AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 28, 2014 9:37:10 GMT -5
The Obamacare house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it's not a long, drawn out collapse that takes years. yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. I've read the follow up posts, so I know this got sorted out- but I'll still comment and say that most people would not miss most of government if it disappeared. Government "services" are some of the most overrated, and expensive services people think they need. Nobody is going to miss ObamaCare.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 28, 2014 9:41:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I don't agree with means testing at all. Lots of social security taxes were stolen from my paychecks every time. The fact that I worked and saved and invested wisely to enjoy my retirement as opposed to squandering every dime should not preclude me from taking what is due to me and what was promised just because politicians added a bunch of stuff to steal from the fund. It's a scam and people have been robbed. However, it has been a very transparent scam, and all the participants have paid into it out of greed- putting up with it because they believe they're going to be able to hand the tab to my kids and grand kids. Too bad. They're not going to pay it. It's really just that simple. The government can't raise taxes to 85%- nobody will pay. They can, and they will inflate the currency to pay it-- and that'll just be a more deceptive way of not paying it. Ultimately "means testing" and other more forthright ways of out and out stiffing people is actually the most honest and direct way to handle the situation. And like I said- everyone knew, and everyone knows. No point arguing about it. It's math. And with math you have to deal with it, because you can't argue it.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,221
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 28, 2014 9:59:21 GMT -5
yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. I've read the follow up posts, so I know this got sorted out- but I'll still comment and say that most people would not miss most of government if it disappeared. Government "services" are some of the most overrated, and expensive services people think they need. Nobody is going to miss ObamaCare. Anyone with a preexisting condition was praying FOR something, including ObamaCare, because the insurance companies refused to insure a large chunk of the American population. Between preventing those with preexisting conditions to purchase health insurance, & the rapidly increasing prices of premiums in general, the system is ripe for change. Whether it's ObamaCare, or some sort of single payer system, the health care system in this country is moving towards change.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 28, 2014 13:23:49 GMT -5
I've read the follow up posts, so I know this got sorted out- but I'll still comment and say that most people would not miss most of government if it disappeared. Government "services" are some of the most overrated, and expensive services people think they need. Nobody is going to miss ObamaCare. Anyone with a preexisting condition was praying FOR something, including ObamaCare, because the insurance companies refused to insure a large chunk of the American population. Between preventing those with preexisting conditions to purchase health insurance, & the rapidly increasing prices of premiums in general, the system is ripe for change. Whether it's ObamaCare, or some sort of single payer system, the health care system in this country is moving towards change. Please explain, using examples, how ObamaCare has changed healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions who could not previously afford healthcare? In actuality, with so many people losing healthcare they relied upon, there are actually MORE people in the pre-existing conditions mess because there are so many who have lost their healthcare due to ObamaCare.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 28, 2014 13:37:58 GMT -5
Not really. As an arch~conservative used to tell me on another board, everyone in America has health care. This coming after my continual siting of the peer reviewed Harvard study that showed 47,000 Americans die every year due to lack of access.
Of course if anyone did lose their plan, it was probably a POS and they were then eligible to sign up for the ACA programs through their state exchanges. Many have. Except, of course, for the 24 states where the Repo governors said no. This only prevents 5+ millions Americans from enrolling, many of whom have pre-existing conditions that made them ineligible for health insurance before.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 13:57:59 GMT -5
Anyone with a preexisting condition was praying FOR something, including ObamaCare, because the insurance companies refused to insure a large chunk of the American population. Between preventing those with preexisting conditions to purchase health insurance, & the rapidly increasing prices of premiums in general, the system is ripe for change. Whether it's ObamaCare, or some sort of single payer system, the health care system in this country is moving towards change. Please explain, using examples, how ObamaCare has changed healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions who could not previously afford healthcare? In actuality, with so many people losing healthcare they relied upon, there are actually MORE people in the pre-existing conditions mess because there are so many who have lost their healthcare due to ObamaCare. please explain how people have "lost health care they relied upon". tyia
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 28, 2014 14:37:49 GMT -5
Please explain, using examples, how ObamaCare has changed healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions who could not previously afford healthcare? In actuality, with so many people losing healthcare they relied upon, there are actually MORE people in the pre-existing conditions mess because there are so many who have lost their healthcare due to ObamaCare. please explain how people have "lost health care they relied upon". tyia You're going to have to go back and review this thread. "If you like your plan you can keep it" was a clear lie- Politifact's "Lie of the Year" in fact. Millions lost their health plans due to ObamaCare. This is a claim like "the sky is blue". It doesn't require more supporting documentation than has already been supplied in this thread, and is widely / commonly known.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 14:44:04 GMT -5
please explain how people have "lost health care they relied upon". tyia You're going to have to go back and review this thread. nah. you are going to have to understand the question. "If you like your plan you can keep it" was a clear lie agreed. but that had nothing to do with my question.i understand that some lost their CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE, but that is not what you said. the plans that were eliminated didn't really include "healthcare" in the general sense- only emergency care. and emergency care has been available to everyone since Reagan, whether you are able to pay or not (a true act of brazen socialism, if you ask me). so, again, how did people "lose their healthcare"? it seems that they only lost their INSURANCE to me.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 28, 2014 16:02:57 GMT -5
Millions lost their health plans due to ObamaCare.
True, and due to the fact they were POS policies that enriched the insurance companies and brokers that sold them. Many didn't even have provisions for hospital coverage, and could easily lead to the continuance of the medical bankruptcies we had before.
These folks were immediately eligible to seek better policies, even through the state exchanges for the ACA. If they live in one of the 24 states that had Repo governors refuse to cooperate, may be harder. It's not that because they lost their POS policies that they no longer can get insurance. That, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story the righty mouth pieces don't want to mention.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 28, 2014 16:18:22 GMT -5
Please explain, using examples, how ObamaCare has changed healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions who could not previously afford healthcare?. People can no longer be rejected from purchasing insurance due to pre-existing conditions. They can also no longer be priced based on pre-existing conditions. Seems pretty simple to me.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,221
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 28, 2014 16:29:20 GMT -5
I don't claim to know how healthcare (or lack of it) is working in the states that do not have the exchanges. However, my state does have the exchange. Based on your income, you may qualify for health care at a lower cost.
The insurance policy you used to have no longer exists. Insurance companies have to take you now, warts & all. If you have high blood pressure, a seizure disorder, diabetes, heart problems, etc., you can no longer be denied coverage. Those are the folks who either had to get insured by their individual states, IF they qualified, or live without health insurance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 16:34:47 GMT -5
I don't claim to know how healthcare (or lack of it) is working in the states that do not have the exchanges. However, my state does have the exchange. Based on your income, you may qualify for health care at a lower cost.
The insurance policy you used to have no longer exists. Insurance companies have to take you now, warts & all. If you have high blood pressure, a seizure disorder, diabetes, heart problems, etc., you can no longer be denied coverage. Those are the folks who either had to get insured by their individual states, IF they qualified, or live without health insurance. most of the policies lost were catastrophic care policies. but the ironic part is that everyone is already "covered" for catastrophic care. hospitals have had to take you since 1986 or so whether you can pay or not. what ObamaCare proposes is that everyone should have an insurance policy that covers general care. as you might put it, hardly a radical proposal, and one endorsed by none other than Mitt Romney and Gingrich right up until Obama was elected in 2008. i know that Paul and others are watching and waiting for the repeal of this thing, but it has a lot of helpful provisions, and the basic idea is good. so, until they can come up with a better one, most of us will take it, even if we don't like it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 16:39:29 GMT -5
Millions lost their health plans due to ObamaCare.
True, and due to the fact they were POS policies that enriched the insurance companies and brokers that sold them. Many didn't even have provisions for hospital coverage, and could easily lead to the continuance of the medical bankruptcies we had before. These folks were immediately eligible to seek better policies, even through the state exchanges for the ACA. If they live in one of the 24 states that had Repo governors refuse to cooperate, may be harder. It's not that because they lost their POS policies that they no longer can get insurance. That, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story the righty mouth pieces don't want to mention. this is mostly true, but not entirely. cheap bastards could not find an equivalent policy. in other words, people who could afford a good policy, but chose a lousy one (apparently a much larger number than anyone expected) were SHUT OUT of low cost plans. to some, this is an affront to capitalism: how dare the government tell me to buy insurance that actually does something? most of the rest of us just look at them with puzzled bemusement. they had essentially useless insurance before, and now they have no insurance. that is not much to complain about in my book, but some people will scream bloody murder when their lollypop is taken, even if it has been sitting between the couch seats for three years, rat chewed, and covered with ants.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,221
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 28, 2014 16:40:39 GMT -5
The sad part is, there is only one hospital in the nearest large metropolitan area that will help those without insurance. Sure, the nearest emergency room will see you. But, most likely, even if it's likely you might need surgery, most likely those without insurance get minimal care, & maybe some meds, & be sent home. The uninsured are NOT a priority.
I agree that ObamaCare, while not perfect, is preferable to what existed before.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 28, 2014 17:59:03 GMT -5
this is mostly true, but not entirely.
True in the sense that they have access, but only to a policy that will cost more but will provide proper coverage. Milions of these folks have done just that.
cheap bastards could not find an equivalent policy. in other words, people who could afford a good policy, but chose a lousy one (apparently a much larger number than anyone expected) were SHUT OUT of low cost plans. to some, this is an affront to capitalism: how dare the government tell me to buy insurance that actually does something? most of the rest of us just look at them with puzzled bemusement. they had essentially useless insurance before, and now they have no insurance. that is not much to complain about in my book, but some people will scream bloody murder when their lollypop is taken, even if it has been sitting between the couch seats for three years, rat chewed, and covered with ants.
Of course you hear nothing, nothing from the Repo side about the 47 millions Americans that did not have insurance policies prior to the implementation of the ACA. Another convenient skip in the discussion These folks are primarily poor so they don't pack much political clout. That's why it's so easy for the Repo govs in 24 states to prevent them from signing up for medicaid. Not really their constituency per se. These poor folks must not be family values Christians that attend the blow dry mega churches.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 28, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
Millions lost their health plans due to ObamaCare.
True, and due to the fact they were POS policies that enriched the insurance companies and brokers that sold them. Many didn't even have provisions for hospital coverage, and could easily lead to the continuance of the medical bankruptcies we had before. These folks were immediately eligible to seek better policies, even through the state exchanges for the ACA. If they live in one of the 24 states that had Repo governors refuse to cooperate, may be harder. It's not that because they lost their POS policies that they no longer can get insurance. That, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story the righty mouth pieces don't want to mention. this is mostly true, but not entirely. cheap bastards could not find an equivalent policy. in other words, people who could afford a good policy, but chose a lousy one (apparently a much larger number than anyone expected) were SHUT OUT of low cost plans. to some, this is an affront to capitalism: how dare the government tell me to buy insurance that actually does something? most of the rest of us just look at them with puzzled bemusement. they had essentially useless insurance before, and now they have no insurance. that is not much to complain about in my book, but some people will scream bloody murder when their lollypop is taken, even if it has been sitting between the couch seats for three years, rat chewed, and covered with ants. I agree with you that people are generally averse to the negative consequences of their actions. Insurance is like anything else. Cheap people will focus on the cost, while ignoring the value- or the lack thereof. That being said, most of what we do not like about healthcare, and virtually all of the runaway costs are the result of governments involvement in the free market, not the free market. In no instance has government any where, at any time in human history, ever made anything better or cheaper. However, the free market has consistently made everything it touches, provided the market is not tinkered with by government, better and cheaper. The free market is the way to deliver the best goods and services to the largest number of people, at the lowest costs. It isn't time for government to get further up our asses with a new scheme it can't deliver on; it's time for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY. The PPACA is more tax bill than anything else- it's about money, and control. Healthcare is a back door into every aspect of our lives. That's what this mess is about. It's about deliberately ruining what's left of the free market (which frankly ain't much) in healthcare, and taking it over, charging us out the ass, and rationing care. It's about low quality, long delivery times, and dying on the waiting list. Yes, people do complain about not getting what they feel they're entitled to- but who gave them the idea they were entitled to anything in the first place if not the politicians who've been spewing propaganda for a generation that goods and services related to healthcare have magical qualities which entitle each person to them regardless of cost?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:21:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:53:38 GMT -5
"better policies" under Obamacare is a fantasy... unless one can afford the high priced "Gold" or "Platinum"...
So... basically... nothing has really changed.
Having a worthless piece of paper does nothing for you if it doesn't cover anything or if no one will take it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:21:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:57:21 GMT -5
I don't claim to know how healthcare (or lack of it) is working in the states that do not have the exchanges. However, my state does have the exchange. Based on your income, you may qualify for health care at a lower cost.
The insurance policy you used to have no longer exists. Insurance companies have to take you now, warts & all. If you have high blood pressure, a seizure disorder, diabetes, heart problems, etc., you can no longer be denied coverage. Those are the folks who either had to get insured by their individual states, IF they qualified, or live without health insurance. most of the policies lost were catastrophic care policies. but the ironic part is that everyone is already "covered" for catastrophic care. hospitals have had to take you since 1986 or so whether you can pay or not. what ObamaCare proposes is that everyone should have an insurance policy that covers general care. as you might put it, hardly a radical proposal, and one endorsed by none other than Mitt Romney and Gingrich right up until Obama was elected in 2008. i know that Paul and others are watching and waiting for the repeal of this thing, but it has a lot of helpful provisions, and the basic idea is good. so, until they can come up with a better one, most of us will take it, even if we don't like it. Good thing in theory... except the "Bronze Level" doesn't do that... and that's what MOST people that didn't have any insurance before ended up getting... because even with the subsidies, GOOD insurance (that actually helps prevent you needing catastrophic care) is STILL out of most people's financial reach.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,221
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 28, 2014 19:16:32 GMT -5
"However, the free market has consistently made everything it touches, provided the market is not tinkered with by government, better and cheaper. The free market is the way to deliver the best goods and services to the largest number of people, at the lowest costs. It isn't time for government to get further up our asses with a new scheme it can't deliver on; it's time for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY."
When it comes to health care, the free market system has failed miserably. Before the days of ObamaCare, I personally know of a permanently disabled man, who, due to the severity of his health problems was unable to work. He did receive monthly checks from SSI, or whatever government program he was on. He was, as an adult, living with his parents, and the health insurance plan he had took ALL of his monthly benefits. The state government even shopped for a better policy for him, & couldn't find anything, due to his frequent need to be hospitalized. So, I don't believe for a moment that with no oversight that the health insurance companies are out to make things cheap. Like any other business, they're out for profit. They just happen to deal with people's health.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 22:37:12 GMT -5
"However, the free market has consistently made everything it touches, provided the market is not tinkered with by government, better and cheaper. The free market is the way to deliver the best goods and services to the largest number of people, at the lowest costs. It isn't time for government to get further up our asses with a new scheme it can't deliver on; it's time for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY."
When it comes to health care, the free market system has failed miserably.
the free market INSURANCE industry failed miserably. and for good reason: they are adversarial to paying out benefits. only in America could an entire population be suckered into having a middle man working AGAINST your best interests and getting paid for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:21:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 22:49:13 GMT -5
What's even funnier (not in a "haha" kind of way, but in a "WTF are they thinking?" kind of way) is, if Insurance companies would cover the cheaper things outright, some of the expensive things wouldn't even be necessary. But NOOOOooooooo... Insurance companies are so focused on profit at any cost they pinch the wrong pennies.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 28, 2014 23:02:39 GMT -5
But Richard, the "free market" solves everything don'tchaknow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 23:22:19 GMT -5
What's even funnier (not in a "haha" kind of way, but in a "WTF are they thinking?" kind of way) is, if Insurance companies would cover the cheaper things outright, some of the expensive things wouldn't even be necessary. But NOOOOooooooo... Insurance companies are so focused on profit at any cost they pinch the wrong pennies. i said all i plan to say on this subject in my previous post. i have nothing good to say about the insurance industry. they are as cuddly as pit vipers.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 29, 2014 1:06:11 GMT -5
"However, the free market has consistently made everything it touches, provided the market is not tinkered with by government, better and cheaper. The free market is the way to deliver the best goods and services to the largest number of people, at the lowest costs. It isn't time for government to get further up our asses with a new scheme it can't deliver on; it's time for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY."
When it comes to health care, the free market system has failed miserably.
the free market INSURANCE industry failed miserably. and for good reason: they are adversarial to paying out benefits. only in America could an entire population be suckered into having a middle man working AGAINST your best interests and getting paid for it. Absolutely right. If Obamacare does in fact have a fatal flaw, it is that the insurance companies are not only still in place, but still much in charge. They absolutely have an economic disincentive to pay legitimate benefit claims. If salaries and bonuses in the insurance industry are based on how many claims they can deny, then something is very, very wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2014 1:21:50 GMT -5
the free market INSURANCE industry failed miserably. and for good reason: they are adversarial to paying out benefits. only in America could an entire population be suckered into having a middle man working AGAINST your best interests and getting paid for it. Absolutely right. If Obamacare does in fact have a fatal flaw, it is that the insurance companies are not only still in place, but still much in charge. They absolutely have an economic disincentive to pay legitimate benefit claims. If salaries and bonuses in the insurance industry are based on how many claims they can deny, then something is very, very wrong. this is precisely it. and the fact that Obama has not made UTTER HAY of this fact is proof positive, at least in my way of thinking, that if there is a wild eyed socialist in him at any level from his radical coke snorting Marxist days, it has died a quiet death in law school or in public life. no Marxist worth his grist would miss that huge of an opportunity: to pillory something as loathsome as the insurance industry: unless you were quietly in their pockets, which- of course- he is. this is why in the survey posted to night (the 77% one), most MODERATES identify Obama as a MODERATE (most LIBERALS do, too). no radical socialist would EVER have accepted the ACA. better to veto and torpedo that thing....unless you are a pragmatist. and now, you won't hear him utter a single word about this fatal flaw, even though it could not be more plain to you, me, and Obama in 2008. i dunno, tallguy. sometimes i think we are so enured in our own stupid rhetoric that we really can't see things for what they are. so few people can see the situation for what it actually is that it genuinely worries me from time to time.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 29, 2014 1:44:47 GMT -5
Probably. I've often thought that not only should we have intelligence tests required for the vote, but ideological ones as well. Anyone outside the, say, 10-90 or 15-85 part of the left-right spectrum likely can't be trusted to actually examine an issue, so shouldn't be allowed to vote. Intelligent, rational people are moderates for one simple reason. They can see both sides of an issue and recognize that very few things are black-and-white. Issues in this world are a thousand shades of gray. Lesser intellects see only one side.
Anyone who believes strongly in one party to the exclusion of anything good in the other has some serious problems.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 29, 2014 11:41:21 GMT -5
Most, if not all, of my friends and associates here in Seattle are fiscally conservative~socially liberal. There IS no party for us, let alone hitching our wagons to just 1 of the two.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 29, 2014 12:34:48 GMT -5
You're going to have to go back and review this thread. nah. you are going to have to understand the question. "If you like your plan you can keep it" was a clear lie agreed. but that had nothing to do with my question.i understand that some lost their CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE, but that is not what you said. the plans that were eliminated didn't really include "healthcare" in the general sense- only emergency care. and emergency care has been available to everyone since Reagan, whether you are able to pay or not (a true act of brazen socialism, if you ask me). so, again, how did people "lose their healthcare"? it seems that they only lost their INSURANCE to me. People lost their full health insurance coverage- by the millions. If you believe the fuzzy math of "enrollments" on the website, the regime will subtract this number from their claimed "5 million enrollments". But an enrollment on a website is not a policy-in-force. And surprise, surprise- nobody has that number. And as many of you know, once you lose your policy, or it changes- you now have a "pre-existing condition". So, more people have the problem now than did before.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 29, 2014 13:16:58 GMT -5
i understand that some lost their CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE, but that is not what you said. the plans that were eliminated didn't really include "healthcare" in the general sense- only emergency care. and emergency care has been available to everyone since Reagan, whether you are able to pay or not (a true act of brazen socialism, if you ask me). so, again, how did people "lose their healthcare"? it seems that they only lost their INSURANCE to me. People lost their full health insurance coverage- by the millions. If you believe the fuzzy math of "enrollments" on the website, the regime will subtract this number from their claimed "5 million enrollments". But an enrollment on a website is not a policy-in-force. And surprise, surprise- nobody has that number. And as many of you know, once you lose your policy, or it changes- you now have a "pre-existing condition". So, more people have the problem now than did before. Link on the full health insurance coverage. To my knowledge it was primarily catastrophic plans, which in no way could be considered full coverage. Secondly, pre-existing conditions is now irrelevant so it doesn't matter if everyone has a pre-existing condition. If it doesn't affect your ability to purchase insurance, be covered, or your premiums, then it doesn't matter.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2014 13:23:27 GMT -5
i understand that some lost their CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE, but that is not what you said. the plans that were eliminated didn't really include "healthcare" in the general sense- only emergency care. and emergency care has been available to everyone since Reagan, whether you are able to pay or not (a true act of brazen socialism, if you ask me). so, again, how did people "lose their healthcare"? it seems that they only lost their INSURANCE to me. People lost their full health insurance coverage- by the millions. no. people lost their catastrophic coverage plans. that is not "full healthcare".
|
|