Affordable Care Act

KeithLockhart said:
374480_614070361962168_85588297_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Thats good hustle to whoever made that one.
 
weso1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agreed followed the first sentence ... then you make this is a massive and, in my opinion, wholly fallacious jump.
 
goldfly said:
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
Click to expand...

Agreed. Tangents aside, I'm not really a fan of the ACA — not because I don't vehemently support comprehensive health-care reform, but because I don't find the ACA especially comprehensive or particularly reformative.
 
57Brave said:
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
Click to expand...

For some reason, I'm gonna reply to this.

The writer seems to be upset that not everyone has a healthcare plan. And that republicans are monsters for fighting this law.

But the numbers are the numbers, as I posted in this thread:

only 4.8 million people have lost their coverage so far, the number is projected to get to 52 million.

If you count the state exchanges with the federal exchange, you have about 100,000 people enrolled.

So so far, we have a net health insurance coverage of minus 4.7 million. But somehow, 57 will figure a way to defend it.

The enrollments have missed the government estimation by more than 80%.

So the law is doing oppostie of what it is supposed to... which, you know is the reason republicans were against it in the first place.
 
sturg33 said:
Man, you're really stuck on this, aren't you?

I'll explain and ask again:

1. I DID know my premiums were going to go up - I knew it because of this horrifying new law

2. I knew why they were going to go up - because we now have to subsidize everyone in the company

3. So knowing all of this information - what could I have done to stop it? Quit? I'm still not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on 57 to explain how my premiums going up is my fault
 
57Brave said:
Yeah you could be right , but, my insurance rates didnt go up 79% without me knowing it !
Click to expand...

I guess I'm confused by what you mean here... You act like my insurance going up is not because of the law - but because I didn't know about... Please explain?
 
sturg33 said:
For some reason, I'm gonna reply to this.

The writer seems to be upset that not everyone has a healthcare plan. And that republicans are monsters for fighting this law.

But the numbers are the numbers, as I posted in this thread:

only 4.8 million people have lost their coverage so far, the number is projected to get to 52 million.

If you count the state exchanges with the federal exchange, you have about 100,000 people enrolled.

So so far, we have a net health insurance coverage of minus 4.7 million. But somehow, 57 will figure a way to defend it.

The enrollments have missed the government estimation by more than 80%.

So the law is doing oppostie of what it is supposed to... which, you know is the reason republicans were against it in the first place.
Click to expand...

57 - your thoughts on this math please
 
sturg33 said:
57 - your thoughts on this math please
Click to expand...

It's taken over 100 years to get some form of Universal Health Care passed through Congress and it is now a fact of life. Be it through the ACA or Medicare For All or , my preference, a simple Euro-Canadian style single payer. Or just volunteer Drs. , Pro-Bono medicine
This is the most sweeping legislation some say since the Civil War and it's not going away. The genie is out of the bottle.

It took 100 years for Civil Rights legislation that addressed racial inequality - post slavery
Read the roadblocks bot Presidents Roosevelt faced trying to reform the scurges of their day

The Articles of Confederation failed because ??? -- bringing us to our Constitution
http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/articlesofconfederation/

That is what I think of the math. Had we adopted a single payer -- I wanted -- we wouldn't be having this conversation
However, we didnt get what I (and my Liberal brethren) wanted. What we got was more along the lines of what (R) wanted.

I still want it to work because for the good of everyone it is better than what was in place 10 years ago

//////

One more thing - the people shouting the loudest about the failure are the same people that shouted the loudest ... do I really have to say it again?
They have been wrong at every turn since 1980 -- so my question to you is -- why are you so invested in failure?

/////

And one more furthermore.
History has proven over and over and over again that Obama Scandals become nothing. Lime Kaiser Soze-- "Pooof they are gone" This criticism will blow over. It might take 6 months it might take a year but his critics have been proven wrong at every turn. There is no evidence that won't be the case this time
_
-
 
45,000 and 6. Two HUGE numbers to take away from that article. For the cost we have ALL incurred, we could have paid for those people's healthcare out of pocked til they die. But we needed to recreate the wheel!

I don't know whats a bigger crock in that article, that her plan wouldn't cover treatment for a sinus infection or that she was still paying it when it was higher than her rent.

Rolling Stone needs to stick to well....the Rolling Stones.
 
sturg33 said:
Hey 57 - if you could, give me your thoughts on the math
Click to expand...

for the brazilianth time

"That is what I think of the math. Had we adopted a single payer -- I wanted -- we wouldn't be having this conversation
However, we didnt get what I (and my Liberal brethren) wanted. What we got was more along the lines of what (R) wanted."
 
Tapate50 said:
45,000 and 6. Two HUGE numbers to take away from that article. For the cost we have ALL incurred, we could have paid for those people's healthcare out of pocked til they die. But we needed to recreate the wheel!

I don't know whats a bigger crock in that article, that her plan wouldn't cover treatment for a sinus infection or that she was still paying it when it was higher than her rent.

Rolling Stone needs to stick to well....the Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...

How much in specific dollars and cents -- has ACA cost you?
Just curious -- let's hold you to the same accounting standard you insist of others

How much has ACA cost you personally -- the guy in the tennis sweater????
 
57Brave said:
for the brazilianth time

"That is what I think of the math. Had we adopted a single payer -- I wanted -- we wouldn't be having this conversation
However, we didnt get what I (and my Liberal brethren) wanted. What we got was more along the lines of what (R) wanted."
Click to expand...

Your entire nonsensical post ignored the question. You support the ACA (yes I know you wanted a complete socialist medicine)... But you support the ACA. You say it is much better than the old system. Yet, right now we have net minus of 4.7 million people with health insurance. And we've paid a WHOLE LOT of money to get to that point.

So please, your thoughts on the math.
 
I knew coming into the ACA the first year or so would be rough.

People expect major overhaul and changes to run smoothly, just doesn't happen and never has in any society.

Like 57 said, I would have preferred public option or single payer, but this is by far the better system than the current. The markets just have not adjusted yet. The mandate hasn't really kicked in yet because the deadline isn't for another 2 months.
 
And technically speaking, Obama wasn't exactly lying when he said you could keep your plan.

The ACA didn't tell insurance companies to drop all these people. They did because they're going to lose some profit because it means they have to actually pay for sick people now.

If anything I think that would strengthen the argument for single payer or public option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top