If Obamacare is so good

[francoHFW]

You're a moron chump of the greedy idiot rich, dingbat...lol

 

[francoHFW]

At least you're in the white party, eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey paint, you have this idiot on your side maybe you can PM each other ...

I don't need too, and I'm not here to make friends who pat me on the back, unlike you bed-wetters.

1. It's good for the health of the nation. A sick nation is a weak nation.
2. It's good for Capitalism, which means it's good for the economy.
3. It's good for the budget when we get a better bang for our collective buck.
4. It's what other modern Western nations already have.
5. It's the only valid moral position. Nations care for their citizens.

Start with that little man. That should keep you busy for a week or so...

Or two minutes whatever comes first.

1- The health of the nation is better served by capitalists that made a career of providing that service not government cronies looking for the handout.
2- Capitalism can't exist when you are seeking complete government control. Are you retarded or something? How in the fuck is government single payer good for capitalism. By it's own design government control eliminates capitalism, along with the advances of medicine, the cost controls due to competition and better health for the patients.
3- Good for whose budget? Is that the budget of the people that have now lost their healthcare they were previously paying for on their own? And now it costs them twice as much for coverage they don't need? Is that seriously good for the budget? Add in the fact the insurance company is up for 6 billion government dollars in order to provide this worthless insurance to you and that makes the budget work out how?
4- No modern nation has this that has any hope of people paying less for the results and getting more advances in the medical field. Not a single one of your so called Western Nations do better with Eastern nation government control. Socialism kills people. All in the name of making things better.
5- Morality isn't handing over what you can do to the government and washing your hands clean of the situation. I find it pathetic that you base your morality on what the government does for you instead of what you can do on your own. You have no objections for the government to do what you think they should do as long as you personally don't have to worry about it. Your morals are pretty pathetic.

Your efforts at rational thought took two minutes that's for sure. Can you respond to anything without it being stuffed with partisan hyper-emotional crap?

 

[auditor0007]

Then why do they need a law forcing folks to buy it?

They should drop the mandate and allow healthcare providers to not treat those who cannot pay or whom have no coverage of any kind. If my car breaks down and I can't afford to fix it, nobody is going to fix it for free. If my heart fails and I don't have insurance or the money myself to pay for the care I need, why should the hospital be forced to save my life?

We need a system where people are left to die on the curb because hospitals have the ability to turn them away when they can't pay. This would be the perfect system. Then only those who wanted medical care would look for coverage.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I don't need too, and I'm not here to make friends who pat me on the back, unlike you bed-wetters.

1. It's good for the health of the nation. A sick nation is a weak nation.
2. It's good for Capitalism, which means it's good for the economy.
3. It's good for the budget when we get a better bang for our collective buck.
4. It's what other modern Western nations already have.
5. It's the only valid moral position. Nations care for their citizens.

Start with that little man. That should keep you busy for a week or so...

Or two minutes whatever comes first.

1- The health of the nation is better served by capitalists that made a career of providing that service not government cronies looking for the handout.
2- Capitalism can't exist when you are seeking complete government control. Are you retarded or something? How in the fuck is government single payer good for capitalism. By it's own design government control eliminates capitalism, along with the advances of medicine, the cost controls due to competition and better health for the patients.
3- Good for whose budget? Is that the budget of the people that have now lost their healthcare they were previously paying for on their own? And now it costs them twice as much for coverage they don't need? Is that seriously good for the budget? Add in the fact the insurance company is up for 6 billion government dollars in order to provide this worthless insurance to you and that makes the budget work out how?
4- No modern nation has this that has any hope of people paying less for the results and getting more advances in the medical field. Not a single one of your so called Western Nations do better with Eastern nation government control. Socialism kills people. All in the name of making things better.
5- Morality isn't handing over what you can do to the government and washing your hands clean of the situation. I find it pathetic that you base your morality on what the government does for you instead of what you can do on your own. You have no objections for the government to do what you think they should do as long as you personally don't have to worry about it. Your morals are pretty pathetic.

Your efforts at rational thought took two minutes that's for sure. Can you respond to anything without it being stuffed with partisan hyper-emotional crap?

You mean facts?

Still not a response from you based on reality or facts. You came up with some failure questions as facts that I easily refuted and now you want more because your entire argument is going down in flames.

Listen asshole, support what pathetic questions you provided or shut the fuck up. I answered your pathetic attempt at being relevant. You couldn't come up with anything to counter. That's not my problem.

You are pathetic thus far into the conversation. Step it up or step aside you ignorant fool.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Or two minutes whatever comes first.

1- The health of the nation is better served by capitalists that made a career of providing that service not government cronies looking for the handout.
2- Capitalism can't exist when you are seeking complete government control. Are you retarded or something? How in the fuck is government single payer good for capitalism. By it's own design government control eliminates capitalism, along with the advances of medicine, the cost controls due to competition and better health for the patients.
3- Good for whose budget? Is that the budget of the people that have now lost their healthcare they were previously paying for on their own? And now it costs them twice as much for coverage they don't need? Is that seriously good for the budget? Add in the fact the insurance company is up for 6 billion government dollars in order to provide this worthless insurance to you and that makes the budget work out how?
4- No modern nation has this that has any hope of people paying less for the results and getting more advances in the medical field. Not a single one of your so called Western Nations do better with Eastern nation government control. Socialism kills people. All in the name of making things better.
5- Morality isn't handing over what you can do to the government and washing your hands clean of the situation. I find it pathetic that you base your morality on what the government does for you instead of what you can do on your own. You have no objections for the government to do what you think they should do as long as you personally don't have to worry about it. Your morals are pretty pathetic.

Your efforts at rational thought took two minutes that's for sure. Can you respond to anything without it being stuffed with partisan hyper-emotional crap?

You mean facts?

Still not a response from you based on reality or facts. You came up with some failure questions as facts that I easily refuted and now you want more because your entire argument is going down in flames.

Listen asshole, support what pathetic questions you provided or shut the fuck up. I answered your pathetic attempt at being relevant. You couldn't come up with anything to counter. That's not my problem.

You are pathetic thus far into the conversation. Step it up or step aside you ignorant fool.

I didn't counter your crap because that's what it is. We'll take it point by point on a better thread or this one later, when I'm not headed off to bed, but I can throw your "responses" with just one point. What would a Capitalist want with a very sick child, and woman with cancer, or a man needing open heart surgery? Answer, nothing, they cost him money. Insurance is about spreading the risks, doing the math, and always taking in more than you pay out if at all possible. That's why it works. No insurance company wants these people. They are bad for business. That's Capitalism. It's about Profits, not People. Good healthcare is just the opposite.

You have the idea, the wrong idea, that Capitalism has a fix here? It doesn't which is why if it had to cover lots of bad for business cases, it needed a lot more subscribers to spread that risk, meaning the Individual Mandate, and that's exactly what happened by law.

In my version, we spread that risk as far and wide as possible, and the hard-luck cases, they get treated as well. That is the job of a society, to care for its citizens. Capitalism is the answer to lots of things, but not this.

Point 2 at a later date.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then why do they need a law forcing folks to buy it?

They should drop the mandate and allow healthcare providers to not treat those who cannot pay or whom have no coverage of any kind. If my car breaks down and I can't afford to fix it, nobody is going to fix it for free. If my heart fails and I don't have insurance or the money myself to pay for the care I need, why should the hospital be forced to save my life?

We need a system where people are left to die on the curb because hospitals have the ability to turn them away when they can't pay. This would be the perfect system. Then only those who wanted medical care would look for coverage.

An honest one. Nice. His answer to the guy with no insurance at the ER, die sucker. That works, as long as everyone agrees to the rules.

BTW, who picks up the bodies? Should we bill the family? Maybe we should just let the stray animals eat them? That solves one problem right?

 

[Politico]

If our Constitution is so good

Gadawag is guilty of a silly generalization.

And a complete ass wipe of a discussion in the immediate post above.

ACA is not politics, it is about health care in our communities. We have 150,000 plus in our valley that cannot get it in the old rigged system.

Not silly at all. Let me tell you what it. Putting a plan in place that relies on the contributions of 18 to 25 year olds. Then telling them they can stay on their parents plans until they're 26. And then denying subsidies to people who can't possibly afford insurance premiums to begin with and fining the shit out of them. No actually it is not silly. It is moronic.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Public doesn't always approve. The Public isn't required to.

ThaT'S BECAUSE dEMS CAN NEVER BELIEVE THE MINDLESS OBSTRUCTION OF pUBS, THE THIEVERY OF INSURERS, OR THE IGNORANCE OF HATER DUPES...

Looks like the board trolls (little housepainter and haterpubdupes) are back in action again, mouthing unthinking talking points at a great rate, desperately ignoring the refutations of what they said, calling real posters names, and generally falling all over their keyboards. I guess some things never change.

I'm not interested in helping out someone with your level of ignorance. It's not worth my time.

Based on your ignorance I'm thinking you have all the time in the world.

You didn't know? Little housepainter is a paid troll, sent here to broadcast the socialist message and try to control what people here talk about. He got here just a month ago, but averages nearly 100 posts per day, leaving him no time to do anything else, like work for a living. In fact, he is working for a living... by doing this.

He literally does have all the time in the world. How else could he post so much while saying so little?

 

[bendog]

Facts like the original conservative views of mandating individuals obtain at least catastrophic coverage are not going get in the way of obamacare rants. However, the original mandate idea was simply to get people to obtain care for the most severe events so that tax credits could help people buy preventative care. The conservative ideas were less than totally honest because ultimately they aimed to shift from employer based care, which was plain and simple "market intervention" because biz would lose a tax deduction, while individuals would be picking up their own care. Even if that balanced out to revenue neutral, if you or I lose HC as a job benefit, we in effect suffer a pay cut, and unless the tax credit was equal to the lost income (and it never would be) then the result was shifting a market cost from cap to labor. So, really comparing Obamacare to the early days conservative mandate is .... useless except as to expose the RW noise on obamacare simply as noise, as opposed to substance.

Nevertheless, the current HONEST gop opposition is simply the belief that even though in states that took the Medicaid expansion money and set up their own exchanges, Obamacare IS working to insure more people, gop politicians think Obama is "cooking the books" and Obamacare's benefits simply cannot be paid for in revenue terms. Essentially, they think it will ultimately implode.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Facts like the original conservative views of mandating individuals obtain at least catastrophic coverage are not going get in the way of obamacare rants.

Original conservative views which, upon due consideration by those same conservatives, was ultimately REJECTED by them when they changed their minds... for good reason.

However, the original mandate idea was simply to get people to obtain care for the most severe events so that tax credits could help people buy preventative care.

If nothing else, those mistaken conservatives proved one thing (as if it needed re-proving): That if you make even a small move away from personal responsiblility and small government, and let government help "just a little", liberals and other leftists will grab the loophole you created, expand it, quintuple its size, and drive a truck through it.

The reason conservatives are against even the slightest "government help" in the ordinary problems in life, is because once you start, you can never stop.

The only way to avoid government expanding to take up all available space and resources, is to never start in the first place.

Not because "just a little help is bad". But because there is no such thing as "just a little help". When it is government doing the "helping", it ALWAYS turns into massive, overbearing, unending government interference and control.

ALWAYS.

 

[The T]

Facts like the original conservative views of mandating individuals obtain at least catastrophic coverage are not going get in the way of obamacare rants.

Original conservative views which, upon due consideration by those same conservatives, was ultimately REJECTED by them when they changed their minds... for good reason.

However, the original mandate idea was simply to get people to obtain care for the most severe events so that tax credits could help people buy preventative care.

If nothing else, those mistaken conservatives proved one thing (as if it needed re-proving): That if you make even a small move away from personal responsiblility and small government, and let givernment help "just a little", liberals and other leftists will grab the loophole you created, expand it, quintuple its size, and drive a truck through it.

The reason conservatives are against even the slightest "government help" in the ordinary problems in life, is because once you start, you can never stop.

The only way to avoid government expanding to take up all available space and resources, is to never start in the first place.

Not because "just a little help is bad". But because there is no such thing as "just a little help". When it is government doing the "helping", it ALWAYS turns into massive, overbearing, unending government interference and control.

ALWAYS.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA]The Nine Most Terrifying Words - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bendog]

Actually, they changed their minds with DeMint and the Kochs funded the teaparty. PS, and Coburn didn't cave.

But continue on with your need for historical revision in an effort to "prove" the govt has no role in a HC market. And you will lose on that every dam time.