|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
So baisicly you would rather please your personal needs of having the freedom to chose if you pay for medical insurance or not, then fixing the problems for thousands or millinons of people in your country?
|
On June 29 2012 03:39 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. So baisicly you would rather please your personal needs of having the freedom to chose if you pay for medical insurance or not, then fixing the problems for thousands or millinons of people in your country?
I don't really care about any of this, but most people value personal freedoms highly, regardless of how seemingly insignificant.
|
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?
1) Who knew 1 man could elect supreme court justices, I thought they were appointed.
2) Right now doctors are paid more for certain tests than others, and that is what they are paid for what they do. Not keeping you healthy. Odds are good that doctors will prescribe unnecessary or less effective treatments because they are paid more to do so. It is a major problem with modern healthcare and increases the cost, while decreaseing the quality of care. Anything that changes that is only a good thing, because it is hard to have the doctor's incentives be any further from the patient than it is now.
3) You want a doctor that is incentiviced to go the extra mile. You do realize under the current system that just means they will do expensive things to you so they get paid more. (See point 2) There would be no difference between now and socialized medicine.
|
|
|
On June 29 2012 03:37 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. Calling something communistic is a bad habit that republicans have gotten into, the better thing to call government programs that can't and won't try to cut spending and increase the power of government in the private sector is Socialism. While the EU is failing harder than the US (which I don't have pride for, it's just true) there still is a majority of people on this site and many others that advocate for socialism in the US. Understanding the basic concept that the inflation of the US dollar, the increase in government size and a unsupporting country for businesses is not a plan for success. The US debt is going to hit 16 trillion soon and the Deficit is 1.3 trillion on top of the largest budget in history (total comes to about 30% of our gdp). You could cut every program outside of medicare, medicaid and social security and still not pay for an entire year of the government running. You can take all the money from the top 1% and you won't be able to pay for a year. As a country US is predominantly built on the idea that government should not be intruding into our lives yet when you have government intrusion you get bubbles like the housing bubble and you have ridiculous inefficiency. I hope that your grammar mistakes were for a dramatic effect.
It's not, English is not my first language.
|
On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:34 K_Dilkington wrote:On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!? As far as I understand private healthcare will continue to exist in its current form? The public health care option is only for people who can't afford private care, right? I don't see how this effect you at all if what I stated is true. Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand.
The government doesn't pay for anything >.> it doesn't produce anything, it gains revenue from taxes and that money belongs to the people.
|
This made my day haha. I run into far too many people like them T_T;;.
|
On June 29 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand. You were paying for them in the emergency ward anyway, now you get to pay for the cheaper preventative care that keeps them from needing emergency care and makes them more functional and productive. It's a good investment on your part. Well done.
I don't think you understand how many freeloaders there are in America, and as a Brit, I'm fairly certain you dont understand exactly how much this effects what the American middle class will be paying out now. Furthermore, your European smugness on the matter is completely unappreaciated, especially since you are a mod an are expecting no response for using such a demeanor. This is not the socialized medicine that you guys have, this is a terrible, terrible law and a loss for the system.
|
Lol'd so much at "basic healthcare" for $400/month. >__>
Welcome to the civilized world USA.
|
On June 29 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand. You were paying for them in the emergency ward anyway, now you get to pay for the cheaper preventative care that keeps them from needing emergency care and makes them more functional and productive. It's a good investment on your part. Well done.
I don't think you understand how many freeloaders there are in America, and as a Brit, I'm fairly certain you dont understand exactly how much this effects what the American middle class will be paying out now. Furthermore, your European smugness on the matter is completely unappreaciated, especially since you are a mod an are expecting no response for using such a demeanor. This is not the socialized medicine that you guys have, this is a terrible, terrible law and a loss for the system.
On June 29 2012 03:44 ixi.genocide wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand. The government doesn't pay for anything >.> it doesn't produce anything, it gains revenue from taxes and that money belongs to the people.
Isn't that almost EXACTLY what I just said? What am Im missing here? I think it might be you that's missing something?
|
On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly.
Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money.
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.
There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product.
The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.
|
On June 29 2012 03:47 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:45 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand. You were paying for them in the emergency ward anyway, now you get to pay for the cheaper preventative care that keeps them from needing emergency care and makes them more functional and productive. It's a good investment on your part. Well done. I don't think you understand how many freeloaders there are in America, and as a Brit, I'm fairly certain you dont understand exactly how much this effects what the American middle class will be paying out now. Furthermore, your European smugness on the matter is completely unappreaciated, especially since you are a mod an are expecting no response for using such a demeanor. This is not the socialized medicine that you guys have, this is a terrible, terrible law and a loss for the system. Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:44 ixi.genocide wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand. The government doesn't pay for anything >.> it doesn't produce anything, it gains revenue from taxes and that money belongs to the people. Isn't that almost EXACTLY what I just said? What am Im missing here? I think it might be you that's missing something?
He's pointing out that in saying "The government sure won't be paying for it, the people will." it's stating an obvious fact through hyperbole. If the people pay for it the government is paying for it and if the government is paying for it the people are paying for it, either way is identical, so why try to make the distinction?
|
if I have to give up my right to choose to buy health care or not (lol?) to help millions of americans, then it is an easy choice.
|
On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:
There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product.
The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.
Not really - you can choose to not buy health insurance and pay the tax instead.
Normally the government would give a tax credit to those that did buy health insurance but in practice it is the same thing.
|
On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.
What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances?
Man up and don't be a sore loser...
Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no?
|
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?
|
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.
Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
|
The other problem is that my insurance premiums will actually go up and not down with more people. because they are now required to have more things in my insurance. kinda feels like a shitty deal since i know i need the insurance but don't need all the things that it is giving me coverage for.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:00 ixi.genocide wrote:On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 02:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. Calling it a tax is semantics and politics. Sure, it's legally valid semantics now. But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare. But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps. It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper. Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise. Second point- Obamacare is not hated, it's just a bad bill, not only was it delivered with multiple things added including handouts to states that shouldn't have even been considered, the bill tries to force a contract between two private parties and meddles in an already over inflated business. Why would you call people that have a dissenting opinion braindead? Not only do you lose credibility by being a dick, you also patronize a minority on forums like these in a similar way to bullying. Btw, there are about 50 million people on food stamps and most view it as a free voting tool for big government politicians, which is dominated by the left, not the right. You are right, if Obamacare was repealed then he would be fairly gimped, it was one of his main policies (probably main) during these first 4 years and it being unconstitutional would hurt a lot. But even if it was repealed he would be able to play the underdog, The mainstream media in this country would portray the democratic party as the guys fighting for the people against the greedy republicans that never pass any bill and want your children to die of cancer. This could have been a win for the GOP but it is really about limiting the size of government (who we don't trust, we don't think that the government is efficient in any way) and making the US economic engine viable for future generations. I don't think romneys position as a governor is a hurdle he will have to overcome with most independents, the strong republicans are already going to vote for him and the strong liberals are already going to vote for Obama. Also, every politician flip-flops, Democrats just call it evolving.
I'm not gonna debate what's affordable/not affordable or costs money/saves money seeing how neither of us can actually answer that. What I do think is that its reasonable for people to have health insurance and that the state has a role in providing it for those that can't afford it otherwise, so they don't show up for emergency care that could have been avoided by earlier treatment. To me, that seems like a basic function of the state, yet what I'm hearing from the republican side is 'repeal', without any actual solution.
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.
Obama obviously had a strategy incase it were repealed, but he's stronger with the law being upheld. He now gets to explain why this is a good thing without having the whole 'its unconstitutional socialism' hanging over his head.
True, Affordable is relative and depends on priorities.
I also think it is reasonable for people to have health insurance, I also don't have a problem with a (you call it a state, which is what America calls it's provinces, but for this I will use the word state) state having a role in providing health care/insurance. The problem I have is that the costs associated with a mandate such as this is the costs associated with it will rise and they are already too high. I want every person to have healthcare and the best treatment for any problems they have, I just don't want to see US go the way that Greece is going to get it.
The reason that you don't know of any solution is that you have probably never seen the republican healthcare bill that was competing with Obamacare before republicans took the senate. The mainstream media in america is horribly biased and regardless of what is true or better for the people programs like nbc, cnn ect will report on democratic ideas. Most people in this country don't know about the solyndra scandal or the Fast and Furious program that put like 700 rifles in the hands of mexican cartel resulting in deaths for both mexico and us personnel (won't go further). Obamacare is a poor bill but it seems like it was the only option at the table so it wins automatically, that is the power of the media.
I understand that you weren't calling anyone in specific braindead, but you were referring to one side of a two party system that has equal parts braindead. I remember a video of this impartial camera crew interviewing people waiting to vote and the answers that they had to this camera crew were so bad it was actually funny. It reminded me of a SNL comedy skit but it was with real voters.
Yeah, this is no doubt a victory for Obama but I still think that with the help of the media he would have been just fine even with this being repealed. Most people in america wouldn't have even known the process, let alone the reason why the bill was repealed and it would have quickly been spinned to attack the republicans and paint Obama as the underdog.
Edit: Also, I think all states in the US have an insurance policy for low income and some states like Massachusitts even have a full healthcare plan. This bill doesn't actually cover that many people outside of the ones that choose not to pay for their healthcare, something that most don't realize.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.
Streetlights, highways and other road stuff should be payed for with tabs for our vehicles, while that is a tax it isn't a federal tax. Social security isn't even apart of the government budget, while it is a tax it shouldn't be going to anything except the people that can withdraw funds from it. I am not saying you are incorrect in your assessment of his post but just pointing out the intricacies of our tax system.
|
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
That's a gross exaggeration.
Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits.
Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country.
Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
