.
as for your other post asking why people protest on other things:
for homosexuality I don't konw; but there's alot of very religious people in the US, some of whom think such things are sinful and horribly wrong and a few who believe god would punish everyone for such things happening, a la Sodom and Gomorrah.
for abortion it makes more sense: some of them consider that what makes a person a person is having a soul, and that the soul is put into the body on conception, therefore abortion is an act that kills a person, aka a murder. And it's understandable that people would protest murder.
|
I can't figure out how to get the video embedded. So click for a good laugh.
Thanks whoever fixed that.
|
God this and God that. God, God, God and God :/
|
On January 21 2017 05:25 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
God this and God that. God, God, God and God :/
right? i dont get the obession. at every turn, even if it has nothing to do with religion, they just keep shoehorning god into everything.
|
On January 21 2017 05:25 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
God this and God that. God, God, God and God :/
CNN cites Pew saying that 2/3 of Americans believe the POTUS should have strong religious beliefs.
|
It has everything to do with Religion. As unfortunately the US still believes in it and that it guides the country for some reason.
|
On January 21 2017 05:41 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 05:25 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
God this and God that. God, God, God and God :/ CNN cites Pew saying that 2/3 of Americans believe the POTUS should have strong religious beliefs.
theres a difference between strong religious beliefs and talking constantly about god/ religious based leadership. I imagine the number would be a bit lower if it was worded differently, probably not a ton but the way its worded seems vague and automatically slanted in a positive way. That being said the left has to work better on showing their religious convictions because people do care. dems need to try to revive the blue dogs and the dinos from extinction. Obama did a great job his first term of emphasizing his religion and doing interviews with religious publications for example.
|
On January 21 2017 05:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 05:41 CorsairHero wrote:On January 21 2017 05:25 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
God this and God that. God, God, God and God :/ CNN cites Pew saying that 2/3 of Americans believe the POTUS should have strong religious beliefs. theres a difference between strong religious beliefs and talking constantly about god/ religious based leadership. I imagine the number would be a bit lower if it was worded differently, probably not a ton but the way its worded seems vague and automatically slanted in a positive way. That being said the left has to work better on showing their religious convictions because people do care. dems need to try to revive the blue dogs and the dinos from extinction. Obama did a great job his first term of emphasizing his religion and doing interviews with religious publications for example.
people don't want someone religious, they want someone who will name drop religion.
A religious person would actually develop social programs, fun foreign aide, increase funding for the arts.
A person who name drops religion simply says god or jesus at a specific algorithm and show up at church a few times a year. Done. Wam bam thank you mam. And then its capitalist expansionism.
|
Name dropping religion is definitely more important than actual conviction for an American politician. Which is partly good, because it can somewhat marginalize the "true believers" that are theocrats, but it also makes it a pain in the ass to tell the theocrats from the casual name droppers.
Trump has "God dropper" emblazoned in his soul, I think, at least. He'd hate a government run on Christian principles. Which is why from a social liberal perspective he's probably better than Cruz or Pence.
|
Also note that many true believers in the US don't have good theological knowledge; and even the leadership is often less thorough on the theological aspects. partly an outgrowth of how protestantism worked iirc.
It is peculiar just how many evangelicals supported Trump despite his generally not at all conforming to what they talk about.
|
On January 21 2017 06:15 zlefin wrote:
Also note that many true believers in the US don't have good theological knowledge; and even the leadership is often less thorough on the theological aspects. partly an outgrowth of how protestantism worked iirc.
It is peculiar just how many evangelicals supported Trump despite his generally not at all conforming to what they talk about.
In a weird way, being "Christian" has kind of become an empty national identity. A lot of Christians are more so people who identify with being Christian rather than actually practicing it.
|
The ACA is extremely bad for certain parts of the population. People have said a lot of stupid things in this thread about it for years, but it's becoming more of an acknowledged thing.
For this enrollment period the absolute cheapest bronze level plan available to me (single 29 y/o male) was 680$ month. This is an extremely crappy 5k deductible (7.5 total out of pocket) plan. I could have gotten a significantly better plan for <200$ pre ACA. The only reason for this being so bad is the state I live in. That's it.
As for subsidies. It is possible that I could get som tax credits. However I am self employed and my income can vary a good bit. On avg I'd qualify for about 200$ a month tax credit. However I couldn't take them up front because there is a chance I could make enough to qualify for no assistance. This only requires making 60k. At that point this insurance is only beneficial if I have over 15k$ in qualified expenses (premiums + out of pocket) or 25% of my income. Considering that in 30 years of life I haven't had that (I was born in a hospital and I broke my arm once) I didn't sign up.
I don't even care what happens. Something has to change.
|
Edit: nvm, the guy isnt worth it.
|
weren't the republicans the ones who refused to fix the gap where you make too much to qualify for subsidies and shot down all attempts?
|
On January 21 2017 06:25 Atreides wrote:
The ACA is extremely bad for certain parts of the population. People have said a lot of stupid things in this thread about it for years, but it's becoming more of an acknowledged thing.
For this enrollment period the absolute cheapest bronze level plan available to me (single 29 y/o male) was 680$ month. This is an extremely crappy 5k deductible (7.5 total out of pocket) plan. I could have gotten a significantly better plan for <200$ pre ACA. The only reason for this being so bad is the state I live in. That's it.
As for subsidies. It is possible that I could get som tax credits. However I am self employed and my income can vary a good bit. On avg I'd qualify for about 200$ a month tax credit. However I couldn't take them up front because there is a chance I could make enough to qualify for no assistance. This only requires making 60k. At that point this insurance is only beneficial if I have over 15k$ in qualified expenses (premiums + out of pocket) or 25% of my income. Considering that in 30 years of life I haven't had that (I was born in a hospital and I broke my arm once) I didn't sign up.
I don't even care what happens. Something has to change.
what's the current penalty if you don't get insurance?
karis -> probably; they in general shot down a lot of attempts to try and fix the problems with it. thus they caused mayn of the problems of it by refusing to try to work on agreements to fix it. i.e. active sabotage something to make it fail, then say it was bad cuz it failed.
|
What is definitely true is that the original promises of Obamacare seem to have generally failed. "You can keep your original provider" turned out to be untrue, quality didn't really go up, and costs certainly didn't go down. People who didn't have healthcare now have it, and that's a big success. But the people who had healthcare are worse off now, and it failed to reduce prices.
Republicans managed to gain a lot of local seats as a result of Obamacare bashing. This is because it was not a well-considered policy.
|
I posted actual real numbers from the ACA enrollment period going on right now. Not theoretical made up bullshit like kwark (who posted generic nonsense about healthcare in general). Real responses are appreciated. In particular if zeflin has more info on these "normally missed subsidies".
The amount of delusion possessed by people not willing to do an iota of research on the subject is almost as infuriating as the damn twitch adds I have to see every day.
If you want to make the argument it's a net gain that's one thing, but pretending millions aren't left out just makes you stupid.
Edit: I won't have to pay a penalty. You are exempted if the bronze level premium is more than 8% of your monthly income and it's not even close.
|
On January 21 2017 06:34 LegalLord wrote:
What is definitely true is that the original promises of Obamacare seem to have generally failed. "You can keep your original provider" turned out to be untrue, quality didn't really go up, and costs certainly didn't go down. People who didn't have healthcare now have it, and that's a big success. But the people who had healthcare are worse off now, and it failed to reduce prices.
Republicans managed to gain a lot of local seats as a result of Obamacare bashing. This is because it was not a well-considered policy.
because a good deal of Republican states opted out of the Medicaid expansion, but instead of blaming their GOP representatives, which would have made sense, they've chosen to blame Obama, because Obama.
This isn't a fault of the policy being not well considered, but of being a policy that the GOP could mess with. If the voters cannot even identify this what are you supposed to do?
|
On January 21 2017 06:35 Atreides wrote:
I posted actual real numbers from the ACA enrollment period going on right now. Not theoretical made up bullshit like kwark (who posted generic nonsense about healthcare in general). Real responses are appreciated. In particular if zeflin has more info on these "normally missed subsidies".
The amount of delusion possessed by people not willing to do an iota of research on the subject is almost as infuriating as the damn twitch adds I have to see every day.
If you want to make the argument it's a net gain that's one thing, but pretending millions aren't left out just makes you stupid.
Edit: I won't have to pay a penalty. You are exempted if the bronze level premium is more than 8% of your monthly income and it's not even close.
there are some states where it isn't working well for various reasons.
Sounds like the kind of thing that could be fixed if there was willingness to work on fixing it from the republicans. but that's rather moot now.
|
I'm not interested in blaming anyone. I never even refer to it as Obamacare and congress is certainly culpable. I just want it to change and basically think anything would be better.
More subsidies is the worst sort of bandaid fix. I've said before that I think single payer is clearly better than a more heavily subsidized ACA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
