- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,759
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And those same politicians strangely exempt themselves from Obamacare.
Oh, of course. It's all my fault. Instead of listening to someone who has been paying her insurance for decades without begging for someone else to assist her, let's listen to politicians who don't know anything about medicine or business, and let's listen to the people who can't afford to take care of themselves and their families. :roll: And if I cost shopped, it would all be affordable!
You can cheerlead the ACA to someone else, Greenbeard. You do it well, and I'm sure you can find someone else who needs help to pay his/her bills to high five and got Daddy Obama to do it. I'm not one of those people.
The claim of prices rising more slowly is an outright DNC lie.
While reform was needed, doing nothing at all would have been less damaging then obamacare.
And single payer is just "stupid". When you take the profit incentive out of medical care, you end up with very limited medical care and waiting lists and rationing follows.
That is how all insurance pools work not just the ACA's. Young and "healthy" people get sick and injured all the time yet they game the system knowing they can't be turned away if the unthinkable happens. That's why we have the mandate. Ending pre-existing conditions requires that everyone be insured too.
Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?
You see, can kicking governments forget the negative legacy may backfire, in this case as the dues, as they say, come due, there will be pressure for change. This is the first chance since "You can keep your plan" for Americans to make their wishes known to a presidential candidate. If Obamacare does NOT become a major issue in this run, the Republicans do not deserve to be a political party.
In the meantime, were I a GOP candidate I would be talking about "reforming" it in "fairness" from the core out, as opposed to repealing it, as "the way it was has now become unacceptable". They will have to have a well defined and well thought out alternative.
Either that, or we are just way more informed than you are. Which do you think is more likely?
I agree it will continue to be a hot potato, but rather than have the ACA rescinded and going back, it will be replaced or parts amended so that you move closer, not further away, to a single payer system. Your Supreme Court, in its two political rulings that ignored the constitution, has set in stone that you will not go back. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, which I hope happens, Republicans will own the problem.
Actually, no, it has been confirmed by dozens of sources at this point.
In what regard? 15 million more people have access to healthcare. That doesn't even register with you as a big success? Costs have been rising more slowly, people with pre-existing conditions are no longer screwed, the deficit has been reduced... None of the Republican predictions have come true- not one.
We don't need to guess what happens. Virtually the entire developed world other than the US has single payer. The result is higher quality care, far better access to health care and far lower costs. That isn't something we need to speculate about at this point, it is just a measurable fact.
God, I can't wait until Hillary becomes President next year. Republican tears...mmm, they'll taste so good.
Kasich has made the moral case for embracing the ACA's Medicaid expansion. That's got to be a tough sell in a GOP primary.
In the primaries four years ago Rick Perry got himself into trouble by supporting compassion for immigrant children and charging that opponents of DREAM-esqe legislation are heartless ("If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart."). That didn't go over well with the base, as I recall.
Kasich has arguably gone further, implying opponents of Obama's Medicaid expansion are going to hell: "Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer." How are the poor-bashing, ACA-despising ogres in the base going to like it when he holds a mirror up to them?
You are correct. The employer mandate does not kick in for midsized employers until 2016.
Yet the only candidate the GOP can put up with a ghost of a chance against her is unlikely to make it through the hustings, even if he manages to lose his last name in the process..
The GOP remains hellbent on electoral suicide, and the Democrat voter base is "stupid"? (why the " " ?)
Actually, no, it has been confirmed by dozens of sources at this point.
In what regard? 15 million more people have access to healthcare. That doesn't even register with you as a big success? Costs have been rising more slowly, people with pre-existing conditions are no longer screwed, the deficit has been reduced... None of the Republican predictions have come true- not one.
We don't need to guess what happens. Virtually the entire developed world other than the US has single payer. The result is higher quality care, far better access to health care and far lower costs. That isn't something we need to speculate about at this point, it is just a measurable fact.
I am sure that is what you think but as we have seen liberals have zero credibility for results don't matter and are trumped by feel good rhetoric. I am a reformed liberal as I got tired of spending in the name of compassion and never getting compassionate results. You see, you think with your heart, judge everyone else by your own standards, and ignore the reality that there is evil in the world and even in the liberal ranks, evil looking to line their own pockets by keeping people dependent. without dependence there wouldn't be a need for liberalism.
If you truly believe in what you post please tell us all how having a 18.2 trillion dollar debt, over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance(excluding SS and Medicare), having a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. is compassionate? You see, liberal arrogance means spending more on compassionate programs whereas the other compassionate liberals didn't spend the money right in the first place.
False.
Not when you consider that tens of millions more people now have health insurance that they cannot afford to use. And the 15 million more insured number is bogus anyway.
Only in the liberal world can you add millions and millions to the roles of the insured many of whom have health issues, drug problems, and other issues and lower costs. That is liberal logic and is why we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt
Only in the liberal world can you add millions and millions to the roles of the insured many of whom have health issues, drug problems, and other issues and lower costs. That is liberal logic and is why we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt
This is where the "more informed" part comes in handy. The economy has consistently grow dramatically faster under Democrats, and in fact, most the worst offenders on the debt have been Republicans.
Which Party Is Better for the Economy?
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by the Party Controlling the Federal Government
Rather it is 'conservative' beliefs with little basis in reality.
Looks like nothing is going to change your mind and you will always buy what you are told and will always been a closet socialist. Admit who you are!!!
When I see people like you I see people who are civics and economic challenged. Apparently you don't understand that we have a Congress and a President, Presidents make requests and Congress makes the laws. Posting bs like you just did serves no purpose other than to show that Gruber was right in describing the Democrat voter. Which party is better for the economy is determined by leadership and who is in charge of Congress. You will always ignore the GOP Congress in 2004-2006 and the Democrat Congress in 2007-2011. You will ignore the Reagan leadership working with Congress and the Obama arrogance. You will ignore the GOP Congress from 1995-2000 and the Contract with America which Clinton signed 60% of.
Debt as a percentage of GDP means exactly what? You really don't understand the private sector economy at all nor the reality of debt service. In your world 1.7 trillion in debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy is much worse than a 7.6 trillion dollar debt on a 17. trillion dollar economy because the percentage change is lower. How much debt service do the taxpayers pay on those two numbers??
Here is GDP growth incorporating control of Congress, all the way back to 1930:
gdp by party
Any other excuses you want to try out?
Yes, of course debt that is a smaller percentage of GDP is less bad. Duh. That's what determines how hard it would be to pay off, how much that debt service stings, etc. That you never learned that, and apparently never gave it enough thought to realize even something that obvious, belies all your ranting about how you think other people don't know about economics...
No what is hard is paying off an 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy.
Debt as a smaller percentage of GDP in a private sector economy is irrelevant for what matters is the debt service which today is the fourth largest budget item.
tuhaybey;1064763157]Would it be easier if the GDP was $40t instead of $17.5t? Would it be harder if the GDP was $5t? Are you seriously taking the position that it would not?
I don't get why you keep repeating "in a private sector economy." Why do you think that detail is relevant? The GDP determines how big of a deal debt is in every kind of economy...
Yeah, go figure. Maybe you reactionaries are so far out on the Right that yer policy preferences just can't be enacted. That's life in a democracy, I guess.
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?