"If you like your current health insurance, you can keep it as long as I like it too."Originally Posted by sturg33
"If you like your current health insurance, you can keep it as long as I like it too."
America
where they are pissed that they can't keep a crappy plan
that we are wasting this much time and money instead of just going with a single payer system is absurd
50PoundHead (11-18-2013), jpx7 (11-18-2013)
America...where you should sit back let bureaucrats make decisions for you because they obviously know better.
The faith some people have in the federal government to carry these things out effectively and efficiently is beyond absurd.
Last edited by acesfull86; 11-17-2013 at 08:20 AM.
BedellBrave (11-17-2013), FreemanFan (11-29-2013)
??
That's why we have a government.
I'm not saying I think they're doing great, but that's government's job - to decide what's best for the people, because we elected them to do so.
goldfly (11-17-2013)
i believe that is the point of having gov't
for them to work together and make it work
i know, crazy idea to actually do good for the people
Having a big government is not necessarily an inherently bad thing. If it's a well-run government that the people can trust, government is a great thing, and not an enemy like it's treated like.
Now, our government is so polarized and controlled by money that it's hard to trust it, and I don't think they always carry out what the people want. But aces, your first sentence is pretty much American democracy to a "T" - we elect the people we feel know what is best and will be most effective in carrying things out.
There are way too many horrendously stupid people in this country who I would not want to directly influence how my life is run.
Fed government completely screws up Obamacare roll out.... the obvious solution is to give the federal government even more power with a single payer system. That's some good logic right there.
Most people liked their healthcare plans. Being forced to be rid of those plans to appease a minority voter base was dumb from the beginning. Everything the lib politicians do is about increasing their voter base.
Having a big government is not necessarily an inherently bad thing. If it's a well-run government that the people can trust, government is a great thing, and not an enemy like it's treated like.
Now, our government is so polarized and controlled by money that it's hard to trust it, and I don't think they always carry out what the people want.
You can't just gloss over your last sentence there. I mean that's kind of the whole point that small government minded folks have. Yeah, in theory it could work, but in reality it often doesn't. And certainly not in the US.
thank you weso1!
BedellBrave (11-17-2013), FreemanFan (11-29-2013), sturg33 (11-17-2013)
It works in PLENTY of places - places far more "socialist" and to the left than "socialist king" obama.
I'm not glossing over anything, I think our government is a mess, but I don't think making it smaller is necessarily a solution. The people with money in this country dictate most things, and that won't stop just because government is smaller IMO, and it could make it worse. People are driven by greed - especially the already filthy rich pigs.
Forever Fredi
BedellBrave (11-17-2013), FreemanFan (11-29-2013), Tapate50 (11-18-2013), thethe (11-17-2013), weso1 (11-17-2013)
Not on the scale of the US. We aren't Sweden.
I don't disagree.
I'm conservatively aligned, but one of the few who believe that health care is a basic human right that should be available free and equal. But hey, where's the money in that?
That being said, it's amusing to kick back and watch how this debacle has utterly wrecked whatever type of legacy Obama once laid claim to.
why doesn't it work?
Same reason big-government proponents tend to hate big business. Exchanging one set of sinners for another... Why do folks think those who go into governance are more likely to be competent and holy?
Sweden's median household income would be considered below the poverty level in the US.
thank you weso1!
You mean it isn't Utopia? Dang it!
A myriad of reasons. Human nature, lack of a high and consistent labor force, global tax shelters, political corrupotion, corrupt unions, etc. The free market typically weeds these things out. Of course we don't really have a free market these days. These huge social programs are in a constant state of crisis. There's always a question of how do we fix them?
thank you weso1!
Can you explain why you think it does?
Based on 2010 statistics, Sweden's median household income is $5,000 below the US in purchasing power ($29,000 to $24,000) which isn't that large a difference. Factor in the social benefits one receives in Sweden and it's pretty much a wash.
I think you are referring to recent studies that show that the poor in Sweden don't do better in terms of average of median income than they do anywhere else and that's supposed to damn the whole idea of the welfare state. But again, these studies only look at the income/consumption side of the equation in the markets and don't look at the benefit structure in Sweden.
I agree that the Third Way wouldn't work well here. We're too large geographically and the difference in the political cultures of the states doesn't lend itself to a more comprehensive federal government. For all of its increased diversity due to immigration from the Third World, Sweden is still pretty homogeneous.
jpx7 (11-18-2013)
Good read:
==============
Obama to Nation: Keep Your Phuckin' Plans, You Stupid Cowards:
In a sane era, not an ideal one, but a sane one, the President would have gone to congressional leaders and said, "Hey, what are some things we can do to make the Affordable Care Act work better?" Now, in the fantasy sane era - and, again, we're not saying it's some ****in' "Kumbaya" era of holding hands, but just a time when people in the government actually want the government to, you know, function like a government - members of both parties would offer things that they would like to see in the law. Democrats might have said something about outreach. Republicans might have said something like "Why don't we let people keep their heath care plans?" Things would have been negotiated and the law would have been strengthened or, at least, smoothed up a bit.
Alas, we do not live in such an era. Instead, we must deal with the constant buzzing of our water boatman politicians. The water boatman is an insect that, relative to its size, gives off a mighty sound. It makes this annoying chirp/buzz by constantly rubbing its dick on its belly. There's your picture for the day: Ted Cruz grabbing his tumescent cock and scraping it back and forth across his hairy stomach as it emits a call for perverse teabaggers to mate with his narrow, self-serving ideology.
Instead of Barack Obama and the House GOP agreeing that the law is the law and making it function for Americans, we get the sight of Obama appearing before the press corps and saying, more or less, "Goddamn, I'm sick of you mother****ers whining about your ****ty ass health insurance getting canceled because your provider is just a bunch of sick, greedy dickheads who would murder you where you sit if it would squeeze one more cent of profit out of your useless bodies. You wanna cling to your high deductible, low benefit policy for another year because you're scared that the black man president might be right and all that Fox 'news' noise might be wrong? Fine. **** it. Kiss my ass and keep your **** plan. Don't come whining to me when it turns out that your insurer drops your sorry ass when you get too sick for it. You asked to be grandfathered in, so lick grandpa's balls and tell me how tasty they are now. Now, can we please talk about the fact that Republicans want to kick over 100,000 people who just got insurance off it?"
Imagine for a moment, just one clear moment, what would have happened if, after the law passed, Republicans hadn't been such total pricks about the ACA, if just a quarter of the votes to repeal Obamacare had been on things that make the law stronger (or even more Republican). No, they couldn't. That would legitimize the law and Barack Obama as president. They have to keep hitting at the ACA as if it's the last windmill in Spain. Just think, though, what would have happened if all states had set up their own exchanges, if they had accepted the Medicaid expansion, if, if, if. It wouldn't have been perfect, but at least it would have worked as it was created to work instead of the horrific Frankenstein monster of a thing it was forced to become. The only way not having a public option for insurance works is if the states acted responsibly. They did not, in a way calculated to undermine the President and a Congress from just a few years ago. Democrats got suckered, again, into thinking that Republicans would behave honorably.
If President Obama seems frustrated, it's because he should be. Used to be people gave a damn when a law was passed. They shifted their perspective and acted in concert with the law. If they disagreed with it, they elected new people who overturned it (if the courts wouldn't). The tactics used by the right on Obamacare would have made Abbie Hoffman at his most radical say, "Goddamn, that'll lead to anarchy." On January 1, there's probably gonna be hospital sit-ins or some such ****. And it's hilarious that the GOP is acting as if, pre-ACA, it was all free gold and pussy for people with health insurance, not that it was (and is) a cruel, callous, capitalist system that saw people routinely kicked off their policies for taking one too many pills or being a little late with a payment.
So can we move forward now? Is it possible to get to that place where we simply try to, for ****'s sake, get people some health care and not act like it's a privilege for the few?
// posted by Rude One
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
