joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
The notion that since obamacare helps some people that it is somehow worth having is absurd.
9+ million people would call you 'full of shit'. Those are the ones that couldn't get a healthcare policy through their employer or as a small business owner themselves, on their own that was affordable.
The notion that since [The Defense Budget is so high] helps some people that it is somehow worth having is absurd.
I can play your 'game' too, and bring it to its logically conclusion. That this nation pays quite a bit on defense spending. And much of that goes towards supporting 'middle class welfare' in the form of defense jobs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
Most people are harmed by the law in this way: premiums have gone up, access to care has gone down, control over care has gone down, doctors increasingly want to leave medicine, people who don’t want it are forced to have it or pay a fine and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs as a result of it.
Full of errors, problems and plain bullshit.
Let's start with doctors. Why are so many leaving? They are called 'baby boomers'. Most of them are at the age of retirement. Makes since if they are retiring, they are no longer working, eh? That to become a medical doctors is a HUGE expenditure of resources. Many new doctors are heavily in debt from student loans. Not just doctors but nurses and a the support people that help both groups. They all have student debt on top of other expenses. Large cities can attract many, which leaves clinics and hospitals away from the bustling cities with little supply of trained workers. So in order for these places to entice a potential doctor or nurse, they have to have a competitive package. And this was true before the ACA was voted on!
The premiums on healthcare going up? News Flash: the rates were increasing....BEFORE...the law went into effect. In some cases, by double digit increments. Since then, yes, costs have gone up, but not nearly as fast as before. The law requires health insurance to pay a high percentage towards health care and not some CEO's fat paycheck. Would you like knowing $0.32 of every dollar you paid before was going to pay for the upper management of the insurance company and...NOT...your medical doctor? Now its mandated $0.25 and below in some cases. More of your money goes towards actually paying for the people and equipment you used.
As I stated before, if you dont want a healthcare policy, you dont have to buy one. You can just take the penalty. Of course, paying the penalty, then having a serious condition befall you is what people in the medical field called: IRONIC. That you dont even know what the penalty is or its amount speaks volumes for your uneducated nature.
"...hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs...." By all means, give me a few sources for this one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
As someone pointed out, the poor have always had access to medicare and Medicaid.
Those two programs have been active since the 18th century? By all means....provide the source for that bullshit.
Why do you think these programs came into existence in the first place? Its called 'American History'; you'll find it in the public library closest to you!
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
Given that, it’s clear the law the main intention of the law is this: government control over the healthcare industry with a commensurate transfer of wealth, and a movement towards a health “care” system where government controls everything. And these are the main reasons why leftists like it so much and defend it despite overwhelming evidence of its unpopularity and the harm it causes.
Did you...READ THE LAW? No, you didnt. Your regurgitating right-wing hysteria and conspiracy crap! Since you didnt read the law, how would you know what is....IN...and...NOT IN...the law? You wouldn't. That is why your uneducated and being schooled! No where in the ACA does any of that garbage get explained. There is no 'government conspiracy' to take over the healthcare industry as a prelude to a socialistic government taking over. Stop watching FOX 'news', its unhealthy for your uneducated mind.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
Also (though I could be wrong but I doubt it) im skeptical of anyone on the thread here implying he has actually read the law. It’s between 900 and 2700 pages depending on what version of the thing you are talking about, and the regulations associated with it amass into the many thousands of pages and millions of words. Admonitions to “read the law!” are meaningless to the average person and even the very well educated.
The PDF I have, is 2409 pages long. Now, that's not exactly a....true....2409 pages. The government likes to have margins that are two inches on every side (top, bottom, right, left) with room for page numbers and footnotes at the bottom. Also, they double space....EVERYTHING. So if you single space everything, place the margins at 'college level' (thats an inch all around). Throw out the amendments, definitions, appendices, and such; the whole thing is about a 700 page 'novel'. Not as exciting as 'Game of Thrones'; but it....WILL....put you to sleep! Its a really dry reading. After some time, you'll figure out which parts you can skip over. They are just explaining how the ACA fits in to the thousands of other laws currently on the books.
You can find the PDF Right Here! Its 4.27 MB big for those with slow connections!
When you spew out the amount of bullshit that you do, I know, you didnt read the fucking law! That you try to pass your bullshit off as fact, is like someone saying the sky is purple with yellow pokka dots and green lines. Do yourself a favor. Read the law so that you understand what is in it and not in it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
and oh if you have a panel of people that can decide what care critically ill patients can get, and what care they cannot, and care is rationed---“death panel” seems to be an apt euphemism to describe them. If you don’t like it, come up with another moniker that describes their work without glossing over the fact that they actually will have the authority to “condemn” certain patients to death.
Actually, not true at all. The ACA does not coverage a patients actual level of care. That is between their doctor and them. I know that, because I read the law. You didnt know that, because you didnt.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
As for Hilton:
The poor and minority people in the country are afforded, by law, legal counsel when charged with a crime. That some people can afford better than the bare minimum, doesn’t for a moment translate into that the others are somehow not being treated equal under the law.
You are really not understanding the nature of things here. You do not understand the question being presented to the thread for discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
Yes maybe it’s a travesty when laws are bent one way to help certain people, and a travesty when they are bent another way to punish other people the more, but I cannot see at all how that is going on in this case.
Laws are not being bent. Again, not understanding the nature of the thread is your problem.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
It all just reads too much like class envy, a common whine of the left.
Class envy, eh? That there are two types of courts? One for the 1% and one for the 99%? That you cant fathom the problem here shows a clear problem you'll have to figure out on your own.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
While I’m here, the quote you use from animal farm points to the eventual and inevitable inequality of man under communist/socialist rule---not a democratic republic. It's a slam on the system the leftists want.
No, the book was explaining a concept on how forms of government change change and thus, be corrupted to allow another sort of government to come into existence. How I'm using the quote was stated in the OP. That a penalty allows for two individuals, found guilty of the same crime, by trial and jury, to have two very different outcomes. Even though, the law was followed to the letter. That one person is poor, and to whom, a massive fine is a great problem. The second, can afford it without even hesitation. To the first, they are motivated not to break the law in the first place. The second, has no motivation. So how do we fairly penalize when one has little to no resources and the other is vast?
|
RE: We are all equal, but some of us are more equal... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread