Obamacare Is Now on Life Support

[jon_berzerk]

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy

That's not what you originally posted, and it's not what your links say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

And -?

and you are a nutjob

If by "nutjob" you mean "someone who can do math," you're correct.

you are incorrect dimwit

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Arianrhod]

View attachment 57162

No.

you are incorrect

I'm using the numbers from the links you provided. If my math is incorrect, you can correct it. What are you waiting for?

Right. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from the same flaws as ACA. The attempt to implement socialism via capitalism. They're fundamentally conflicted. If we want to help people with government, we should just give them money to pay for health care - or whatever they want to spend it on. There's no need to funnel it through corporate interests. Other than to solicit political support, which is how Congress uses these programs.

Before you thought Medica[re]id expansion was a good idea. Now you're waffling. The one thing you're consistent on is tossing out the PPACA and replacing it with -?

Somehow I have a feeling the answer is going to be a variation on "let market forces decide" and "if people can't afford health care, then..."

 

[jon_berzerk]

View attachment 57162

yup

 

[jon_berzerk]

View attachment 57162

No.

you are incorrect

I'm using the numbers from the links you provided. If my math is incorrect, you can correct it. What are you waiting for?

Right. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from the same flaws as ACA. The attempt to implement socialism via capitalism. They're fundamentally conflicted. If we want to help people with government, we should just give them money to pay for health care - or whatever they want to spend it on. There's no need to funnel it through corporate interests. Other than to solicit political support, which is how Congress uses these programs.

Before you thought Medica[re]id expansion was a good idea. Now you're waffling. The one thing you're consistent on is tossing out the PPACA and replacing it with -?

Somehow I have a feeling the answer is going to be a variation on "let market forces decide" and "if people can't afford health care, then..."

yes except the numbers that 8 for 10 that use the market place get a subsidy a number the government brags about

 

[Arianrhod]

yes except the numbers that 8 for 10 that use the market place get a subsidy a number the government brags about

(A) That has nothing to do with what dblack posted, and
(B) It's not 8 out of 10 who use the marketplace, but you are getting closer to understanding the actual figure.

When you're ready, kindly go over my math and show the errors, instead of simply repeating yourself.

If you can't, we'll assume my math is correct.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Arianrhod]

View attachment 57174

No one here is talking about "free stuff" except you.

I bet you've got lots more images to post. Go for it.

 

[dblack]

Before you thought Medica[re]id expansion was a good idea. Now you're waffling.

I 'waffle' whenever I get new information. That's how we learn and grow. It wouldn't surprise much to discover that Medicare is also a scheme to funnel tax dollars to corporations. If what Greenbeard posted is factual, then I couldn't support expanding the program. Surely we can help the poor without indulging corporate welfare, eh?

The one thing you're consistent on is tossing out the PPACA and replacing it with -?

Yep.

Somehow I have a feeling the answer is going to be a variation on "let market forces decide" and "if people can't afford health care, then..."

There's nothing wrong with that answer. I've been clear that I don't think government should function as our caretaker. But there's a wide gulf between corporate sellout and laissez faire. Just about anything would be better than the former.

 

[Arianrhod]

^You want no government involvement at all. You want no insurance companies involved, either.

So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?

You've made an excellent case for what you don't want, but something has to fill that vacuum. Your lack of a viable option suggests some Mad Max universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.

 

[dblack]

^You want no government involvement at all. You want no insurance companies involved, either.

So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?

They should pay for it however they like. If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that. But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.

You've made an excellent case for what you don't want, but something has to fill that vacuum.

And it would. But we should be free to figure that out for ourselves, and not solutions dictated to us by government.

Your lack of a viable option suggests some Mad Max universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.

How so? Apart from frantic strawmen, that really has nothing to do with my point of view. I would never condone such a thing, nor accept a government that did.

In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.

 

[Arianrhod]

^You want no government involvement at all. You want no insurance companies involved, either.

So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?

They should pay for it however they like.

IOW, you feel only wealthy people should be allowed to have surgery, because your magical thinking doesn't allow for any other scenario.

If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that.

You make it sound as if insurance works like eBay.

But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.

That’s three unconnected ideas predicated on your opinion, not fact.

You've made an excellent case for what you don't want, but something has to fill that vacuum.

And it would. But we should be free to figure that out for ourselves, and not solutions dictated to us by government.

The solution is: Either you have insurance or you don’t. You can’t expect something you don’t have to work for you. Yes, you should be able to figure that out for yourself, but post after post after post, you still don’t seem to get it, or you’re just being petulant.

Your lack of a viable option suggests some Mad Max universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.

How so? Apart from frantic strawmen, that really has nothing to do with my point of view. I would never condone such a thing, nor accept a government that did.

Ever hear of a guy named Martin Shkreli?

In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.

That last one is the only practical solution I recall you making. Maybe it's your scattershot approach to practical solutions that still come down to "I don't WANNA!" that clouds the issue.

 

[dblack]

^You want no government involvement at all. You want no insurance companies involved, either.

So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?

They should pay for it however they like.

IOW, you feel only wealthy people should be allowed to have surgery, because your magical thinking doesn't allow for any other scenario.

No. That's your strawman.

If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that.

You make it sound as if insurance works like eBay.

I don't know what that mean. Insurance certainly should work like Ebay. ACA makes it work like Homeland Security.

But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.

That’s three unconnected ideas predicated on your opinion, not fact.

You've made an excellent case for what you don't want, but something has to fill that vacuum.

And it would. But we should be free to figure that out for ourselves, and not solutions dictated to us by government.

The solution is: Either you have insurance or you don’t. You can’t expect something you don’t have to work for you. Yes, you should be able to figure that out for yourself, but post after post after post, you still don’t seem to get it, or you’re just being petulant.

????

Your lack of a viable option suggests some Mad Max universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.

How so? Apart from frantic strawmen, that really has nothing to do with my point of view. I would never condone such a thing, nor accept a government that did.

Ever hear of a guy named Martin Shkreli?

The guy the market ran out of business? Yep. So what?

In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.

That last one is the only practical solution I recall you making. Maybe it's your scattershot approach to practical solutions that still come down to "I don't WANNA!" that clouds the issue.

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense. You're defending an systematic fraud.

 

[Arianrhod]

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.

There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

You don't wanna? Then don't. But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.

 

[dblack]

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.

There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

I've never said that. That's your delusion. I guess it's easier than defending your views.

You don't wanna? Then don't. But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.

The tantrums are yours. I'm trying to discuss policy. Its sad that when you are faced with the real opposition to your views you resort to these petty personal attacks. Wouldn't it be better to rationally defend your views?

 

[Arianrhod]

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.

There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

I've never said that. That's your delusion. I guess it's easier than defending your views.

You don't wanna? Then don't. But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.

The tantrums are yours. I'm trying to discuss policy.

If by "discuss" you mean "relying on emotionally fraught words," you're correct.

 

[dblack]

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.

There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

I've never said that. That's your delusion. I guess it's easier than defending your views.

You don't wanna? Then don't. But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.

The tantrums are yours. I'm trying to discuss policy.

If by "discuss" you mean "relying on emotionally fraught words," you're correct.

Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?

 

[Arianrhod]

You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.

There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

I've never said that. That's your delusion. I guess it's easier than defending your views.

You don't wanna? Then don't. But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.

The tantrums are yours. I'm trying to discuss policy.

If by "discuss" you mean "relying on emotionally fraught words," you're correct.

Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?

Reiterating that I'd have preferred single-payer, that you'll be even unhappier with the eventuality of single-payer, and observing that it's interesting that this is the only corporate welfare boondoggle that seems to upset you, which I find very revealing.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?

Reiterating that I'd have preferred single-payer, that you'll be even unhappier with the eventuality of single-payer

That's not true. I've said, repeatedly, that single payer would be better than ACA.

... and observing that it's interesting that this is the only corporate welfare boondoggle that seems to upset you, which I find very revealing.

Also untrue. I guess it's easier to assume some kind of stereotype.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?

Reiterating that I'd have preferred single-payer, that you'll be even unhappier with the eventuality of single-payer

That's not true. I've said, repeatedly, that single payer would be better than ACA.

... and observing that it's interesting that this is the only corporate welfare boondoggle that seems to upset you, which I find very revealing.

Also untrue. I guess it's easier to assume some kind of stereotype.

It's honestly disappointing that you always come back around to this kind of response.