A question for those that support Obamacare?

[DriftingSand]

I think that if a society has the ability to save your life, it should do so. Healthcare should not be based on your ability to pay

Then why don't you send me all of your money. I know some folks who could use some help. I have a feeling you WON'T send me any money. Perhaps because you need it for your own needs. Just guessing.

Is that the best you could come up with?

Explain to the nice people how your "let em die" strategy works

I can help them live if you give me all of your money. Are you saying that you're willing to let then die because you want to keep your cash? Isn't that Progressive hypocrisy in action?

 

[oreo]

I voted "this is a stupid poll."

"Obamacare" is not in itself an insurance policy. Health insurance policies vary by states. In my state we can keep the (very nice) policy that we've had all along.

Given a choice I'd rather see universal health care.

You cannot keep your policy if it does not meet the Obamacare mandates PERIOD. If you haven't received your cancellation letter yet--be assured you will.--Have you been asleep over the last several months? This is exactly WHY over 7 million "liked" polices in this nation have been cancelled (to date) over the last several months.--

 

[dblack]

Access to healthcare is a universal right
Operating without a safety net is no longer an option

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

If done right, Obamacare would be universal healthcare

As is, it is the best available means to provide affordable coverage to the masses. However, it does little to contain costs and eventually we will migrate to universal healthcare

In either case, it's not a 'safety' net, it's a dragnet. A safety net is a stop-gap for people who fall throught the cracks. This is market capture, a takeover that forces everyone into the same 'net'.

 

[rightwinger]

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

If done right, Obamacare would be universal healthcare

As is, it is the best available means to provide affordable coverage to the masses. However, it does little to contain costs and eventually we will migrate to universal healthcare

In either case, it's not a 'safety' net, it's a dragnet. A safety net is a stop-gap for people who fall throught the cracks. This is market capture, a takeover that forces everyone into the same 'net'.

No it isn't.... its a nationwide insurance pool available to those without insurance

 

[dblack]

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

Depends on if you believe stuff in the Declaration of Independence refers to rights or not.
'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' seems pretty self explanatory'.

I think that if a society has the ability to save your life, it should do so. Healthcare should not be based on your ability to pay

So, rather, the Declaration of Dependence?

 

[dblack]

If done right, Obamacare would be universal healthcare

As is, it is the best available means to provide affordable coverage to the masses. However, it does little to contain costs and eventually we will migrate to universal healthcare

In either case, it's not a 'safety' net, it's a dragnet. A safety net is a stop-gap for people who fall throught the cracks. This is market capture, a takeover that forces everyone into the same 'net'.

No it isn't.... its a nationwide insurance pool available to those without insurance

Not 'available', mandated.

 

[oreo]

I think that if a society has the ability to save your life, it should do so. Healthcare should not be based on your ability to pay

Then why don't you send me all of your money. I know some folks who could use some help. I have a feeling you WON'T send me any money. Perhaps because you need it for your own needs. Just guessing.

Is that the best you could come up with?

Explain to the nice people how your "let em die" strategy works

First of all there has NEVER been a let them die policy in this country. Everyone knows someone that didn't have medical insurance that was treated for an illness or injury anyway. You're not going to get away with just spouting out the typical BS democrat talking points on this board

And obviously none of you Obamacare supporters will answer the question of whether or not you would buy the new mandated computer or not, because there is now way in hell that you could say NO without looking like a complete idiot hypocrite by still continuing to support Obamacare.

 

[Moonglow]

When do they pass out the mandated computers? I could sure use a new one.....

 

[rightwinger]

In either case, it's not a 'safety' net, it's a dragnet. A safety net is a stop-gap for people who fall throught the cracks. This is market capture, a takeover that forces everyone into the same 'net'.

No it isn't.... its a nationwide insurance pool available to those without insurance

Not 'available', mandated.

Nobody is mandated to use the Healthcare Exchanges

 

[rightwinger]

Then why don't you send me all of your money. I know some folks who could use some help. I have a feeling you WON'T send me any money. Perhaps because you need it for your own needs. Just guessing.

Is that the best you could come up with?

Explain to the nice people how your "let em die" strategy works

First of all there has NEVER been a let them die policy in this country. Everyone knows someone that didn't have medical insurance that was treated for an illness or injury anyway. You're not going to get away with just spouting out the typical BS democrat talking points on this board

So you were mandated to have coverage that was paid by others. Having insurance is preferable to to having taxpayers and the insured pick up the tab for your emergency medical treatment

 

[dblack]

No it isn't.... its a nationwide insurance pool available to those without insurance

Not 'available', mandated.

Nobody is mandated to use the Healthcare Exchanges

More equivocation? Keep dancing....

 

[oreo]

Access to healthcare is a universal right
Operating without a safety net is no longer an option

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

If done right, Obamacare would be universal healthcare

As is, it is the best available means to provide affordable coverage to the masses. However, it does little to contain costs and eventually we will migrate to universal healthcare

Affordable to those that get it for free under (Medicade)--which is the overwhelming majority of new sign-ups. Affordable for lower incomes who receive subsidies--BUT not affordable to the average working middle class American who are seeing their premiums double to triple to what they were paying for their now non-compliant policy because of the Obamacare mandates.

A good example of that is coming from Blue State Pennsylvania--and what small business employees are looking at in their new Obamacare premiums.



Welcome to your hope and change!

 

[oreo]

I agree with this poster who posted a comment 12 hours ago, to a Yahoo article.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-web...adline-enroll-coverage-122359229--sector.html

Commenter 2 hours ago

No amount of propaganda from the White House can change the fact that Obamacare is a disaster. It was supposed to enroll massive numbers of the uninsured yet only a very small proportion of them have enrolled.Most of those who did enroll have either had previously existing policies or had their policies canceled because those policies did not meet the new federal standards required by the Obamacare law.Surprise surprise most of those who did enroll are now facing higher deductibles and higher insurance premiums.

Obamacare was supposedly going to lower health care costs. It did not.It is estimated that only about 2 million of the original 40 million uninsured signed up. So now we have spent billions of taxpayer dollars to create a system that has had and will not have made any significant impact on the number of those who were supposed to have been helped.We also have major scandals involving individuals and corporations that were paid billlions to create federal and state web sites that did not work. Notice liberal blue state Maryland that spent 150 million on an enrollment web site that failed miserably.
Who got all those monies for doing nothing. Were they friends of the Obama administration who simply took advantage of the federal give away? Yes indeed. Are these governments going to prosecute in order to recover these funds from those who got rich at the government trough?The likes of liberal Maryland Governor O'Malley have no answer to those questions. The bottom line is that Obamacare was and is a dynamic failure yet this White House continues to call it a success by constantly repeating that they did succeed. It is an endless stream of lies that can be compared to the tactics of the Communists of the old Soviet Union. The people have been made victims of this new Orwellian government.

Total crap misinformation. The link provided has nothing to do with the above comment. No facts, no links, no reality. Just old debunked fraudulent talking points from extreme rw radio. Basicly, lots of lies rolled into a rant. Guidence for the stupid and easy to scam.

I don't listen to radio and there are FACTS all over this board--if you want to relate to other related titles regarding Obamacare.

You won't answer the computer question--because YOU know already that everything I stated in the opt thread is TRUE--and you just want to bury your head in the sand--because you cannot defend Obamacare--without looking like a total hypocrite.

WOULD YOU OR WOULD YOU NOT--BUY THE NEW MANDATED COMPUTER?

 

[rightwinger]

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

If done right, Obamacare would be universal healthcare

As is, it is the best available means to provide affordable coverage to the masses. However, it does little to contain costs and eventually we will migrate to universal healthcare

Affordable to those that get it for free under (Medicade)--which is the overwhelming majority of new sign-ups. Affordable for lower incomes who receive subsidies--BUT not affordable to the average working middle class American who are seeing their premiums double to triple to what they were paying for their now non-compliant policy because of the Obamacare mandates.

A good example of that is coming from Blue State Pennsylvania--and what small business employees are looking at in their new Obamacare premiums.



Welcome to your hope and change!

Doesn't appear that bad to me

Pennsylvania health insurance exchange: your state?s marketplace

I suspect another company ******* over their employees and blaming Obamacare

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care isn't a right, it's service.

ACA isn't universal health care, and neither one is a safety net.

Depends on if you believe stuff in the Declaration of Independence refers to rights or not.
'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' seems pretty self explanatory'.

I think that if a society has the ability to save your life, it should do so. Healthcare should not be based on your ability to pay

Ok but shouldn't we match people up by willingness to pay under which terms?

What if I believe in treating all people for free or lowest cost possible by offering free spiritual healing to all who want that help. Clearly this can't be forced or mandated because the spiritual healing is based on forgiving all negativity causing stress to build up, and that process is voluntary. methods that are faith based cannot be imposed. But what if I believe all people could be helped for free or lower cost this way? It would still have to be voluntary, right?

And for people who believe in mandatory taxes or in this case insurance,
what if people don't agree on abortion, or paying for health care for criminal convicts who owe taxpayers money?
What if people believe in microlending instead of handouts, where people are trained in business to pay their school and medical costs back to finance the next set of people coming through?
What if people don't agree on legalization: one group doesn't agree to pay for health problems caused by recreational drug use or addiction, but expects that person to pay their own costs of using drugs; another group does NOT want to pay for drug wars but to use that money for health care and prevention of drug problems;
the other group wants inmates to work and pay their own way, NOT force law abiding citizens to work extra to cover costs of the crimes or debts of others (unless they are paid back through microlending).

Are you really going to trust going through federal govt to impose "one plan" that fits all the possible beliefs and standards people have about health care,
and who they agree to cover under what conditions?

How different is this from govt stepping in and trying to manage all charitable programs?

Why can't people manage this themselves directly and keep it out of govt?
Do you see Red Cross and Doctors Without Border demanding that govt make all people pay money to them to serve more people?
If all that is voluntary, why can't all health care be managed by voluntary participation?

I understand health, safety, legal and medical regulations. I am talking about the choice of which programs to support: what is wrong with free choice?
If our govt and laws trust people with the free choice of abortion, why don't we trust people with the free choice of how to pay for health care?

If you think it is the job of govt to "ensure access to health care," why can't govt delegate this to the states to manage locally so there isn't conflict after conflict on the "federal level"
where not all people across the nation agree on policy. Is that really necessary to try to force or regulate "one policy fits all" through federal govt?

Do you agree that is not the duty or design of federal govt to "micromanage"
private health care decisions for all people, expecting to make it mainstream?

Some people may believe in this, and may enjoy having to go through Congressional elections and the Feds every time there is a change or conflict in policy.
For those who DON'T believe in using govt this way, don't we have equal right to set up systems we DO believe in?
Doesn't it cost waste of resources to fight over federal policies because people are not going to agree? isn't that why we have state systems to keep local decisions local to the populations affected?

Is it really the job of federal gov to dictate how we serve others in the community?
If we don't want the church dictating "mandatory policies" on the state,
why is it okay for the govt to dictate and regulate how to give charitable help by govt mandates?

 

[oreo]

Access to healthcare is a universal right
Operating without a safety net is no longer an option

There has always been access to health care as there has been access to computers since their onset. The safety net has been in place for many decades. So what's your point?

WOULD YOU BUY THE NEW MANDATED COMPUTER OR NOT?

 

[rightwinger]

Depends on if you believe stuff in the Declaration of Independence refers to rights or not.
'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' seems pretty self explanatory'.

I think that if a society has the ability to save your life, it should do so. Healthcare should not be based on your ability to pay

Ok but shouldn't we match people up by willingness to pay under which terms?

What if I believe in treating all people for free or lowest cost possible by offering free spiritual healing to all who want that help. Clearly this can't be forced or mandated because the spiritual healing is based on forgiving all negativity causing stress to build up, and that process is voluntary. methods that are faith based cannot be imposed. But what if I believe all people could be helped for free or lower cost this way? It would still have to be voluntary, right?

And for people who believe in mandatory taxes or in this case insurance,
what if people don't agree on abortion, or paying for health care for criminal convicts who owe taxpayers money?
What if people believe in microlending instead of handouts, where people are trained in business to pay their school and medical costs back to finance the next set of people coming through?
What if people don't agree on legalization: one group doesn't agree to pay for health problems caused by recreational drug use or addiction, but expects that person to pay their own costs of using drugs; another group does NOT want to pay for drug wars but to use that money for health care and prevention of drug problems;
the other group wants inmates to work and pay their own way, NOT force law abiding citizens to work extra to cover costs of the crimes or debts of others (unless they are paid back through microlending).

Are you really going to trust going through federal govt to impose "one plan" that fits all the possible beliefs and standards people have about health care,
and who they agree to cover under what conditions?

How different is this from govt stepping in and trying to manage all charitable programs?

Why can't people manage this themselves directly and keep it out of govt?
Do you see Red Cross and Doctors Without Border demanding that govt make all people pay money to them to serve more people?
If all that is voluntary, why can't all health care be managed by voluntary participation?

I understand health, safety, legal and medical regulations. I am talking about the choice of which programs to support: what is wrong with free choice?
If our govt and laws trust people with the free choice of abortion, why don't we trust people with the free choice of how to pay for health care?

If you think it is the job of govt to "ensure access to health care," why can't govt delegate this to the states to manage locally so there isn't conflict after conflict on the "federal level"
where not all people across the nation agree on policy. Is that really necessary to try to force or regulate "one policy fits all" through federal govt?

Do you agree that is not the duty or design of federal govt to "micromanage"
private health care decisions for all people, expecting to make it mainstream?

Some people may believe in this, and may enjoy having to go through Congressional elections and the Feds every time there is a change or conflict in policy.
For those who DON'T believe in using govt this way, don't we have equal right to set up systems we DO believe in?
Doesn't it cost waste of resources to fight over federal policies because people are not going to agree? isn't that why we have state systems to keep local decisions local to the populations affected?

Is it really the job of federal gov to dictate how we serve others in the community?
If we don't want the church dictating "mandatory policies" on the state,
why is it okay for the govt to dictate and regulate how to give charitable help by govt mandates?

You are free to pray as much as you want .
Obamacare does not pay for abortion
Criminals are human
If charitable programs wanted to cover healthcare costs for those who can't afford to pay they could have done it up till now. I don't know many charities that could foot the bill for a $1 million heart transplant

 

[oreo]

You know I frequent other political boards regarding Obamacare--and their are liberals on those boards that are smart enough and have enough brains to recognize--that Obamacare is WRONG. While they may have gone along with the mandate that everyone is covered under Obamacare--they get pretty vocal about the mandates within Obamacare-(or the required--without exception coverage for pre-natal--maternity drug and alcohol abuse coverage)-that millions of Americans do not need nor want-- or basically the Federal Government deciding for Americans what off-end coverage they are required to have under Obamacare. They see the danger in this--and that's why I related this thread to computers.

There has yet to be one single liberal on this board that will answer the poll--as to if they would buy the new mandated computer or not.

In other news here is a state by state comparison--of the premim hikes in Obamacare comparison policies required under the mandate due to the mandates.

 

[midcan5]

That's (OP) a piss poor argument against healthcare, assumptions and imaginary creatures are for children or simpletons. Suppose the sky fell or some other ridiculous suppose. I need to do another rant but having just returned from Florida and some of the most rabid Obama haters in the world, I wonder how it is these Obamacare haters and Union haters have the nerve to say anything when most drive Japanese or German vehicles that provide profit to nations that already have Obamacare and strong Unions? Seems if you were truly American you'd have to buy American products and then you'd have the right to whine all the time. Weird how most of the complainers are supporting healthcare and unions, just not in America? Time you jokers woke up and faced a nation that once more because of liberal democrats did the moral thing to do.

 

[Camp]

I agree with this poster who posted a comment 12 hours ago, to a Yahoo article.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-web...adline-enroll-coverage-122359229--sector.html

Commenter 2 hours ago

No amount of propaganda from the White House can change the fact that Obamacare is a disaster. It was supposed to enroll massive numbers of the uninsured yet only a very small proportion of them have enrolled.Most of those who did enroll have either had previously existing policies or had their policies canceled because those policies did not meet the new federal standards required by the Obamacare law.Surprise surprise most of those who did enroll are now facing higher deductibles and higher insurance premiums.

Obamacare was supposedly going to lower health care costs. It did not.It is estimated that only about 2 million of the original 40 million uninsured signed up. So now we have spent billions of taxpayer dollars to create a system that has had and will not have made any significant impact on the number of those who were supposed to have been helped.We also have major scandals involving individuals and corporations that were paid billlions to create federal and state web sites that did not work. Notice liberal blue state Maryland that spent 150 million on an enrollment web site that failed miserably.
Who got all those monies for doing nothing. Were they friends of the Obama administration who simply took advantage of the federal give away? Yes indeed. Are these governments going to prosecute in order to recover these funds from those who got rich at the government trough?The likes of liberal Maryland Governor O'Malley have no answer to those questions. The bottom line is that Obamacare was and is a dynamic failure yet this White House continues to call it a success by constantly repeating that they did succeed. It is an endless stream of lies that can be compared to the tactics of the Communists of the old Soviet Union. The people have been made victims of this new Orwellian government.

Total crap misinformation. The link provided has nothing to do with the above comment. No facts, no links, no reality. Just old debunked fraudulent talking points from extreme rw radio. Basicly, lots of lies rolled into a rant. Guidence for the stupid and easy to scam.

I don't listen to radio and there are FACTS all over this board--if you want to relate to other related titles regarding Obamacare.

You won't answer the computer question--because YOU know already that everything I stated in the opt thread is TRUE--and you just want to bury your head in the sand--because you cannot defend Obamacare--without looking like a total hypocrite.

WOULD YOU OR WOULD YOU NOT--BUY THE NEW MANDATED COMPUTER?

It's a stupid question designed to illicit a loaded response. Computer's are not comparable to health care. Somebody not having a computer does not cost the community or me as an individual anything. Somebody not having medical insurance almost always cost the community and me something. My own insurance rates or taxes go up to help pay for the person who doesn't have insurance. My own cost for a computer is not effected by whether somebody else has one or not. And a computer is not a matter of life or death. There are no ethical or moral questions about not providing a computer to somebody. There are serious ethical and moral questions about not providing medical attention to a person. But ofcourse, if you get an answer that no, a purchase of a computer should not be madated you will claim to have made some point. If you get the answer that yes, the purchase of a computer can be mandated, you will be able to say the libtards believe in complete and total government control of a persons life. You are asking a question designed to make you right no matter how it is answered. Now you are pissed off and writing in bold print because your attempted juvenile trick is obvious to everyone older than 14, or 12 for the smart kids.