Affordable Care Act

[The Chosen One]

Oh sturg, everyone knows you don't like taxes or the government paying for anything much less healthcare.

I don't like that my taxes pay for the military industrial complex and wars we don't need to be in as you do.

I don't like that religious institutions aren't taxed either.

I don't like that we pay taxes that provide salaries for people in Congress that have their own political ambitions ahead of the country's.

There's plenty of things I don't like that my money and taxes are going towards, healthcare I'm ok with. It's 2014, not 1776.

[yeezus]

And those who don't/didn't have healthcare because they couldn't afford it weren't afforded much "freedom." Except freedom to get sick, or to go to the ER.

[yeezus]

Oh sturg, everyone knows you don't like taxes or the government paying for anything much less healthcare.

I don't like that my taxes pay for the military industrial complex and wars we don't need to be in as you do.

I don't like that religious institutions aren't taxed either.

I don't like that we pay taxes that provide salaries for people in Congress that have their own political ambitions ahead of the country's.

There's plenty of things I don't like that my money and taxes are going towards, healthcare I'm ok with. It's 2014, not 1776.

This is something Paul and his followers really have a hard time comprehending.

[sturg33]

Really depends on the situation. If having guns was essential for the well-being of most people, I'd be OK with it.
Again, I don't view taxes as an infringement of freedom, even though without context saying "being forced to give money to an entity is not freedom!!!" I guess not, but it funds things I need and may take for granted, so it's helpful.

If you're argument is that you're happy to trade some of your individual liberty for certain things, that's fine. But it cannot be argued that forcing people to buy something is not infringing on your personal liberty

[yeezus]

If you're argument is that you're happy to trade some of your individual liberty for certain things, that's fine. But it cannot be argued that forcing people to buy something is not infringing on your personal liberty

I'd prefer the government and the country function as a whole, as one, not completely individually, especially on such things as health and well-being. Again, in a vacuum, a lot of things are "infringing on personal liberty." Doesn't make them inherently bad. Maybe to you, but to a lot of others, not so much.

[sturg33]

Oh sturg, everyone knows you don't like taxes or the government paying for anything much less healthcare. I don't try to hide this

I don't like that my taxes pay for the military industrial complex and wars we don't need to be in as you do. I abhor that we tax people to intervene and kill people

I don't like that religious institutions aren't taxed either. I don't mind it. The more institutions that are not taxed, the better

I don't like that we pay taxes that provide salaries for people in Congress that have their own political ambitions ahead of the country's. I'm with you there

There's plenty of things I don't like that my money and taxes are going towards, healthcare I'm ok with. It's 2014, not 1776.

Income taxes weren't brought into the equation until 1913. Really, the issue is spending. But if someone proposes cutting a dime from the budget, they are considered radicals. If we simply went back to the 2006 federal budget, we could have a 0% income tax on all Americans, and the deficit would be the same (assuming no economic growth, which would certainly occur). The problem is spending. And this health care law added to that problem.

[sturg33]

And those who don't/didn't have healthcare because they couldn't afford it weren't afforded much "freedom." Except freedom to get sick, or to go to the ER.

And now those people who can't afford it are forced to buy it.

But I think it brings up a larger issue. Why is health insurance so expensive in this country? It didn't used to be...

[The Chosen One]

Giving healthcare to those that couldn't afford it to begin with was never going to be free.

I'm OK with that.

I won't lose any sleep over someone having access to healthcare if it means a few dollars are taken out of my check.

I guess I don't love freedom.

[sturg33]

I'd prefer the government and the country function as a whole, as one, not completely individually, especially on such things as health and well-being. Again, in a vacuum, a lot of things are "infringing on personal liberty." Doesn't make them inherently bad. Maybe to you, but to a lot of others, not so much.

OK, so back to the original point. I don't see how claiming it is "un-free" is arguable

[57Brave]

The point of posting the article was since most every reason for objecting to ACA --outside of the abstraction of "freedom" -- you have given in the last 8 months has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong

Maybe your understanding of those other issues (based on the information you are getting and the opinions that shape your views) is worth reevaluating?

We have argued the worth of ACA into the ground. It is not changing except to a better form.
Yet to see any conversation of how ACA will evolve. No mention on this board on what is happening in Vermont or social experiments in other states in relation to health care.

the point of 1776 was, "to form a more perfect union" not let's bitch about King George into the 21st century

[sturg33]

The point of posting the article was since most every reason for objecting to ACA --outside of the abstraction of "freedom" -- you have given in the last 8 months has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong

Maybe your understanding of those other issues (based on the information you are getting and the opinions that shape your views) is worth reevaluating?

We have argued the worth of ACA into the ground. It is not changing except to a better form.
Yet to see any conversation of how ACA will evolve. No mention on this board on what is happening in Vermont or social experiments in other states in relation to health care.

the point of 1776 was, "to form a more perfect union" not let's bitch about King George into the 21st century

Haha, I just read the article and can't say I'm surprised.

"The point of posting the article was since most every reason for objecting to ACA --outside of the abstraction of "freedom" -- you have given in the last 8 months has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong"

Hmm, well let's take a look at the article, shall we?

Customers aren't paying their premiums. - I have never made this claim

Health insurance doesn’t make you healthy - I have never made this claim

The uninsured rate won’t go down. - I have never made this claim. It's stupid to do so, actually. When you force someone to do something, common sense says more people will do it. However, I have the made the claim that only a fraction of the uninsured are insured today, and that is true.

Premiums are going to skyrocket - The author does not dispute this at all, especially "beyond a shaddow of a doubt" as you claim. He cites ONE insurance company, backing off the initial claim of "skyrocketing premiums." I've already posted the premium increases by state in this thread. You chose to ignore that, surprise surprise

The cost would be affordable - Once again, the author does nothing to refute this. Posting a report of future economic outlooks in this country is worthless. If only the CBO had been right all of these years...

[57Brave]

Do you have anything new to add?

Have you seen any aspect of ACA that you agree with?

Vermont? Your opinion on the experiment in Vermont

With the implementation of ACA becoming more ingrained in American life - what can be done legislatively (something concrete - not an abstraction) to improve our HC system?

Is there a foreign model of single payer (because that is the inevitability) you think would succeed in USA?


Curious to know your definition of "liberty?"

/////////////////////////////////
The last thing the article said before launching into the 5 topics was to say these are "some" and yes in a broad sense you have made each of the arguments above.
Let's just call that water under the bridge or 79 ways to leave your lover

[The Chosen One]

Sturg doesn't view any foreign model of single payer as being successful here because that would require giving up the freedom to not participate in single payer. And any money spent by the government on health care period is unconstitutional and infringes on his freedom and destroys the free market.

[57Brave]

"King George Syndrome"

I mighta just invented something !!!


////////////

or
"I got 79 problems and a bitch ain't one"

[57Brave]

Obamacare definitely has winners and losers, but for some reason Republicans have trouble finding the losers. Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post walked through two more would be horror stories in Wednesday's fact checker: Sen. Rand Paul argued that for every one Obamacare enrollment in his state, 40 plans were cancelled, and a Nebraska woman worried that her premiums would go up (they didn't). Despite raising legitimate concerns some people have had — cancelled policies and higher premiums, often for more comprehensive insurance — Republicans still struggle to find people who have actually been inconvenienced.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014...lusive/361880/

/////////////////////////////////////

How about that, (R) cant "find people who have actually been inconvenienced."
Wonder whre we've heard that before?

[sturg33]

Obamacare definitely has winners and losers, but for some reason Republicans have trouble finding the losers. Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post walked through two more would be horror stories in Wednesday's fact checker: Sen. Rand Paul argued that for every one Obamacare enrollment in his state, 40 plans were cancelled, and a Nebraska woman worried that her premiums would go up (they didn't). Despite raising legitimate concerns some people have had — cancelled policies and higher premiums, often for more comprehensive insurance — Republicans still struggle to find people who have actually been inconvenienced.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014...lusive/361880/

/////////////////////////////////////

How about that, (R) cant "find people who have actually been inconvenienced."
Wonder whre we've heard that before?

I've literally linked probably 10 different stories in this very thread of people negatively affected (excluding myself)

[sturg33]

Giving healthcare to those that couldn't afford it to begin with was never going to be free.

I'm OK with that.

I won't lose any sleep over someone having access to healthcare if it means a few dollars are taken out of my check.

I guess I don't love freedom.

Curious, do you volunteer any additional income to the federal government? Or just what they take in taxes?

[yeezus]

Curious, do you volunteer any additional income to the federal government? Or just what they take in taxes?

Aww yeahhh sturg going to prove everybody WRONG with this question!!!!

[sturg33]

Aww yeahhh sturg going to prove everybody WRONG with this question!!!!

No proving anyone wrong. Simple question really. If you think taxes are good, and you're glad they're going to help others, I am just curious if he (or anyone) volunteers more to the government.

[yeezus]

No proving anyone wrong. Simple question really. If you think taxes are good, and you're glad they're going to help others, I am just curious if he (or anyone) volunteers more to the government.

Someone can be OK with paying taxes and not volunteer any additional money to the government. What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That if I'm OK with paying the taxes that come out of my paycheck, among the others that I pay, that I should be giving more?