Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

For you that voted for Obama... Options · View
sweetmalinda
Posted: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:52:45 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 10/30/2012
Posts: 24
Location: United States
wow
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, April 26, 2014 5:02:08 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,762
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
doctorlove wrote:
Just would like to hear your opinion/reaction to your President not putting his family on Obamacare.


I'm not going too. I have a very good job that supplies me with excellent health care. With that in mind, why would I expect anyone in a similar or better situation to do so?

The affordable Heath care act is just that. A health care program that allows the less fortunate to join established health care organizations. I see no reason why the President of GM or the President of the US would feel a need to join when they can easily afford their pick of the best medical practitioners in the entire world. Having access to the very best does not mean that the average is poor.

There is always going to be the best in every field. Medicine is no different.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:50:31 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
i am greatful that i can now afford health insurance. before the affordable care act i was told that to get basic insurance i would have had to pay 600 a month for it now i only have to pay 198. thank you very much for giving me some sort of protection in the case i need to go to a doctor.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:14:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
LadyX wrote:
Obamacare is working just fine for me. Is it cheap? Fuck no. And I make too much to get it subsidized, and that's fair, so I'm fine with it. But it's working. It's not doomsday, doctor's aren't quitting in droves, our country isn't on the brink of collapse as a result.

I don't disagree with every conservative idea, but their freak-out over Obamacare looks funnier by the day, as more people sign up and it continues to function as it should.


Actually the country IS on the brink of an economical collapse. We currently borrow or print almost half of every dollar the government spends. Why do they do this? Because the American people want the government to take care of them. In fact, they demand it or the current politicians in power will lose their jobs to someone who will promise everything to everybody. This has been true throughout history and it is not a left or right issue. They both do this, with the same negative result.

The only way to continue unlimited entitlements including affordable health care is through non ending quantitative easing, which will end in one of two ways. Either the dollar will inflate itself out of existence, or it will lose it's world reserve currency status. One or the other will happen very soon at which time we will all be in deep shinola. Most Americans will be worried more about where their next meal will come from than an unsustainable health care system.
Rembacher
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:23:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
thepleasureprinciple wrote:


Actually the country IS on the brink of an economical collapse. We currently borrow or print almost half of every dollar the government spends. Why do they do this? Because the American people want the government to take care of them. In fact, they demand it or the current politicians in power will lose their jobs to someone who will promise everything to everybody. This has been true throughout history and it is not a left or right issue. They both do this, with the same negative result.

The only way to continue unlimited entitlements including affordable health care is through non ending quantitative easing, which will end in one of two ways. Either the dollar will inflate itself out of existence, or it will lose it's world reserve currency status. One or the other will happen very soon at which time we will all be in deep shinola. Most Americans will be worried more about where their next meal will come from than an unsustainable health care system.


Basically every other developed country in the world has some sort of universal health care for its least fortunate citizens without being in the dire financial straits the US found itself in even before the ACA was passed. The difference between the more economically stable countries and the US? Spending on the military. No other developed country comes close. So don't try and tell me this little policy is what is bankrupting the US.

Besides, what is better for the US economy? Spending a few billion on healthcare; or having millions of people not contribute to their full potential because they can't afford the doctor visit that would heal them? And that's not even factoring in the public health risk of having people wandering around with communicable diseases because they can't afford treatment.
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:53:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
thepleasureprinciple wrote:
Actually the country IS on the brink of an economical collapse.


Should've stopped reading there. The 'taker' whinging after is old BS.
CurlyGirly
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:56:19 AM

Rank: CurlyFries

Joined: 10/5/2012
Posts: 1,829
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Obamacare is working just fine for me. Is it cheap? Fuck no. And I make too much to get it subsidized, and that's fair, so I'm fine with it. But it's working. It's not doomsday, doctor's aren't quitting in droves, our country isn't on the brink of collapse as a result.

I don't disagree with every conservative idea, but their freak-out over Obamacare looks funnier by the day, as more people sign up and it continues to function as it should.


thumbup Same here.

Since my divorce, I'm no longer covered under my ex's insurance plan. Also, I'm an independent contractor, so I don't have an employer who offers me coverage. While Obamacare is not cheap, it's certainly a helluva lot less expensive than what I would've been paying without it. The term assr*ped (can I say that? Embarassed ) by the insurance company comes to mind. While I'm not a "less fortunate" soul, it's certainly helped me quite a bit. I don't think it's the perfect system, but I think we're moving in the right direction.

If I had a W2 job with a great insurance plan, you better believe I would be on that. He has access to excellent coverage, so he doesn't need to be on Obamacare. That's the whole point of the system, right?



It won a potato. Aren't you intrigued?



Milik_Redman
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:56:07 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,762
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
thepleasureprinciple wrote:


Actually the country IS on the brink of an economical collapse. We currently borrow or print almost half of every dollar the government spends. Why do they do this? Because the American people want the government to take care of them. In fact, they demand it or the current politicians in power will lose their jobs to someone who will promise everything to everybody. This has been true throughout history and it is not a left or right issue. They both do this, with the same negative result.

The only way to continue unlimited entitlements including affordable health care is through non ending quantitative easing, which will end in one of two ways. Either the dollar will inflate itself out of existence, or it will lose it's world reserve currency status. One or the other will happen very soon at which time we will all be in deep shinola. Most Americans will be worried more about where their next meal will come from than an unsustainable health care system.


Or we could stop spending 700 billion a year trying to have a military that is far larger than any other country on earth. Our military could (god forbid) be designed to simply protect the US instead of being something that can threaten the entire world all at once.

We could and should expect the EU and Japan to pay a share proportionate with their economic might to help defend the western world. Why the US tax payer should have to give up basic services that citizens of those wealthy countries get seems unfair to the point of foolishness.

It isn't such things like the affordable health care that are breaking us. It's our own failure to realize that the world has moved on from the post WWII conditions that required us to give out billions in foreign aid and to unilaterally pay for the entire cost of the worlds defense.

Yeah, we are gong broke, but the so called Obamacare is hardly the reason why.
MadMartigan
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 11:14:18 AM

Rank: Raised on Blackroot

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,194
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:


Basically every other developed country in the world has some sort of universal health care for its least fortunate citizens without being in the dire financial straits the US found itself in even before the ACA was passed. The difference between the more economically stable countries and the US? Spending on the military. No other developed country comes close. So don't try and tell me this little policy is what is bankrupting the US.

Besides, what is better for the US economy? Spending a few billion on healthcare; or having millions of people not contribute to their full potential because they can't afford the doctor visit that would heal them? And that's not even factoring in the public health risk of having people wandering around with communicable diseases because they can't afford treatment.


The next stop and the true cost of medical waste lies with Big Pharma and corrupt hospital officials.

If anyone here hasn't already, take a look at Steven Brill's "The Bitter Pill" article. The ACA isn't the problem. It's the hospitals and Big Pharma that cripple any one and every one.

Do people know how many empty hospital beds there are in nearly every hospital in the US? It's gross. And the damn buildings KEEP getting built.

And as for the ACA, my brother is a surgeon and all his friends are doctors. While an imperfect system, most of them fucking love it.

They're sick to death of people abusing the ER system. Many of whom are repeat offenders who are basically trying to kill themselves (i.e. through drink etc) and keep coming back. Which goes back on the tax payer for all those uninsured.
HardRom
Posted: Monday, April 28, 2014 12:11:26 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/24/2014
Posts: 10
Location: London, Canada
I am Canadian and never have to worry about healthcare. I had a heart attack 9 years ago. It didn't cost me one red cent. Getting stitches from a hockey game, free. Pinched nerve, free. Prescription do cost though. Free is only for doctor's actual services. This applies to ALL Canadian citizens and residents.

Universal healthcare was first developed in Canada during the 30's depression. Doctors quickly bought in to the system. Their big reason was because they did not have to chase down bill payments. Someone defaults on a medical bill, you have to send it to collection. This cost money as they take a huge cut. Payment was fast and complete.

Is our system perfect. NO! Is it better than the USA? YES?

You want the money to pay for a decent national healthcare system. Take a few billion out of defence spending. They won't miss a few billion. The forces can piss that away in a few days.

I'm sorry but I can't rap my head around not wanting a universal healthcare system that does not turn anybody away for lack of funds. If my government is going to tax the fuck out of me, I want something for it. Me personally, not some oil company raping the natives of their resources.

Right wing ideology and plain selfishness are the root cause, IMO, for the USA's healthcare issues. Our's are based on plain government inefficiency. What a normal person can accomplish with 100$ would cost any government 1000$.
asleep
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:22:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 3,847
Location: United States
HardRom wrote:
I am Canadian and never have to worry about healthcare. I had a heart attack 9 years ago. It didn't cost me one red cent. Getting stitches from a hockey game, free. Pinched nerve, free. Prescription do cost though. Free is only for doctor's actual services. This applies to ALL Canadian citizens and residents.

Universal healthcare was first developed in Canada during the 30's depression. Doctors quickly bought in to the system. Their big reason was because they did not have to chase down bill payments. Someone defaults on a medical bill, you have to send it to collection. This cost money as they take a huge cut. Payment was fast and complete.

Is our system perfect. NO! Is it better than the USA? YES?

You want the money to pay for a decent national healthcare system. Take a few billion out of defence spending. They won't miss a few billion. The forces can piss that away in a few days.

I'm sorry but I can't rap my head around not wanting a universal healthcare system that does not turn anybody away for lack of funds. If my government is going to tax the fuck out of me, I want something for it. Me personally, not some oil company raping the natives of their resources.

Right wing ideology and plain selfishness are the root cause, IMO, for the USA's healthcare issues. Our's are based on plain government inefficiency. What a normal person can accomplish with 100$ would cost any government 1000$.


laughing3 ..Sir...YOU so get it...I applaud your comprehension / understanding of the issue. I firmly believe that when you "follow the money" you'll find that somebody is getting rich over this. Healthcare insurance CEO's and suit-happy lawyers are just two prime examples. Thank you for stating briefly what many folk believe.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/exit-33-trust.aspx

prairiedogg
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:26:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/2/2014
Posts: 158
Location: Where you can't find me, United States
HardRom wrote:
I am Canadian and never have to worry about healthcare. I had a heart attack 9 years ago. It didn't cost me one red cent. Getting stitches from a hockey game, free. Pinched nerve, free. Prescription do cost though. Free is only for doctor's actual services. This applies to ALL Canadian citizens and residents.

Universal healthcare was first developed in Canada during the 30's depression. Doctors quickly bought in to the system. Their big reason was because they did not have to chase down bill payments. Someone defaults on a medical bill, you have to send it to collection. This cost money as they take a huge cut. Payment was fast and complete.

Is our system perfect. NO! Is it better than the USA? YES?

You want the money to pay for a decent national healthcare system. Take a few billion out of defence spending. They won't miss a few billion. The forces can piss that away in a few days.

I'm sorry but I can't rap my head around not wanting a universal healthcare system that does not turn anybody away for lack of funds. If my government is going to tax the fuck out of me, I want something for it. Me personally, not some oil company raping the natives of their resources.

Right wing ideology and plain selfishness are the root cause, IMO, for the USA's healthcare issues. Our's are based on plain government inefficiency. What a normal person can accomplish with 100$ would cost any government 1000$.


Amen to you for telling it like it is. The ACA isn't perfect, but I hope it is a precursor to a single-payer system or Medicare for all. Health care in the USA has become a mirror image of our justice system. All about the money and the haves vs. the have-nots.
navygal83
Posted: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:05:13 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
What about the need to use the oceans to import and export goods in support of trade with other nations? This requires us to maintain a navy, which is also part of defense spending. This is an enumerated power of congress proclaimed in Article 1 of the constitution "provide and maintain a navy". Simply maintaining stateside naval bases does not allow a Navy to exert "sea power" to support our interests aboard. Alfred Thayer Mahan has said, and I must agree with him in that countries with a greater naval capability will have a greater worldwide impact. This is not only true today, but has been the case through history. I can cite both the Spanish Armada and British Royal Navy as examples of the importance of sea power for once strong western nations in world history.

As another example, I don't foresee us moving out of all bases in Europe. Yes, I do see us reducing our number of troops/personnel stationed in Europe. But I can tell you there will not be a complete withdraw of DOD personnel from the European theater. This is because Europe provides important logistic support to our forward deployed ground and naval forces operating in and around the Indian Ocean, North Arabian Gulf and Red Sea. Additionally, the Suez canal is a vital passageway for the transportation of crude oil (both through the canal and nearby pipeline) to Europe and North America. Also, keep in mind that sea/ocean remains the primary means of shipping commerce across the globe, as it is the most efficient way of transporting bulk goods from a point of origin to destination point. It's also worth noting that that US interests are nearly the same as that of our European allies. Unless you want our society to return to feudal system, you have to accept that we will need to have "bases" outside the continental United States. This is because in order to ship and receive goods from all over the world we have to be able to protect our shipping lanes, especially at potential "choke points" like the Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Gibraltor, Suez Canal, and the straits of Malacca.
navygal83
Posted: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:24:39 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
As far as Canadians commenting on the decision of reducing American defense spending, I find that absolutely amusing. The United States Air Force provides the backbone of NORAD, which is North American Aerospace Command. NORAD is responsible for early warning and detection of all airborne threats to US and Canadian airspace. The Canadian Air Force essentially augments the USAF units and provides alert & detection units to notify the NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. To be fair, the Canadians do have two fighter wings (one located in province of Quebec and the other in province of Alberta) of American F-18's, which is designed to be both an attack aircraft with a "dogfight" capability.
Rembacher
Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2014 11:12:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Guess we hit a nerve. I think responding to comments on the US as the naval police; or the defenders of North America might be too much of a thread jack given that this is a thread about Obamacare. It never hurts to look beyond yourself to see what works. When you buy into your own mythology, you are destined to be left behind. The US has higher healthcare costs than anywhere else in the world. Before Obamacare, it also had millions of people with no healthcare coverage at all. That's not a successful society. When Americans on this thread used costs and the deficit as an excuse; that's when the military discussion came in. Because it was the obvious difference between countries that can afford to have healthy citizens, and the US, who apparently, cannot.
navygal83
Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2014 7:56:01 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
I only chimed in because Non-Americans were commenting or implying that the Defense budget could afford to have a "few billions" cut from the annual budget. Yes, it was a bit off topic as far as this thread is concerned, but I felt compelled to respond. As far as Obamacare, the true numbers of who was uninsured prior to the implementation of ACA and who is now insured won't be known for some time. I say this, because the Department of Health and Human Services still doesn't know who insured now that wasn't insured before.
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:36:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
navygal83 wrote:
I only chimed in because Non-Americans were commenting or implying that the Defense budget could afford to have a "few billions" cut from the annual budget.

And they're 100% right.
navygal83
Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:48:47 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
If you would like to know, the Defense budget of the United States is 19 % of the entire federal budget in Fiscal Year 2013. The total federal spending in Fiscal year was 3.5 trillion. Cuts have already been applied to the US Defense budget due to something called Sequestration, which required mandatory cuts (50% percent) to the defense budget.
navygal83
Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:54:24 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:

And they're 100% right.


US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday urged large NATO nations to step up their defense spending and contributions to the alliance as Russian military movements have shown Europe “still lives in a dangerous world.”

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140502/DEFREG02/305020023/Hagel-Calls-Large-NATO-Countries-Step-up-Defense-Spending

Monocle
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:52:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
navygal83 wrote:
If you would like to know, the Defense budget of the United States is 19 % of the entire federal budget in Fiscal Year 2013. The total federal spending in Fiscal year was 3.5 trillion. Cuts have already been applied to the US Defense budget due to something called Sequestration, which required mandatory cuts (50% percent) to the defense budget.


Certain parts of the defense budget. Show me where the bottom line of the total defense budget was cut 50%.

The fact it's still a dangerous world doesn't mean we don't overspend on our military anyway. Hundreds of millions for fighter engines nobody wants. Cammo uniform travesties in the millions of dollars. We spent $1b more on air conditioning in Iraq and Aghansitan in 2010-11 than the entire NASA budget.

We have more aircraft carriers than all other navies in the world combined.

The list is very, very long. Trimming a few 10's of billions from the military would reduce US power by a negligible fraction, and completely end dozens of underfunding crises.
navygal83
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:28:30 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States
50 % percent of the total sequestration cuts were in defense spending. I was not implying the defense department had its budget slashed in half. Futhermore, I must agree with Secretary Hagel. Our European allies MUST increase defense spending in their respective countries, because currently the United States is disproportionately shouldering the financial burden of NATO military/defense forces.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:30:43 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
navygal83 wrote:
50 % percent of the total sequestration cuts were in defense spending. I was not implying the defense department had its budget slashed in half. Futhermore, I must agree with Secretary Hagel. Our European allies MUST increase defense spending in their respective countries, because currently the United States is disproportionately shouldering the financial burden of NATO military/defense forces.


Yeah, sure. Why not. Spain should really improve their money spending despite that 50% of those under 25 are unemployed. NATO and military spending is the last of Europe's concern.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:38:59 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
elitfromnorth wrote:


Yeah, sure. Why not. Spain should really improve their money spending despite that 50% of those under 25 are unemployed. NATO and military spending is the last of Europe's concern.


Correct.

Moral of the story: none of the European countries can afford to ramp up defense spending, and the US government can't afford to continue spending at their current rate, much less increase it. There are of course limits of reason there, but the US can't be asked to police the extents of the "free world", nor should aim to. In the current administration's defense (no pun intended), the US doesn't seem all that interested in doing so over the last six years anyway.
navygal83
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:45:59 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/15/2011
Posts: 44
Location: United States

LadyX, I suspect that Secretary Hagel's speech to NATO allies will not be heard, as the general public and elected officials feel they have more pressing issues and their own financial difficulties in countries, such as Spain, Portugal, and Italy. I'm not disregarding or oblivious to these realities. At the same time, I will suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin is being defiant and thumbing his nose at European Union & Obama Administration for a combination of reasons. First, I suspect President Putin neither fears the military capabilities of European Union countries. In addition, the Obama Administration and general sentiment of the American public isn't keen to get involved militarily in the current geopolitical situation that has/is developing in Eastern Europe. A diplomatic resolution could be pursued, but I think it's quite clear that a combination of soft power and hard power strategies must be used to achieve diplomacy in 21st century. This is essentially an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American and NATO action. According to Former American Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker, this can be defined as "Smart Power". Smart Power "involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy" – essentially the engagement of both military force and all forms of diplomacy." Without explaining this any further, I think it's important as a nation and for the Western World/"Free World" to strike a balance between military/defense spending and domestic-oriented spending. What the balance should be at the forefront of the political discourse not only in the United States but in the European Union IMO.
Fritz2011
Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:35:20 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/22/2014
Posts: 23
Location: Lubbock, United States
littlered1 wrote:
I'm not an expert on any of this, but you are arguing about something that seems hypothetical to me. Because of 'Obamacare' I had my first doctor's visit in 5 years. I haven't been able to get medical care anywhere but free clinics and emergency rooms. If you've ever been to a free clinic then you know that most are little more than doing the least possible to help. (Not all I did go to one that was pretty good but it ran out of funding & closed) Emergency rooms aren't made for regular medical needs. They are unbelievably expensive an inefficient for that. They are designed for emergencies not the flu or a sprained ankle. Since I was 15 I've gone about my life knowing I can't afford to get sick or hurt. I'm lucky, I stayed healthy. Is there anyone here willing to tell me the maximum cost allowed for me to have good health. Everyone should have healthcare or has America fallen to a point that only some of its citizens count. This isn't hypothetical or theoretical to me, it's my life. I'm not an expert but now I feel safer.


The only time I went to the ER was for what proved to be diverticulitis, requiring a four-day hospital stay. That was in February 2013, before Obamacare went into effect. My insurance paid for it all.

I take a whole bunch of medications for other conditions, and there was a nasty moment in April 2014 when I thought my insurance plan had been dropped because of the Affordable Care Act. One vitally important med cost me $419.00 for a month's supply. Add that up and throw in some other costs and it spelled the word nightmare clearly. (The diverticulitis had ben triggered in part by not being able to refill that medication and suffering for several days before the attack.) The out-of-pocket expense was due to an error in filing the paperwork, and I'm OK for now. Still, I thought Obamacare would be a case of "Sign Up or Go Without," no third option. My work offers a very good health insurance plan. I've been on jobs where I had weak insurance or none at all, so I can understand the need for a safety net. The launch of healthcare.gov and the glitches involved did NOT endear me to Obamacare. Could it work? Probably. Does it work yet? I don't think so.

Nor have some of his other proposals, like pushing the minimum wage much higher, found my support. I think the unemployment rate would skyrocket as companies laid off workers like me because they didn't have the money and would shut down (I've known several of those) or keep skeleton crews or outsource. I work in a call center and often relay calls to other centers, and there is nothing funny about speaking to someone in Asia with an Indian or Indonesian or Filipino accent (there may be others) who's making a fraction of what I make and not complaining about it.

I live in a very red state with a huge labor supply from high schools and colleges, people who can be easily replaced. Unions are regarded with extreme suspicion and we hear tales of unions bankrupting companies in other states with alarming frequency. Like many people in other states, we intensely resent people getting huge salaries for entertainment and can't understand the dynamics of how the market can shoot up salaries and prices for films and concerts and sporting events. Some people become as familiar to audience members as the President, or more so, so they're OK, but many entertainment figures try to make enough in one year to last their lifetimes, and then extend their contracts far beyond their productive years, getting job security few people in their audience have -- and some STILL manage to squander the money. We like to think that people's incomes are proportional to their work ethics and that prudence (squeezing your dollars) is a virtue. That way you can worship God and Mammon at the same time because you are not sinning according to the Puritan creed and are getting what you are worth. Sure, that's nonsensical in millions of cases, but some of us set our virtue codes by it.

Interesting points you make. You make them well too. Just wanted to put in My 2 cents
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 16, 2014 7:12:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
Well, I think everyone pretty much shut down the reasoning behind Obama and his family not getting coverage under the ACA. But I'd like to add...before you take on Faux Noise talking points you should take a few moments to educate yourself on the reality's and the facts before suffering from foot in mouth syndrome. What is so hilarious is how Faux Noise Nation runs around spewing their ridiculous talking points...further exposing their lack of truly understanding the issues.

The fact is...the ACA, or Obamacare, is working. It is a fact that with all the visits to emergency rooms...and those not being paid for...was bankrupting our nation. Republicans and Democrats wanted to take care of that mess because a mess is exactly what it was. The ACA is helping out in that train-wreck. Funny how the Republicans wanted health care reform...well, they did before the President of the United States became a black man. Then the Republicans became the obstructionists that they are going down in history as being. I have never...ever....EVER seen a Republican alternative. Well Made Man got it right. The Republican plan is to not get ill and then die fast if you do get sick. I remember when Obama wanted the single payer option in the Act. Republicans were against it so he dropped it to get the votes he needed. Now, you hear Republicans saying that Obama shoulda put in the single payer option in to help keep costs down. So, what we have is more and more Republican criticism and as much obstructionism as they can create. Anything to keep this President from realizing any real success. At least not with Republican co-operation. So, all in all, in the end the ACA is going to be wildly successful just like the Democratic constructed, Social Security system, the Unemployment System, Medicare and the Veterans Administration. The Republicans fought and argued against all of these programs. They lost and the American people won.

So, I guess the moral of the story is...don't elect Republicans and Americans will have a fighting chance at succeeding for the people.
hayley
Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:09:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/19/2012
Posts: 957
Location: NYC, United States
ObamaCare????? should we not really leave all comments on this to the American Medical Association...

the Allergists voted to scratch it, Dermatologists advised not to make such a rash move
the Gastroenterologists seem to have a gut feeling about it, Neurologists thought he had a lot of nerve
the Obstetricians felt he was labouring under a misconception, Opthalmologists considered the idea short sighted
Pathologists shouted "Over my dead body", while Paediatricians said "Grow up!"
the Psychiatrists thought the idea was madness while Radiologists could see right through it
Surgeons were fed up with extra cuts and decided to wash their hands of the whole thing
the ENT specialists didn't swallow it and just wouldn't hear of it
the Pharmacists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, Plastic surgeons said "this puts a whole new face on things ..."
the Podiatrists thought it was a step forward but Urologists were pissed off at the idea
the Anaesthetists thought the idea was a gas, Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no
so, in the end
the Proctologists were probably correct.. "leave the entire decision up to the arseholes in Congress"

angel7






Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.