• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could the Democrats be in revolt over the ACA?

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Well in 2014 there are actually supposedly very few non-safe seats up for grab (the mid terms seem to feature a higher level of gerrymandering than the others); it is unlikely that many that were formerly red will become blue (though even less likely that more will become red).

In all likelihood after the 2014 elections the US will be in much the same dysfunctional position as it is now unless the Reps really screw the pooch (not entirely impossible).
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
I think you had better rethink your statement there. Are attempting to tell me that I has an American Citizen has no say what Congress does or does not do? Congress works for us, we do not work for Congress. However, there appears to be those on the left that disagree with that and think the people should work for the Congress. There are many Democrats in the House and Senate that think that the ACA should be changed.
First up, congress does not work. Heck even most individual congress people do not work; nor are they motivated on behalf of their constituents - no, instead they are motivated on behalf of their major contributors. And among the so called representatives (and their staff) there are certain people who desire congress to do even less work - these people shut down the government without reason without plan without consideration as to the consequences to the american people - for cheap political gain which (for most but not all) blew up in their face.

America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic and there is a profound disconnnect between the people who do such things (as shutting down the government) and the majority of the people of america - and it is enabled because the average person in america is too lazy to bother voting and those who do vote are too lazy to become informed about those they are voting for/against; instead all these so called representatives need to do is cater to those who are actually going to vote - and thats what they do.

Though it is worth pointing out that shutting down the government in order to attempt to achieve legislative change despite the established processes for legislation is against the defining principles of a 'republic' - dont like the ACA? there are exactly two ways you can change this. Win an election and/or successfully argue your case to influence other representatives - thats it.

Americans have no one to blame (not even the current dysfunctional congress) in comparison to their own apathy and laziness.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Well it seems that Bubba has broken the damn on attacking the ACA and more and more Democrats are attempting to do a CYA move. Newest attackers are:
Time

However, even if the "If You Like Your Health Care" proposed bills are passed it is not going to be an easy fix. Why It's Not Too Late for the 'Keep Your Health Plan' Act | The Weekly Standard

Sorry don't care for your sources...just being honest.

As far as "Bubba"...well it helps to put things in their proper context.
[youtube]If7QikEt6kk[/youtube]
[FULL Interview] It Begins? Bill Clinton Tells Obama He Needs to Honor His "You Can Keep It" Promise - YouTube

If you listen to the whole piece and not the soundbite at the end you get a clear picture he still supports the ACA...and seemed to bash Republicans for not expanding medicaid and building their own exchanges.

As far as the Republican (Keep your plan) bill...well if it is retroactive then that might be fine. If it's one that says...going "forward" if you like your plan then it's a stupid bill. Grandfathering a plan is one thing but keeping the status quo going forward makes no sense. This is why the one from the Democrats was a little clearer as to its objective.

And what I mean by going forward is...Now that the ACA law is in effect...all plans offered should be required to meet the ACA standards. If a plan was in effect before the law went into effect...HECK...went into effect BEFORE December 31......then that law can be grandfathered....Any plans after January 1st 2014 have to meet ACA standards...

But let's be clear...from what I've been reading...the government doesn't have the ability or right to tell insurers they have to keep a plan in perpetuity. The government here has said that if an insurer wants to keep a plan in place before the ACA law was passed then that plan can stay as is....not having to meet any of the ACA requirements...but if said plan changes in a significant way then the plan has to then meet the ACA requirements.
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
Sorry don't care for your sources...just being honest.

As far as "Bubba"...well it helps to put things in their proper context.

If you listen to the whole piece and not the soundbite at the end you get a clear picture he still supports the ACA...and seemed to bash Republicans for not expanding medicaid and building their own exchanges.
Seems that you are reading something into my post that isn't there. I never said that Bubba was against the ACA. I just said that Bubba is giving Obama advice on keeping his promises.

As far as the Republican (Keep your plan) bill...well if it is retroactive then that might be fine. If it's one that says...going "forward" if you like your plan then it's a stupid bill. Grandfathering a plan is one thing but keeping the status quo going forward makes no sense. This is why the one from the Democrats was a little clearer as to its objective.

And what I mean by going forward is...Now that the ACA law is in effect...all plans offered should be required to meet the ACA standards. If a plan was in effect before the law went into effect...HECK...went into effect BEFORE December 31......then that law can be grandfathered....Any plans after January 1st 2014 have to meet ACA standards...

But let's be clear...from what I've been reading...the government doesn't have the ability or right to tell insurers they have to keep a plan in perpetuity. The government here has said that if an insurer wants to keep a plan in place before the ACA law was passed then that plan can stay as is....not having to meet any of the ACA requirements...but if said plan changes in a significant way then the plan has to then meet the ACA requirements.

Getting dizzy with all this spinning? There are Democrats(Senator Mary Landrieu) that are saying that if there was a health plan in place between the time of the ACA enactment and Dec 31,2013 it will be counted as a viable health plan even if it was changed. The only problem is that the toothpaste is out of the tube and insurance companies would have to go back to each individual state and get those cancelled plans re-approved. See my link to the Weekly Standard about this problem.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I find it totally pathetic and blatantly immoral that there are those who simply don't seen to care that 50 million Americans do not have any health-care coverage, thus leading to many premature deaths, including one of my brothers-in-law last August. The reality is that the Republican response has been just to say no, and they had the opportunity to do something when Bush was in office and they did nothing except pass Medicare Plan D, which they threw on the deficit. They have put forth no serious plan but, instead, were so "moral" so as to cut $5 billion from the food stamp program.

And yet so many of these same people are going to services on the weekends while not being willing to lift a finger to help the poor, which violates the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. States and local communities have not been able to keep up with the growing health-care crisis, nor has there been a major movement in most states to pick up the slack, especially by the Republicans.

This inaction by most of the Republicans has basically told me that this element has elevated its greed and its political beliefs to more than trump the compassion that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed taught. To these people, let me make a suggestion: take your money, put it on an alter, and worship the "god" you truly are dedicated to. If you were truly a believer, you would be trying hard to deal with this situation instead of just sitting on your *** and whining. Sorry to be so sarcastic, but I find it so terribly hypocritical whereas I see those who believe they're "true believers" just ignoring the plight of those who are unfortunate, and yet so many of this same element will go to war at the drop of a hat.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This inaction by most of the Republicans has basically told me that this element has elevated its greed....
I know many well to do Democrats who could donate money to help the poor & sick.
But they don't. They want politicians to tax others to do it, but personal action...
..they don't take it. There's a lot of insensitivity & hypocrisy to go around.
Be careful about casting aspersions, lest they break one's own glass walls.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There are always going to be those who are in a minority in their own party, but one party especially has been mostly consistent in it's opposition to universal health care, and I think people pretty much know, or at least should know, which party that is.

Secondly, charity alone has proven itself to not be able to handle the load, so the idea that some wealthy should just give more doesn't even get close to dealing with the problem.

Thirdly, I think we need to call out the greed in some when there's greed there, and not be so sensitive to not call it what it is. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses some use to not help our own people, and what they typically post is along the line of "Why should I pay for someone else's health care?". And then this same element proudly strut their "faith" and their "true patriotism" as they wrap themselves around the American flag and pretend that they're following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and/or Mohammed.

We should call it what it is: greed, pure and simple.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I don't think it is greed, it is opposition to a waseful inept government running 1/6 of the nations economy.

Look at what is happening, right now more people have lost their insurance than have signed up.

Many of us give to charity while other are generous with other folks money. Who holds the higher moral ground here?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't think it is greed, it is opposition to a waseful inept government running 1/6 of he nations economy.

Look at what is happening, right now more people have lost their insurance than have signed up.

Many of us give to charity while other are generous with oher folks money. Who holds the higher moral ground here?

No, it's greed. If it weren't then we would see people of faith busting butt to make sure that the poor and downtrodden are taken care of-- but they're not in way too many cases. You simply cannot say you are on the higher moral ground if you are simply not willing to help those in need with something that works, and charity alone hasn't been able to handle the load.

And as far as "other folks money", we live in a society-- not as hermits. Jesus was not a hermit who taught his followers to ignore the plight of the poor, which you seemingly are suggesting. Jesus also would have been aware of the Great Sanhedrin's and Temple authority's work to organize the Torah mandate to help the poor both through governmental action and charity. No where is there to be found Jesus condemning both the actions of the Sanhedrin and the Temple leaders in regards to helping the poor. Instead, Jesus insists that his followers need to go beyond that which was required by Jewish Law.

As far as the ACA, I have had problems with it from the get-go, and how it's been handled has been just pathetic. However, I would suggest that a person of faith would not try to block 30 million Americans from getting health care, but instead be willing to work with those who support the ACA and try to fix it. But that's not what's happening with most Republicans, and you gotta know that because it's so obvious.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There are always going to be those who are in a minority in their own party, but one party especially has been mostly consistent in it's opposition to universal health care, and I think people pretty much know, or at least should know, which party that is.
Dems have their reasons for favoring it....not entirely pure (pandering).
Pubs have their reasons for opposing it....increasing & inept socialism.
You think you have the truth & the moral high ground, but all you really have are your personal values, the same as everyone else.

Secondly, charity alone has proven itself to not be able to handle the load, so the idea that some wealthy should just give more doesn't even get close to dealing with the problem.
This does not defeat my point that there is much hypocrisy on the part of those who cry for higher taxes from others, without ponying up their own money voluntarily.
So sanctimonious cries of "Greed!" don't carry much weight. Moreover, while they might feel good, they don't change anyone's mind.

Thirdly, I think we need to call out the greed in some when there's greed there, and not be so sensitive to not call it what it is. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses some use to not help our own people, and what they typically post is along the line of "Why should I pay for someone else's health care?". And then this same element proudly strut their "faith" and their "true patriotism" as they wrap themselves around the American flag and pretend that they're following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and/or Mohammed.
Which flavor of greed is worse....
- People who want to keep their money to spend as they wish.
- People whose generosity extends only from the pockets of others.
- People who want to tax others for things they want, but can't or don't want to pay for themselves.

We should call it what it is: greed, pure and simple.
To invoke name calling serves no one. If you want to call "greed" on one side, then you'll find yourself vulnerable to your side having "lazy", "dumb", & "thieving" people on yours. In reality, there will be a mix of motives on both sides, & they'll all be involved in crafting some compromise of public policy.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I take one look at the health care system and I see a bunch of folks who do not ever see a sick person. They are in the billing department and then you have all these insurance folks doing paperwork. Then you have fraud where no medical service was never performed or was unneeded.

Then you have all these lawyers that sue doctors and those expenses.

ALL THIS CRAP THAT COSTS MONEY AND TIME THAT DOES NOT HELP SICK PEOPLE ONE BIT.

We need to focus on providing health care as in hospitals, operating rooms, nurses, doctors, medical facilities, medicine, supplies and such.

Health care is too expensive and has more bean counters that health care professionals.

You want to cover everyone? Screw health care insurance and just provide facilities for folks to go to.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Greed is greed no matter who's doing it, and the record is quite clear who's been proposing universal health care and who hasn't, so let's keep on track here and not get bogged down in straw-man arguments. We can discuss motives all we want, but what we have seen happening in this and certain other areas has been rather obvious.

Secondly, having "personal values" to help those in need is hardly something that should be condemned by moral people. But for those who elevate their money over the poor are in which way following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed?

If we want a compassionate and just society, we have to work for it and, yes, that'll involve both money and effort. However, the greedy will not likely support this at any level, national, state, or local levels. To believe that the states should handle it versus the national can indeed be quite moral, imo, but unfortunately the vast majority of states have not done this.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Greed is greed no matter who's doing it, and the record is quite clear who's been proposing universal health care and who hasn't, so let's keep on track here and not get bogged down in straw-man arguments. We can discuss motives all we want, but what we have seen happening in this and certain other areas has been rather obvious.
I see plenty of greed coming from the party & supporters behind Obamacare.
They want others to pay more so they will pay less. Face it...this is also "greed":.

Secondly, having "personal values" to help those in need is hardly something that should be condemned by moral people. But for those who elevate their money over the poor are in which way following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed?
I'll condemn it when those wanting to survive off my largess demand ever more, dis me for being successful, show no gratitude whatsoever, & favor confiscatory tax policies without bothering to understand the effects of their demands.

If we want a compassionate and just society, we have to work for it and, yes, that'll involve both money and effort. However, the greedy will not likely support this at any level, national, state, or local levels. To believe that the states should handle it versus the national can indeed be quite moral, imo, but unfortunately the vast majority of states have not done this.
Don't forget the greedy folk who want to just survive by suckling at gov's teat.
We've too many gov programs which reward this behavior, & punish self sufficiency.

Now, ask yourself.....
What good is it to call each other "greedy", "selfish", "lazy", etc, etc?
The sanctimony of denouncing the other side, without trying to understand them serves no useful purpose....unless it makes you feel better.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
People will attribute ill motives to business, but consider that gov will do unacceptable things too.
Yet gov does not police itself to the higher standard for business....
Prosecute HealthCare.gov? | National Review Online
Conservatives often argue that the federal government should function more like a private business. Obamacare supporters should be grateful it does not, because otherwise HealthCare.gov would almost certainly run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as of the recently established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Orson Swindle, who served as an FTC commissioner from 1997 to 2005, says there are a number of practices that, if HealthCare.gov were a private entity, would result in its being “taken to the shed and horsewhipped” by government regulators.

President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.”Other examples of potentially deceptive practices include the apparently deliberate decision to withhold information from HealthCare.gov visitors as to the actual prices of the policies offered via the exchanges. In fact, users aren’t told how much those policies will cost until after they have created an account, which requires giving a slew of personal and financial information.

Additionally, a recent CBS News investigation found that HealthCare.gov contains a pricing feature that tends to “dramatically underestimate” the cost of insurance. The website’s “shop and browse” feature divides users into two broad age categories: “49 or under” and “50 or older.” Price estimates for the first age group are based on what a 27-year-old could expect to pay, whereas as the latter group’s price estimates are based on what a 50-year-old would pay, a practice that inevitably produces wildly misleading results for individuals significantly older than the base age. In some cases, actual premiums are nearly double the projected amount. In the words of one industry expert, the feature is “incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they’re paying.”

The FTC requires companies to provide essentially every possible form of information about a given product up front, prior to the point of purchase. Private companies engaged in HealthCare.gov’s kind of behavior would face severe consequences, Swindle tells National Review Online. “Businessmen would lose their businesses, salesmen would lose their licenses — that’s the kind of thing we are talking about here,” he says. “The bottom line is that no private entity would be allowed to get away with what the Obama administration is trying to get away with.”

Perhaps the most significant grievance the FTC, the CFPB, and, potentially, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would have with a private corporation following HealthCare.gov’s practices would be its apparent disregard for the security of sensitive personal information shared by users. The website, which has been targeted by a series of attempted cyber attacks, initially contained a serious flaw that left user accounts and personal information vulnerable to hackers.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If I act in a greedy way, I would expect to be called on the carpet for that, including even from my own family. The fact of the matter is that we've seen over and over again the willingness of so many Republicans, a majority actually, that simply are not willing to help the health-care concerns of their fellow Americans, and I think that's deplorable. And yet this same element was all so willing to go to war that has cost us many lives and nearly a trillion dollars, and yet a small fraction of that dollar price tag would take care of our universal healthcare needs per year. So, they're so willing to destroy and rebuild other countries but not so willing to help their fellow Americans? The inmates in our prisons have basic healthcare but not so many of our working poor.

Instead, what we then see is an attempt to justify this greed on some contrived "moral" basis, often citing something like "big government ...", and yet we know that most of these same people are going to accept their Social Security and Medicare along with a desire to increase defense spending, which are three of the four major legs of the "big government" stool. When confronted, they'll typically respond something like "Well, I've paid into these ...", thus implying that those who don't have health insurance haven't themselves paid into local, state, and federal taxes, which is largely untrue.

As an anthropologist, we well know that hunting & gathering bands, including going at least as far back as the Neanderthals, took care of those who could hunt or gather because of age, sickness, or injury, and I would hope that our fellow Americans would be at least as civilized as the Neanderthals and actually help those in need.

Unfortunately, there's an element in our society that simply has elevated their money over the other members of our society, using every excuse they can think of why they shouldn't help. And it's not just in the healthcare area, as we just saw $5 billion cut from food stamps. How is that in any way ethical?

Yes, if I'm greedy, call me "greedy", but I'm not going to hold back on calling some others "greedy" that are indeed greedy.

Anyway, I've made my point, so it's time to move on.

shalom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If I act in a greedy way, I would expect to be called on the carpet for that, including even from my own family. The fact of the matter is that we've seen over and over again the willingness of so many Republicans, a majority actually, that simply are not willing to help the health-care concerns of their fellow Americans, and I think that's deplorable. And yet this same element was all so willing to go to war that has cost us many lives and nearly a trillion dollars, and yet a small fraction of that dollar price tag would take care of our universal healthcare needs per year. So, they're so willing to destroy and rebuild other countries but not so willing to help their fellow Americans? The inmates in our prisons have basic healthcare but not so many of our working poor.
This is to misjudge their motives. I'm the real greedy one....Republicans are mostly posers, who want to massively tax me to make the world a better place. But some of them have very good reason to resist creeping socialism & big government. Sure, sure, you can point to the good which would be done, but it has a great cost. And since both Pubs & Dems are committed to the politics of pandering, crony capitalism, & policing the entire world, we lack the resources to recover economically while pursing all these expensive agendas. I diagnose you as unwilling to understand & empathize with your loyal opposition. (You now owe me $5, bub.)

Instead, what we then see is an attempt to justify this greed on some contrived "moral" basis, often citing something like "big government ...", and yet we know that most of these same people are going to accept their Social Security and Medicare along with a desire to increase defense spending, which are three of the four major legs of the "big government" stool. When confronted, they'll typically respond something like "Well, I've paid into these ...", thus implying that those who don't have health insurance haven't themselves paid into local, state, and federal taxes, which is largely untrue.
As an anthropologist, we well know that hunting & gathering bands, including going at least as far back as the Neanderthals, took care of those who could hunt or gather because of age, sickness, or injury, and I would hope that our fellow Americans would be at least as civilized as the Neanderthals and actually help those in need.
I'll wager that primitive groups would help each other, fully expecting that all would pull their weight to the extent they can. But we pervert that approach by supporting people while asking for nothing in return. Our policies foster a permanent underclass of unproductive citizens. Resistance to this should not be so glibly labeled as "greed".

Unfortunately, there's an element in our society that simply has elevated their money over the other members of our society, using every excuse they can think of why they shouldn't help. And it's not just in the healthcare area, as we just saw $5 billion cut from food stamps. How is that in any way ethical?

Yes, if I'm greedy, call me "greedy", but I'm not going to hold back on calling some others "greedy" that are indeed greedy.
Anyway, I've made my point, so it's time to move on.
shalom
"Greed" is most often seen as carping that the other guy has something I'm entitled to, & he isn't giving it to me.
 
Top