tytlyf
Not Religious
Who are you supporting for life again? Sounds like you're in favor of a minimum wage increase so you don't have to support people (we all pay these taxes, even the people that are on public assistance).
-
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!
Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And again, don't we (tax payers) subsidize the veteran healthcare system and the elderly currently on Medicare...? Why is it acceptable for those groups but not others....
esmith
Veteran Member
nope!!!!
esmith
Veteran Member
And again, don't we (tax payers) subsidize the veteran healthcare system and the elderly currently on Medicare...? Why is it acceptable for those groups but not others....
Your assumption is invalid. I contend I paid for what I'm getting even though you may disagree. We have had this discussion before and you are wrong, IMHO, in your assumptions. So let's leave it at that.
Harry Reid would call it a "lie", but today we see....
Obamacare leaves Las Vegas man owing $407,000 in doctor bills | Las Vegas Review-Journal
Obamacare leaves Las Vegas man owing $407,000 in doctor bills | Las Vegas Review-Journal
tytlyf
Not Religious
You do realize that a minimum wage increase will give you what you want? Less taxes going towards assistance programs.
esmith
Veteran Member
and where did you find that statistic?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who said anything about "supporting them for life"? Now you sound like Romney's "givers and takers".
So, we go through two wars whereas the real bill may exceed $4 trillion in the final analysis, but we can't spend a small fraction of that to help our own people? We go to war because 3000 Americans died, but some are not willing to go to "war" to fight for health-care insurance that both the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University said the lack of was costing us over 40,000 American lives per year, and that doesn't even include the myriads more who suffer because they can't get the help they need?
To me, a true conservative values human life because each person is important. Therefore, just letting our people suffer and die is not in any way conservative, imo. A true conservative I would think would be in favor of an approach that provides health care one way or the other for all, and does so at less cost than we are now paying, which the other 19 most industrialized countries already have (we spend just under 18% of GDP, whereas they all spend less than 13% GDP).
Barry Goldwater lamented that too many people who claim to be conservative have no real interest in being conservative as they just have a selfish inclination whereas they just want lower taxes. So, it's a matter of where one places their values: recognizing and helping if needed each individual who may need our help, or is it just to hoard their money? I don't think anyone here, including myself, really wants to pay maybe a bit higher taxes, but some here feel that helping our fellow Americans in need is worth it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Obviously, you are correct. Some don't seem to realize that if X numbers of Americans make so little money, their only recourse is to draw from various governmental programs, which results in higher taxes.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Let's not forget that there are a lot of people out there who could save money on healthcare but do not even attempt to enroll because they have heard the sky is falling 24/7. You could also blame these propaganda outlets demonizing the new private health care system for the lower numbers of enrollee's. If people weren't afraid of the new system, they would give it a shot and you'd see higher numbers. But of course the insurance corporations don't want that as they are in the pockets of the GOP.
tytlyf
Not Religious
GIve it a couple days to be debunked. Like the last lady on Fox. But of course after it's debunked, people will never be told that and left with the misleading lie. Oh well.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's gonna be interesting in this year's off-year elections because the polls are indicating a continuing backlash against the Democrats because of the ACA. However, the election is over 7 months away, the enrollment figures are making it probable that they can make this fly, so are attitudes by the independents maybe going to be more accepting, especially if there's no significant increase in rates? Time will only tell.
At another website, we were discussing the ACA, and a Republican lady was upset because her premiums went up a bit as she did enroll in the program. However, what she failed to consider is the fact that prior to the passing of the ACA, medical inflation was averaging a bit over 9% per year. Since the ACA was passed over four years ago, and since medical inflation is just over 1% now, I mentioned that if her rate increase was less than 30 or so percent, she's further ahead than what she would have been had nothing been done. She hadn't thought of that.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And did by chance you catch any of the congressional testimony whereas a Republican senator went after a spokeswoman from Canada who was there to explain how their medical system is set up? It was hilarious as she ripped him a new one.
Over and over again these Republicans have lied one after the other about how evil the Canadian system supposedly is, but if anyone actually does the research, they well know otherwise. They have played this dishonest game so often that so many Americans have unwittingly swallowed the propaganda. It reminds me of Goebbels rather onerous statement that if you tell the big lie often enough, people will come to believe it.
Does this mean that if it isn't debunked, you'll pronounce it real?
No?
I thought not.
I know too many people who personally have bad experiences to
believe the Harry Reid meta-lie that people's problems are all lies.
esmith
Veteran Member
So, HHS says that 5 million people have signed up for health care. Now are the following points correct?
1. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get 30 million people enrolled in healthcare that did not have healthcare previously?
2. When Jan 1, 2014 rolled around (the date the minimum requirements for a policy came into effect) it was estimated that over 4 million Americans lost their healthcare insurance because it did not meet the minimum standards?
Now if the above 2 points are correct, just what did Obamacare actually accomplish, as far as providing health coverage?
technomage
Finding my own way
Try getting your facts straight: John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect | PolitiFact
How does what Esmith claimed conflict with what I read in the PolitiFact link?
technomage
Finding my own way
The claim that four million people lost their insurance. Their current policies were cancelled if the policies did not match the minimum requirements, but other policies were offered.
I read the article, & didn't see that figure debunked.
But then, I've been writing a legal document for several hours, & me eyes are protesting vigorously.
Personally, I don't know anyone who lost coverage & was unable to get a replacement policy.
But only one person I know (#1 son) signed up thru Obamacare.
technomage
Finding my own way
Part of the problem is Boehner inflated the already incorrect figure: Politifact covers that in the linked article, starting with the sub-section titled "What happened to cancelled plans."
Oy! You know, Rev, there's this word called "Rest" that you're obviously not sufficiently familiar with.
