- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,350
- Reaction score
- 6,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Only a true liberal socialist would call this a moderate Democrat agenda. Most of us would call it a radical wealth redistribution and massive Central govt. agenda. The elections should have told even people like you that the public rejects it. This isn't a liberal nation, it is conservative and when conservatives run they win
how many times have voters "rejected" a party only to "reject" the other a few years later and put the same people they "rejected" initially back into power? In 2012 voters "rejected" conservatives. Another election or two they'll do it again.
37% turnout of register voters in this past election does not qualify as any referendum against ACA. If you guys try to f*** with it, you can kiss the senate and the white house good bye in 2016.
I personally hope you guys will get too cocky and over reach.
Sorry, did not see that but certainly understand your feelings as they are mine as well. Amazing that we still have people who buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore actual information like this. Apparently they are indeed the ones the liberals want to focus on.
So the answer is, Canada likes its liberal HC system.
LOL....yes...yes...socialized medicine is a conservative idea.It's not a "liberal" HC system, at least not in the classical definition of the term. But if you mean it's "liberal" in that it provides less that what was promised and continues to provide less and less as time goes on and that it is far more expensive than promised and continues to become more and more expensive as time goes on, then yes, it is indeed a liberal HC system.
I'd say it's more classically conservative in that it is designed to provide equivalent services to all citizens regardless of their station in life, wealth or status, and it provides the basic necessities of coverage needed by most if not all citizens and leaves additional services at the discretion of the individual. It is, in effect, pretty bare bones, but very few people are bankrupted by illness.
America would have been far better off if the government had decided to implement a catastrophic care policy that covered all citizens out of tax revenue and continued to leave individual choice for all the rest of medical/health care to the individual to insure or pay for out of pocket as they see the need and desire to do so. Instead, you have this bastardized system that helps no one other than insurance companies and medical practitioners/providers. Nice job.
Actually the free enterprise system in Canada appeared to be working fine, as many around at the time can attest. Doctors even made house calls and if it was anything serious then neighbors generally chipped in to help each other. The government became involved during the polio epidemic, it was treated as the national disaster it was, and a terrific job was done.Not at all, because we did it the right way, more than 50 years ago.
That's largely because they know no other way and have become dependent on it, just as the supporters of Obamacare understand.It's not as affordable as it once was, but there isn't a single Canadian who'd trade our system for yours, particularly not now.
Yes, the government is moving towards the once dreaded 'two tier system' because the ideology of medical care was trumping common sense. Now Canadians don't have to wait months or years for an MRI, for example, and independent clinics are springing up everywhere. The government must have realized that there just isn't the money available to support the retiring baby boomers and that some concessions to free enterprise and private health care had to be made.But there is a definite push to allow "for-profit" medical services to set up shop here. There are for-profit services for things the government doesn't fund/cover, but there's also a push to have for-profit services for things the government does cover, so that people don't have such long waits if they can afford to pay for it themselves, but that is currently illegal under our system, forcing those with money to travel to the US to beat waiting lists.
2006 was called a referendum. 2008 was a mandate.
2014? A blip.
The previous switches in the balance of power were lauded as a general awakening. Hell, I remember vast hordes declaring it the death knell of the GOP. But this time? Eh, low voter turnout.
It's blind hypocrisy.
Head East.....they said. Never been any reason. :mrgreen:
"if you like your plan you get to keep it, if you like your doctor, you get to keep him" Which lie do you support?
Spoken like a true liberal who believes the govt. needs the money more than the private sector, probably a govt. employee?
Doesn't look like we'll have to since it has serious legal flaws soon to be challenged.
Republicans will be smart to repeal it without repealing it. Defund it, rebuild it to what it should have been in the first place, then the catastrophe it's been goes away.
Heya Erod. Here is Cruz on Election night and note how he says it can be taken apart.
I thought all legislation was buried under mounds of documents in 'legal speak' to hide the pork, waste and unrelated spending?
Heya Grip. :2wave: Weeeell.....not all legislation. :lol:
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it’s now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court......snip~
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public - Forbes
That will be a real winning platform for 2016:
Vote GOP and we will eliminate health insurance support for low income folks!
Yeah, I get that. it was a stupid thing to say. But what is even more stupid: the notion that such would have been true even if no reform had happened. That's the real point, and why he shouldn't have said it, is that plans change and get more expensive every year, with nothing changing from the government. So, no, it wasn't likely that anything changed due to ACA.
No, more a true problem solver. We have a problem. It effects large numbers of people. We can ignore it, or we can work to solve it.
Again, I understand why it is that you stay away from trying to express your views in your own words and instead rely on C&P.What will they have to say.....once Legislation is passed that protects people? Once legislation is passed where one can keep their doctor? Once legislation is passed to Strip away the Insurance bail outs.....then remove the medical device tax? Its called governing an actions speak louder than words.
Won't be much of a platform needed to run on there. Then it will be cleaning up BO's mess overseas and with Foreign policy. Hillary will be in the news and all of the BO's failures will be fresh in everyones face, again.
That will be a real winning platform for 2016:
Vote GOP and we will eliminate health insurance support for low income folks!
Speaking of the stupidity of the American voter, here's a little article I ran across from a Canuck perspective.
View attachment 67175749
How many times does a complete lie need to be corrected before you admit you were wrong? I have showed you multiple times that Tx hospitals receive federal dollars for the uninsured.What really is stupid is the liberal rhetoric that this is a federal program vs an individual and state responsibility. Just like minimum wage, states handle their own issues and that is where healthcare belongs. Rhetoric trumps reality in the liberal world and you prove it every day. You do not pay for the uninsured in TX, I do
Yea, I saw that article. I'm not defending the architecture of the ACA but it does address some of the important problems with the healthcare system. No doubt, Obama and most political leaders think the general populace are dumb dumbs. I mean, we do vote for them....lol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?