djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:41:18 GMT -5
I can think of a number of people running for re-election next year who will want it remembered: it will be a positive plank of their anti-Obamacare campaign. you are both banking on there NOT being another one. don't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:43:54 GMT -5
I had missed this gem. The smallest government correlates with the theoretical acme of wealth redistribution? interesting that you seem to think that inequality necessarily induces poverty. that is a very telling response.Are you envisioning the stateless Utopia of Marx and Engels? you are closer with this, but still a LONG way off.Or is Parkinson's Law more of a guideline for you? the only Parkinson's that concerns me right now is my mom's, thanks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 17:45:07 GMT -5
no.....they think they are getting 30 million new customers what they are getting is 30 million new headaches and a few million new customers it really depends on how many young people sign up. young people are very small headaches to health insurers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 18:34:29 GMT -5
It's not immaterial. One impacts the functionality of free markets more than the other. And it is next to impossible to control (i.e. they cannot pick the specific groups of people that they want to help). so, you are advocating socialism? i am not teasing you here, ib- that is what you APPEAR to be doing. I don't know exactly what the definition of socialism is or if this fits it. But if capitalism is beneficial to all but leaves a few behind, we need to help the few in a way that does the least damage to the free markets. Capitalism is not perfect. But the opposite of capitalism is much worse. It's a fine balance, and lives are more important than money.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 18:39:13 GMT -5
so, you are advocating socialism? i am not teasing you here, ib- that is what you APPEAR to be doing. I don't know exactly what the definition of socialism is or if this fits it. But if capitalism is beneficial to all but leaves a few behind, we need to help the few in a way that does the least damage to the free markets. do you really believe that is where free markets take us? many here have stated openly that dunderheads that are hired at minimum wage are not worth that price. what are they worth? what the Chinese pay? you tell me.Capitalism is not perfect. But the opposite of capitalism is much worse. It's a fine balance, and lives are more important than money. i am not advocating against capitalism. but i have a few simple questions. i think there are "countervailing forces" that help regulate markets. but i doubt we view those forces in the same way.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 18:51:27 GMT -5
the website is the LEAST of their concerns right now the employer mandate was delayed a year instead of 15-20 million folks getting pissed off at the numbers for their insurance, this time next year add another 60-80 million lots of employers do not have insurance that meets the "good enough and cheap enough" criteria this is an albatross that is choking the democrats..... and not sure how much longer it will be swallowed they will abandon Obama and his signature legislation if they think it will sink them in the upcoming elections going to be an interesting political year..... government shut down....no one will remember it in a few months at one point in time i entertained your predictions........ These are the Obama regime's own predictions- recorded in the Federal Register. The precise number they predicted was 93 million. Have a nice day. Thank you for playing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 18:57:01 GMT -5
Today Applebees announced they will be switching to computerized ordering and payment via screens installed at tables. I say let Seattle raise the minimum wage to $15 and see what happens. As usual, well-intentioned but poorly-conceived plans will hurt the lowest-paid people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 18:57:06 GMT -5
at one point in time i entertained your predictions........ These are the Obama regime's own predictions- recorded in the Federal Register. The precise number they predicted was 93 million. Have a nice day. Thank you for playing. huh?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 18:58:30 GMT -5
I don't know exactly what the definition of socialism is or if this fits it. But if capitalism is beneficial to all but leaves a few behind, we need to help the few in a way that does the least damage to the free markets. do you really believe that is where free markets take us? many here have stated openly that dunderheads that are hired at minimum wage are not worth that price. what are they worth? what the Chinese pay? you tell me.Capitalism is not perfect. But the opposite of capitalism is much worse. It's a fine balance, and lives are more important than money. i am not advocating against capitalism. but i have a few simple questions. i think there are "countervailing forces" that help regulate markets. but i doubt we view those forces in the same way. Very few people are paid minimum wage, so clearly >95% of workers are worth more than the federally mandated minimum wage.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 19:00:05 GMT -5
Today Applebees announced they will be switching to computerized ordering and payment via screens installed at tables. I say let Seattle raise the minimum wage to $15 and see what happens. it wasn't seattle. it was seatac. and it already happened. it won by 71 votes. there will probably be a recount. As usual, well-intentioned but poorly-conceived plans will hurt the lowest-paid people. we'll see. i predict nothing will happen. do you want me to explain why?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 19:03:16 GMT -5
i am not advocating against capitalism. but i have a few simple questions. i think there are "countervailing forces" that help regulate markets. but i doubt we view those forces in the same way. Very few people are paid minimum wage, so clearly >95% of workers are worth more than the federally mandated minimum wage. i am aware of the statistics. we have discussed them many times. but that doesn't answer the question. it doesn't matter if there are 1 or 100M. the question is the same. so, what is the answer, ib: what is a minimum wage worker worth?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 19:30:14 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 19:48:32 GMT -5
interesting. this is so wildly different than anything i have ever seen on this subject, it will take me a while to absorb it. thanks for posting, Paul. i mean that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 20:05:21 GMT -5
Today Applebees announced they will be switching to computerized ordering and payment via screens installed at tables. I say let Seattle raise the minimum wage to $15 and see what happens. it wasn't seattle. it was seatac. and it already happened. it won by 71 votes. there will probably be a recount. As usual, well-intentioned but poorly-conceived plans will hurt the lowest-paid people. we'll see. i predict nothing will happen. do you want me to explain why? Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 20:06:26 GMT -5
Very few people are paid minimum wage, so clearly >95% of workers are worth more than the federally mandated minimum wage. i am aware of the statistics. we have discussed them many times. but that doesn't answer the question. it doesn't matter if there are 1 or 100M. the question is the same. so, what is the answer, ib: what is a minimum wage worker worth? Value as a human being? Much more than minimum wage. As I said, people are more important than money.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 20:33:29 GMT -5
we'll see. i predict nothing will happen. do you want me to explain why? Yes. SeaTac is primarily airport employees. it is a captive market. there is no way to move the airport to another, cheaper city. in a sense, this minimum wage deal is not very meaningful, because of that fact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 20:47:26 GMT -5
I had no idea it was easentially just the airport. OTOH, an airport is the first place I've ever seen a restaurant where customers enter their own orders. It's not necessarily about businesses leaving. It may become a great test bed for new technology.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 20:52:41 GMT -5
interesting. this is so wildly different than anything i have ever seen on this subject, it will take me a while to absorb it. thanks for posting, Paul. i mean that. I'm here to help. I mean that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 2, 2013 20:55:17 GMT -5
SeaTac is primarily airport employees. it is a captive market. there is no way to move the airport to another, cheaper city. in a sense, this minimum wage deal is not very meaningful, because of that fact. That's what they think- but the fact is that Chicago airports have made even Gary, Indiana competitive. In fact, there's really no such thing as a 'captive market' over the long term. Just ask Detroit. Or for that matter, Babylon, or the Medes and the Persians, or the Greeks, or for a more recent example- The United Kingdom.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 21:02:09 GMT -5
SeaTac is primarily airport employees. it is a captive market. there is no way to move the airport to another, cheaper city. in a sense, this minimum wage deal is not very meaningful, because of that fact. That's what they think- but the fact is that Chicago airports have made even Gary, Indiana competitive. In fact, there's really no such thing as a 'captive market' over the long term. Just ask Detroit. Or for that matter, Babylon, or the Medes and the Persians, or the Greeks, or for a more recent example- The United Kingdom. whatever. it is way different on plains states than WA. there is very little space for airports there.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 2, 2013 21:22:06 GMT -5
... whatever. it is way different on plains states than WA. there is very little space for airports there. Western Washington, my side of the state has a lot of room. They just don't want to drive over the mountains to get home from the airport.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 0:55:14 GMT -5
... whatever. it is way different on plains states than WA. there is very little space for airports there. Western Washington, my side of the state has a lot of room. They just don't want to drive over the mountains to get home from the airport.yeah. Western Washington....where Seattle is......thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:57:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 7:54:09 GMT -5
Huh? Last check, Seattle is in Western Washington. Besides, as I pointed out, it's not necessarily about businesses moving, but about replacing workers with technology.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 8:54:07 GMT -5
This one's even older. I admit, the cover you're addressing is less iconic, but I have a justifiable suspicion that the story of massive hubris, appalling ignorance, breathtaking mendacity, and blind partisanship that is the Obamacare debacle will still be current in a year.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 9:00:40 GMT -5
And none of this has anything to do (again) with the continued meltdown of the President's "Signature Achievement". The question is, when will the President and the Democratic Party finally be forced to drop the Goebbels-like insistence that everything is going according to plan, and victory is close at hand and admit the Russians and the Allies are high fiving each other in Berlin? It's over. Will they die in the bunker, or come out and address their massive, indefensible failure?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 9:05:37 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem with the site is that it's TOTALLY- 100% insecure. There's absolutely NO security on the site-- at all. The second biggest problem is that there's no confirmation of signups-- not for the consumer, not at the insurance company, and not for the doctors and hospitals. And the problem for all of us is that Obama regime and the Democrats are attacking the issue as a PR problem, when it is a real, practical problem that has mired the nation, and the economy in a sticky morass. They need to admit their mistake, take responsibility for the problem, and humble themselves and repeal this law. Now. Scrap it. Drop the charade. End the games. Stop the finger pointing. Own it, and kill it.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 9:15:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure I've ever criticized you for optimism. What you're calling optimism, I suspect, I call wilful blindness. It's not optimistic to continue to accept a lie in the face of contradictory evidence: it might be foolish or complicit, and I don't think you're a fool, but it's not optimistic. Here's something else I'm sure your wide reading has failed to include - I appreciate you're a busy man, and it's thread-relevant. 2017project.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Average-Obamacare-Subsidies.pdfThis is a breakdown of the premium economics of post-reform healthcare insurance in the 50 most populous US counties outside of Massachusetts - Obamacare works differently there - and Maryland and Hawaii, whose exchanges weren't up and running when the analysis was done. It shows that, on average, if you're a single adult on $20k in the 51-64 bracket, you do better to pay the premium on a bronze plan than pay the fine. For absolutely everybody else, paying the fine makes better economic sense - unless there is likely to be instrumental value before the next open enrolment in having insurance (and these same statistics show that average premiums for the cheapest subsidized plans are substantially higher than the premiums for cheapest plans pre-reform). In other words, the regime of tax penalties and tax subsidies rationally favors insurance enrollment by older and sicker people, which is what we call "adverse selection." This means that, in the Spring, faced with an older and sicker enrollment population than forecast (quite possibly a smaller one, as well: state exchanges are comfortably outperforming the federal exchange, but for example Colorado has enrolled fewer than half the number of people it extrapolated for a worst-case scenario pre-rollout, and there's also the nitpicking matter that as many as one-third of these enrollees nationwide may not have their information accurately forwarded to the insurer they think they're enrolled with - and if they don't pay premiums, they aren't covered), insurers are going to put up premium rates for 2015 that are substantially higher, more than enough to worsen the calculus for younger, healthier uninsured Americans even with the penalty going up (and, separately, the plain language of the PPACA makes that penalty, and the subsidy that is the carrot to its stick, arguably inapplicable in every state that elected not to set up its own exchange). That's before employers stampede to drop and adjust workers' plans ahead of their revised 2014 deadline for compliance, and assuming there's no news mileage in sob stories from modestly affluent Middle America about how their cancer doctor is suddenly off-limits thanks to the meddling Obamacare exchanges, or in comparing the sunny Baghdad Bob proclamations of the administration with actual performance (yesterday, the healthcare.gov website started locking people out with 35,000 users accessing the site - that's 30% fewer than it's supposedly able to handle). Feel free to enumerate the feelgood factors that override these considerations and lead you to believe the thing's going to work, economically or politically, bearing in mind that the latter puts an artificial clock on matters.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 9:41:11 GMT -5
We have been trying to get some sort of health care coverage passed in this country for 100 years. If there was hubris it may have been on the part of those making earlier attempts to get it passed. Not on the part of those openly lying to ram it through with parliamentary gimmicks on a party-line vote that led to one of the larger humblings of the two-party era a year later. Of course not.The Obama initiative is not one of extreme hubris in my opinion, but just the opposite. This is as meek an attempt as possible, put forth with the knowledge that the priviliged class was by and large against it, and that it would take a herculian effort to get anything done at all. As such it is a half way measure that does as little as possible while still achieving the first milestone of providing access to care for all. Except - (i) it does a great deal, all of it harmful (even Democrats can't write 20,000 pages of regulation that does "as little as possible"); (ii) it doesn't provide access to care for all. California is being lauded by some commentators on the left - Krugman slouches to mind - as the archetypal success of Obamacare. More people have lost insurance than gained it as a result of the law in California.Ignorance? Perhaps to a point, and certainly in terms of the roll out of the portal to access it. In the larger picture though it is not ignorance but basic common sense to go forward with care for all. Like other new programs it will certainly have to be tweaked. But when the President expresses wide-eyed astonishment that insurance is a complex product three years after signing into law a comprehensive restructuring of the industry - one which turns actuarial practice on its head by inverting the customary relation between premium payment and claim payouts - the point of ignorance is close to the acme. And, I'll say this again because it bears repeating, insurance for all is not care for all - this is especially true if the insurance actually isn't for all, as is the case with Obamacare, and if it places sufficient burdens on care providers that they reduce provision of care, as is the case with Obamacare.Mendacity? You guys have already overplayed that card in my opinion. Similarly, the rollout failure card has been overplayed. As the system comes online it will be exposed for the naked effort to discredit the program by any means that it is. For shame. You guys have to hope we have. A lie is a lie is a lie. A lie told 34 times by the President of the United States is a whopper. A lie that leads people who supported the law to say they wouldn't if they'd known about it - that leads people who voted for Obama in 2012 to say they'd have voted for Romney instead - is as politically significant as they come. And the structural economic problems with the Obamacare reform dwarf the politically hideous optics. It's not the lying, it's the incompetence that's going to hurt Brand Democrat in the long run. It's the idea that Democrats can't run a stocking that's going to make it hard for them to run for office.Partisanship? Absolutely, because "the other side" steadfastly refuses to accept the basic premise of basic care for all. Again, the privilaged class is afraid that if the peasants also get care that their access will be restrained. Or that they will get something for nothing. Or something else. I can't quite get inside their (collective) head to figure why they are in such denial. And yet the adjustments away from a public option, the watering down of the bill, the insertion of language on abortion, the bribes and kickbacks and pandering and backroom deals, were all done to secure DEMOCRATIC votes. And it was DEMOCRATS that blocked Republican efforts to subject our legislative elite to the same insurance market they were inflicting on their constituents. And the people complaining they're not getting "something for nothing" are the young aspirational voters of the Obama coalition, who are waking up to the gulf between what candidate Obama promises and what President Obama delivers. See also black unemployment, or Hispanic deportation, or the Wall Street/Main Street divide, or lots of other examples of Obama saying one thing and doing another WHEN HE HAD UNASSAILABLE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS.Yes indeed, it will still be current in a year. This will overcome it's hiccups and become a stepping stone toward a better and more inclusive health care system in this country. Guess who will NOT get any credit? You mean a millstone. You don't make a product more inclusive by making it more expensive - a diamond is forever, but not for everybody. I appreciate you have to make the effort. For what it's worth, I don't believe catastrophic care is a product the free market can equitably deliver, and I do think it's a reasonable expectation of a citizen under a social contract. I don't feel the same way about preventative care, which is why I think an insurance product that combines catastrophic coverage with HSAs for everyday expenses works well both to meet the needs of the majority and to control costs for the system as a whole. Fundamentally, the problem with our system is that it costs more than double per capita what everybody else's does. A reform that exacerbates those costs, and shifts more of them onto the patient, is neither fair nor sensible, but that is what Obamacare accomplishes. All without reforming the social welfare spending that already swallows around 70% of the budget.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 9:59:59 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 10:01:47 GMT -5
We have been trying to get some sort of health care coverage passed in this country for 100 years. If there was hubris it may have been on the part of those making earlier attempts to get it passed. Incorrect. Progressives have been trying to sabotage the private sector in order to facilitate the total state take-over of every individual's healthcare in order to "control the people"
The Obama initiative is not one of extreme hubris in my opinion, but just the opposite. This is as meek an attempt as possible, put forth with the knowledge that the priviliged class was by and large against it, and that it would take a herculian effort to get anything done at all. As such it is a half way measure that does as little as possible while still achieving the first milestone of providing access to care for all. BUZZZZ! Wrong, again. ObamaCare is a planned disaster to accomplish the destruction of the remnants of the private sector in healthcare and eventually replace it with one-size-fits-all state controlled healthcare for every individual. It's a "transitional program".
Ignorance? Perhaps to a point, and certainly in terms of the roll out of the portal to access it. In the larger picture though it is not ignorance but basic common sense to go forward with care for all. Like other new programs it will certainly have to be tweaked. Nope. He knowingly lied.Mendacity? You guys have already overplayed that card in my opinion. Similarly, the rollout failure card has been overplayed. As the system comes online it will be exposed for the naked effort to discredit the program by any means that it is. For shame. It is almost impossible to overstate what a disaster this has been. No propaganda or media surge to the contrary can alter the facts. They're falling and denying gravity at the same time. The program has discredited itself, and exposed Obama and all of the plan's Democrat proponents as flat out liars.Partisanship? Absolutely, because "the other side" steadfastly refuses to accept the basic premise of basic care for all. Again, the privilaged class is afraid that if the peasants also get care that their access will be restrained. Or that they will get something for nothing. Or something else. I can't quite get inside their (collective) head to figure why they are in such denial. I wish this were true. Aside from a handful of people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and others- I don't see that there really exists an "other side". But there should be- and that "other side" should absolutely reject the abject failure that is socialist healthcare. It has never succeeded. It never will succeed. It is purely a means of state control of people's lives by manipulating them via the most intimate and sensitive area of their lives- life itself. The government can't be trusted with the fucking mail, let alone life and death decisions for every individual. Nope. Sorry. Not going to ever happen in the United States unless we're just going to cease to be the United States. The progressives have been on this suicide mission to kill the United States as founded for 100 years- as you point out. There damn well ought to be meaningful opposition. Sad that there isn't.Yes indeed, it will still be current in a year. This will overcome it's hiccups and become a stepping stone toward a better and more inclusive health care system in this country. Guess who will NOT get any credit? It's down for the count. It has already collapsed, and cannot be reformed or tweaked to bring it back. Meaningful reforms that amount to (whether Democrats want to admit it or not) an effective repeal are all that lie ahead for ObamaCare.
|
|