Obamacare, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act

[Oddball]

Do you want big Pharma and the insurance Companies "taking care" of your family .? After all, we know that they put people over profit, right?

View attachment 225336

It was just a question fool. And there is nothing false about contrasting for profit health care with government programs

It was a foolish question, fool...One foolish enough to get the response it got.

You want better answers, come up with better questions.

 

[Tax Man]

Suddenly the GOP is now for the PPACA when it spent 9 years promising to repeal and replace it.

Such blatant and transparent hypocrisy ought to be obvious to all, that every current Republican member of The Congress is singing the same tune, We Love and will protect those who have a preexisting condition.

Do you, the reader, believe the GOP cares about you and your family?

Consider the words of the Leader of the Senate, Mr. McConnell:

"Nearly a year ago, as the debate over Republican tax breaks for the wealthy was near its end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) insisted that the tax cuts didn’t need to be paid for – because they’d pay for themselves...

Recently, he said, "the growing deficit and debt is a bi-partisan problem and, " “Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid” funding constitutes “the real driver of the debt.”

McConnell eyes cuts to Medicare, Social Security to address deficit

And the SS and medicare are pre paid expense's from paychecks and employers. So why cut what is funded by outside sources? Cause then you don't have to pay back the monies taken to provide tax cuts!!!

 

[dblack]

Without the mandate does the ACA still seem like coercion?

All laws are coercive in nature. The question is whether the coercion is justified or not.

Also, generally it seems like you are saying that you have no problem with any specific program designed to support a specific group, but you simply believe that government is the wrong tool to deliver those services. Does that apply to all government or just the Feds. For example, would you be comfortable if Montana wanted to provide health care for all residents by imposing large statewide taxes? Would you be comfortable if states formed insurance consortiums? So let’s say all New England states decide to create a single payer market in their states? Ok or still too much danger of creating agencies that seem to do nothing but extend their own existence?

For me, the same principle applies at any level of government. Under our current Constitution, states have wider leeway to pass and enforce these kinds of laws. I'd oppose them in my state, in any case.

Also, you use the phrase “force conformity” in certain areas, would you include issues like Civil Rights in this?

As I said, all laws force conformity, the question is whether it's justified. Our approach to civil rights legislation has been a mixed bag. Equal protection is fundamental to just government, so all the legislation passed to combat Jim Crow laws and ensure equal rights are completely justified. I should clarify that when I refer to equal rights, I'm talking about actual civil liberties ("negative rights" in the parlance of modern liberalism), and not claims on services.

Finally, would you please continue to present a thoughtful conservative view here. It is refreshing as some folks on the left view conservatives as autocratic wack jobs who are devoid of compassion and some here do nothing but reinforces that misperceptions. A characterization that clearly does not apply to you. Thanks for taking the time.

Well, that's very nice of you to say. But, as much as I don't want to ruin your kumbaya moment, I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you want big Pharma and the insurance Companies "taking care" of your family .? After all, we know that they put people over profit, right?

View attachment 225336

It was just a question fool. And there is nothing false about contrasting for profit health care with government programs

It was a foolish question, fool...One foolish enough to get the response it got.

You want better answers, come up with better questions.

Please explain how it was foolish. Do you trust the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to look out for your best interests without regulations. Try providing an answer with some substance if you can, instead of just being crackpot troll

 

[Oddball]

Please explain how it was foolish. Do you trust the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to look out for your best interests without regulations. Try providing an answer with some substance if you can, instead of just being crackpot troll

I don't look at it as an either/or situation....I don't trust insurance companies OR The State...I don't expect anyone to look out for my best interests any better than I can...And if you think that The State and it's do-gooder regulations are your friend, you're a bigger fool than I thought, which is really saying something.

 

[Moonglow]

Please explain how it was foolish. Do you trust the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to look out for your best interests without regulations. Try providing an answer with some substance if you can, instead of just being crackpot troll

I don't look at it as an either/or situation....I don't trust insurance companies OR The State...I don't expect anyone to look out for my best interests any better than I can...And if you think that The State and it's do-gooder regulations are your friend, you're a bigger fool than I thought, which is really saying something.

That crap all ended after the completion of Manifest Destiny, just be glad you weren't an Indian...

 

[dblack]

Do you want big Pharma and the insurance Companies "taking care" of your family .? After all, we know that they put people over profit, right?

View attachment 225336

It was just a question fool. And there is nothing false about contrasting for profit health care with government programs

It was a foolish question, fool...One foolish enough to get the response it got.

You want better answers, come up with better questions.

Please explain how it was foolish. Do you trust the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to look out for your best interests without regulations. Try providing an answer with some substance if you can, instead of just being crackpot troll

I don't expect insurers or pharmaceutical companies to look out for my bests interests.

 

[Flash]

Isn't it a hoot and and a half to hear the stupid Moon Bat Liberals that supported the Obamacare disaster and passed it along strict party lines now ***** because the Republicans didn't repeal it?

 

[dblack]

Isn't it a hoot and and a half to hear the stupid Moon Bat Liberals that supported the Obamacare disaster and passed it along strict party lines now ***** because the Republicans didn't repeal it?

I guess. But It's much less humorous that they didn't repeal it. Lying sleazeballs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Please explain how it was foolish. Do you trust the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to look out for your best interests without regulations. Try providing an answer with some substance if you can, instead of just being crackpot troll

I don't look at it as an either/or situation....I don't trust insurance companies OR The State...I don't expect anyone to look out for my best interests any better than I can...And if you think that The State and it's do-gooder regulations are your friend, you're a bigger fool than I thought, which is really saying something.

You can "look out for you're interests ?? What exactly does that mean? Can you afford any damned price that they want to charge for drugs? Can you pay all of your medical bills after you get kicked off of a policy because you have become to expensive?

You might not trust government or like the ACA but you can't dispute the fact that it reined in the heath care industry to some extent. Anyone who denies that is a fool-or a liar .

 

[dblack]

You might not trust government or like the ACA but you can't dispute the fact that it reined in the heath care industry to some extent. Anyone who denies that is a fool-or a liar .

I can sure as **** dispute that nonsense. Exactly the opposite has happened. ACA was a stop-loss for the insurance industry. A last gasp attempt to maintain their defunct business model on the taxpayers dime. They turned public frustration with health care costs into a boondoggle and Democrats sold us to them on a slab.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You might not trust government or like the ACA but you can't dispute the fact that it reined in the heath care industry to some extent. Anyone who denies that is a fool-or a liar .

I can sure as **** dispute that nonsense. Exactly the opposite has happened. ACA was a stop-loss for the insurance industry. A last gasp attempt to maintain their defunct business model on the taxpayers dime. They turned public frustration with health care costs into a boondoggle and Democrats sold us to them on a slab.

I am aware of the fact that the insurers used the ACA as an excuse to cancel sub standard policies for thousands of people. That does not change the fact that it also affords several important protections for consumers and that more people became insured. That you cannot dispute unless you flat out lie.

 

[EL Rich]

Without the mandate does the ACA still seem like coercion?

All laws are coercive in nature. The question is whether the coercion is justified or not.

Also, generally it seems like you are saying that you have no problem with any specific program designed to support a specific group, but you simply believe that government is the wrong tool to deliver those services. Does that apply to all government or just the Feds. For example, would you be comfortable if Montana wanted to provide health care for all residents by imposing large statewide taxes? Would you be comfortable if states formed insurance consortiums? So let’s say all New England states decide to create a single payer market in their states? Ok or still too much danger of creating agencies that seem to do nothing but extend their own existence?

For me, the same principle applies at any level of government. Under our current Constitution, states have wider leeway to pass and enforce these kinds of laws. I'd oppose them in my state, in any case.

Also, you use the phrase “force conformity” in certain areas, would you include issues like Civil Rights in this?

As I said, all laws force conformity, the question is whether it's justified. Our approach to civil rights legislation has been a mixed bag. Equal protection is fundamental to just government, so all the legislation passed to combat Jim Crow laws and ensure equal rights are completely justified. I should clarify that when I refer to equal rights, I'm talking about actual civil liberties ("negative rights" in the parlance of modern liberalism), and not claims on services.

Finally, would you please continue to present a thoughtful conservative view here. It is refreshing as some folks on the left view conservatives as autocratic wack jobs who are devoid of compassion and some here do nothing but reinforces that misperceptions. A characterization that clearly does not apply to you. Thanks for taking the time.

Well, that's very nice of you to say. But, as much as I don't want to ruin your kumbaya moment, I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

You know man, kind of dick move there at the end. I tossed you a bunch of softballs knowing you’d present an intelligent argument for small government and my thanks is you characterizing me as some far left hippy looking to share the love. Did it occur to you that maybe I just wanted to show folks what a civil conversation looks like and I thought your ideas were worth being aired? Really, you are not the only one who understands the Constitution and the implications of an ever-expanding Federal Government. Also, while the current climate skews this a bit, Libertarians are by definition conservative. No change means government stays small and individual liberties are safer. Sorry for the tone but I am far too old to be labeled as a pie in the sky idealist without bristling a bit.

 

[dblack]

Well, that's very nice of you to say. But, as much as I don't want to ruin your kumbaya moment, I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

You know man, kind of dick move there at the end. I tossed you a bunch of softballs knowing you’d present an intelligent argument for small government and my thanks is you characterizing me as some far left hippy looking to share the love.

Whoa.... not my intention at all!!! Hell, I consider myself a hippy looking to share the love. It sure wasn't meant as an insult.

Did it occur to you that maybe I just wanted to show folks what a civil conversation looks like and I thought your ideas were worth being aired?

That's exactly how I read it, yeah. Sorry if my tone was ambiguous. My intent was not.

However, I don't see Libertarians as conservative. In point of fact, I get called "libtard" way more than I get called "right wing", so there's that.

No change means government stays small and individual liberties are safer.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the change in question. The thing is, Libertarians aren't for "no change". That's one of the reasons I say Libertarians aren't conservative. We're for pretty radical, pretty liberal, change.

Sorry for the tone but I am far too old to be labeled as a pie in the sky idealist without bristling a bit.

Yeah, well I'm sorry I pushed your buttons. I get labeled as a pie in the sky idealist all the time. I don't mind so much. It sure beats blithely accepting the status quo.

 

[dblack]

You might not trust government or like the ACA but you can't dispute the fact that it reined in the heath care industry to some extent. Anyone who denies that is a fool-or a liar .

I can sure as **** dispute that nonsense. Exactly the opposite has happened. ACA was a stop-loss for the insurance industry. A last gasp attempt to maintain their defunct business model on the taxpayers dime. They turned public frustration with health care costs into a boondoggle and Democrats sold us to them on a slab.

I am aware of the fact that the insurers used the ACA as an excuse to cancel sub standard policies for thousands of people. That does not change the fact that it also affords several important protections for consumers and that more people became insured. That you cannot dispute unless you flat out lie.

I can certainly dispute that the token "protections" outweigh the lack of freedom they impose. ACA is taking the insurance industry practice of controlling their markets via regulation from the state level, to the federal level. It's simply a matter of convenience for them. It's much easier to bribe, er "lobby", one regulatory regime than to deal with fifty.

 

[Oddball]

You can "look out for you're interests ?? What exactly does that mean? Can you afford any damned price that they want to charge for drugs? Can you pay all of your medical bills after you get kicked off of a policy because you have become to expensive

Medical care expensive is expensive primarily because do-gooder rubes like you seem to believe that State aggression in the marketplace is somehow going to lower costs and deliver better care...And the worse it gets, the more you chumps demand that The State insert itself...Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting better results.

You might not trust government or like the ACA but you can't dispute the fact that it reined in the heath care industry to some extent. Anyone who denies that is a fool-or a liar .

Yeah, something that was written by and for BigInsurance reined them in....Rube.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Medical care expensive is expensive primarily because do-gooder rubes like you seem to believe that State aggression in the marketplace is somehow going to lower costs and deliver better care...And the worse it gets, the more you chumps demand that The State insert itself...Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting better results.

What the **** are you talking about. That is hardly coherent .Medical care is expensive because it is for profit and values that profit over people. And it in no way answers the question : How will you care for yourself?

 

[Oddball]

What the **** are you talking about. That is hardly coherent .Medical care is expensive because it is for profit and values that profit over people. And it in no way answers the question : How will you care for yourself?

I'm talking about cause-effect relationships, while you blabber leftist talking points that have no relationship to anything in reality.

How I care for myself is my business, as it should be...That you seem to believe that it's somehow your business, is part of the reason the medical care industry is in the fix it's in right now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the **** are you talking about. That is hardly coherent .Medical care is expensive because it is for profit and values that profit over people. And it in no way answers the question : How will you care for yourself?

I'm talking about cause-effect relationships, while you blabber leftist talking points that have no relationship to anything in reality.

How I care for myself is my business, as it should be...That you seem to believe that it's somehow your business, is part of the reason the medical care industry is in the fix it's in right now.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you can't explain what you're talking about- most likely because you don't know what you're talking about

 

[Conservative65]

Suddenly the GOP is now for the PPACA when it spent 9 years promising to repeal and replace it.

Such blatant and transparent hypocrisy ought to be obvious to all, that every current Republican member of The Congress is singing the same tune, We Love and will protect those who have a preexisting condition.

Do you, the reader, believe the GOP cares about you and your family?

Consider the words of the Leader of the Senate, Mr. McConnell:

"Nearly a year ago, as the debate over Republican tax breaks for the wealthy was near its end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) insisted that the tax cuts didn’t need to be paid for – because they’d pay for themselves...

Recently, he said, "the growing deficit and debt is a bi-partisan problem and, " “Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid” funding constitutes “the real driver of the debt.”

McConnell eyes cuts to Medicare, Social Security to address deficit

I still say that if someone doesn't have coverage and you're unwilling to personally provide it to them, let them go without.