| pittrek 18.01.2017 09:34 |
OK I am usually just a "silent observer" of American politics, but can somebody explain to a European guy why is Obamacare bad? I am serious, from what I know about it (just from reading online, I have never experienced it "in real life"), it sounds pretty similar to the system we have here for decades. I'd really like to know why is it so bad, what are its problems. I guess it IS bad when the next president wants to destroy it ASAP. And no, I don't care who is the next PUSA, but I guess he must have some proper "points" when he wants to destroy a system which as I wrote sounds pretty similar to our system. |
| The Real Wizard 18.01.2017 10:48 |
Because most Republicans equate any government intervention in anything with "socialism", which is a bad word, even though most of them don't know what it means. There is a small percentage of the middle class who believe they are paying more money now for less health care, but the reality is - their old insurance company probably would've screwed them with "pre-existing conditions" (that they could literally make up) so that they wouldn't have to pay out when the client needed it most. Obamacare eliminated the insurances companies' ability to do this. The only major political issue with it is that it's unconstitutional to force people to pay for something unless it's called a tax. The supreme court ended up agreeing that it's a tax, but they still sold it to the public otherwise. But it was literally the only way Obama could make any headway. It's ultimately not much different from the Canadian and European systems - people are forced to pay it (which most Republicans also hate), just like they're forced to pay taxes, and the money is put into the same pot. And as a result, people don't have to worry about what will happen when they get sick - like every other civilized country. As soon as Trump repeals it (purely to appease the insurance companies), people are literally going to die. Diabetics, for example, cannot afford the hospital visits that can amount to $5,000 per month. Before Obamacare, countless people died because they couldn't afford health care, and it was normal for people with cancer to work until a week before their death, otherwise they wouldn't get their medication, since their health care plan was through work. But most Republicans literally don't care. Republicans basically exist to hate everything Democrats believe in, no matter how much it will help someone else. It's every man for himself. The American dream is for YOU to make it, and screw everyone else. "The American dream - you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.01.2017 12:23 |
Like Bob said, it's purely ideological - if the government does it, it's bad. It wasn't always like that - small government didn't become a Republican ideological cornerstone until some time during the Nixon administration. Democrats have similar preconceived notions, like public education always being preferable to private schools (I think they're usually right, but there are exceptions. Few Democrats would agree with that reservation), but they aren't quite as rabid about it as Republicans. The GOP has a huge identity-crisis - Bush Jr ruined the reputation of the Reaganite neo-cons, and they haven't got a solid ideological foundation to replace it with, which is why Trump, who appeals to the baser instincts of many social conservatives (Tea Party) while not fitting the Republican mold at all, managed to take over the party. He couldn't have done that in the '90s. So, since Bush left, they've been thriving on opposing and denouncing everything the Democrats do. The logical result is what we have now: they want to repeal Obamacare as fast as they can, but they haven't got an inkling what to replace it with, and are terrified that Trump, who doesn't care about established Republican doctrine, might try to push a kind government-funded healthcare through - which would be far more 'socialist' than anything Obama did, but, as Bob said, the word 'socialism' doesn't have any real objective meaning in the US, just like the word 'fascist' didn't in the Soviet Union. Funny aside: the ORIGINAL Republican Party under Lincoln was warmly endorsed by one European foreign correspondent who defended it to extreme lengths: Karl Marx. |
| BETA215 18.01.2017 13:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: [...] Before Obamacare, countless people died because they couldn't afford health care, and it was normal for people with cancer to work until a week before their death, otherwise they wouldn't get their medication, since their health care plan was through work. [...]And that's why I love living in Argentina. Do you have health problems? Well, you can take those medicines you need for less than it actually costs, and if you have to stop working for a while (depending on the employer, of course), most of the times you get days, weeks or months for recovering. Ok, you don't have the monetary capacity you have in more developed countries, but the most important thing in your life, health, it's well taken care of. I always thought that the American dream was commercial bullshit for monetary purposes. And yeah, reading this replies I got to the conclusion that I wasn't so wrong as some people said. Thanks Wiz. |
| Costa86 18.01.2017 14:00 |
And you have hot latinas in Argentina. |
| Oscar J 18.01.2017 16:31 |
I think us Swedes might rival Argentina both in terms of health care, and girls. |
| Saint Jiub 18.01.2017 20:26 |
Obamacare is great for those who receive government subsidies ... A family of four making up to $92,200 a year qualifies for a subsidy, and the subsidies are proportionally larger for those with lower incomes. ... However ... *** Reasons Why "ObamaCare Is Bad": Obama Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' ... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/ Cornhusker Kickback and other backroom deals to pass ObamaCare ... http://www.politico.com/story/2009/12/payoffs-for-states-get-reid-to-60-030815 http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/heres-what-the-cornhusker-kickback-did-to-health-care-in-nebraska Cadillac Tax on company provided health care insurance (40% excise tax) ... https://www.cigna.com/health-care-reform/cadillac-tax http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/07/15/calling-cadillac-tax-a-lemon-congress-moves-to-repeal-core-of-obamacare/#63d377b7433d Labor unions were originally exempt from the Cadillac tax until 2018 ... http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-unions-vs.-obamacare/article/707688 New ObamaCare taxes ... http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7 Cutting hours for part time workers to avoid insurance mandate ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/01/13/obamacares-impact-companies-cut-hours-for-part-time-workers/#55c08f914ab6 Healthy people pay penalty rather than enroll in Obamacare ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-enrollees-are-sick_us_56face7be4b0143a9b497571 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/obamacare-affordable-care-act-tax-penalties.html?_r=0 Soaring insurance premiums ... http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/14/4-reasons-your-obamacare-healthcare-premium-is-pro.aspx Insurance companies withdrawing coverage ... http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/obamacare-exchanges-states-north-carolina-000162 |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 11:37 |
Let us not forget - the Affordable Care Act was entirely based on the Republican alternative to Bill Clinton's universal health care plan, which would have had the US catch up to the rest of the civilized world, with only the insurance companies taking a small pay cut. But the Republicans being on said insurance companies' payroll made this impossible, so they came up with an alternative (which ultimately failed to pass on the federal level). This plan ended up being the blueprint for Romneycare in Massachusets, so Obama thought - let's use this for the ACA, because the Republicans would vote for it now like they did in 1993, right? Well, no. Something changed. Maybe the president wasn't a white guy or something. So since it was a Republican idea, be sure to levy any criticism in that direction as well, which I fully expect in your next post. |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 12:27 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Funny aside: the ORIGINAL Republican Party under Lincoln was warmly endorsed by one European foreign correspondent who defended it to extreme lengths: Karl Marx.ha ! But with good reason - 150 years ago, Republicans believed in evolution and Democrats owned slaves. In the early 20th century they kind of switched places. |
| Saint Jiub 19.01.2017 18:31 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Let us not forget - the Affordable Care Act was entirely based on the Republican alternative to Bill Clinton's universal health care plan, which would have had the US catch up to the rest of the civilized world, with only the insurance companies taking a small pay cut. But the Republicans being on said insurance companies' payroll made this impossible, so they came up with an alternative (which ultimately failed to pass on the federal level). This plan ended up being the blueprint for Romneycare in Massachusets, so Obama thought - let's use this for the ACA, because the Republicans would vote for it now like they did in 1993, right? Well, no. Something changed. Maybe the president wasn't a white guy or something. So since it was a Republican idea, be sure to levy any criticism in that direction as well, which I fully expect in your next post. ... Yep - "Something changed" ... The Democrats morphed Romneycare into something less appetizing: Romneycare had no new taxes. Businesses were not required to participate in Romneycare. There was only a paltry $249 penalty per employee. The penalty for individuals not buying insurance was more severe for Romneycare (about the cost of insurance). Consequently the participation rate for Romneycare was 99% with plenty of healthy people buying insurance. Most importantly ... Romneycare did not have the oppressive CADILLAC TAX (40% excise tax) of Obamacare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/#470df7701793 |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 19:17 |
Panchgani wrote: Yep - "Something changed" ... The Democrats morphed Romneycare into something less appetizing: Romneycare had no new taxes. Businesses were not required to participate in Romneycare. There was only a paltry $249 penalty per employee. The penalty for individuals not buying insurance was more severe for Romneycare (about the cost of insurance). Consequently the participation rate for Romneycare was 99% with plenty of healthy people buying insurance. Most importantly ... Romneycare did not have the oppressive CADILLAC TAX (40% excise tax) of Obamacare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/#470df7701793Fair enough. But who's to blame - Obama, or the insurance companies got that much more greedy over a 20 year period? Nobody's denying Obama needed to make concessions to appease all involved, with these guys at the top of the chain - and anyone is naive (and/or nuts) to think otherwise. It makes one wonder why Republicans aren't in favour of universal health care if it will cost the taxpayers less. Isn't lowering taxes the centrepiece of their entire platform? |
| Sebastian 19.01.2017 20:19 |
I saw a meme this morning that summarised it quite well: Obamacare is like having firefighters rescuing you and then accidentally hitting your head with a doorframe on the way out. Your head may hurt a bit (i.e. it's not perfect), but at least you're not fucking on fire! |
| *goodco* 20.01.2017 14:50 |
The recent town hall meeting where Paul Ryan gets chastised link The question: rather than trying for x amount of times to repeal it, where was a solution for improvements? <.....crickets.......> 'We have something better'. It absolutely could have been better. Well then, what is it, and why the wait to disclose it? Oh, the 'government overreach' crap I've heard. I will never understand how an acquaintance railed against the ACA, even during his wife's long cancer treatments. You see, he was working, and his wife was covered. How is it fair that my premiums helped offset to pay the expenses for his wife's condition? Sounds awfully 'socialistic' to me. But, geez, I might need that help some day, which is what insurance is all about, isn't it? And I am glad my old acquaintance is not a widower. While we're at it, amazing how many against the ACA don't want their Medicare or Medicaid touched, and have no clue that this is 'government assistance'. We pay higher taxes to help subsidize emergency units at all hospitals for nonpayments by those who don't have insurance. The ACA has helped reduce this taxation, but no one mentions it. The amount of lives the ACA saved from those who couldn't afford simple exams previously runs into the tens of thousands. I personally know a few. As do we all. But, what the hell, I have insurance, so it's not MY problem, so who cares, right? |
| *goodco* 20.01.2017 23:30 |
What eliminating the ACA could cost my state link Ah, screw it, our bipolar narcissist, as part of his 'caring for all Americans', made sure that on his first day in office, signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to minimize the burden of his predecessor’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, pending congressional repeal. (and the WH website removed any mention of LGBT rights and it looks like we'll be doin' the 'Drill, Baby, Drill' thingy). |
| YourValentine 21.01.2017 03:59 |
I am sure that "Obamacare" is full of problems and mistakes. We all know that mandatory health care is always under attack by insurance companies, pharma industry, health "industry". The system is usually inefficient and injust on many levels. We always have to work and improve our health care. However, in countries where mandatory legal health care has been installed for decades people simply do not question that everybody has a right to have an affordable health insurance. It is obvious that children, old people, unemployed and low income people need cost free or very cheap health care, that is the idea of social solidarity: who has much can pay much, who has very little can only pay very little and who has nothing needs free health care. I will never understand why people in the USA do not want that their own children, grandparents and poor neighbours have free or cheap health care - it must be all this Christianity and all the praying. |
| Saint Jiub 21.01.2017 15:14 |
*goodco* wrote: "our bipolar narcissist" ... classy reply I recall you are in the medical profession and should know better ... mental health - the last bastion of politically correct discrimination |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2017 01:01 |
Panchgani wrote:Typical conservative - attack the person instead of the problem.*goodco* wrote: "our bipolar narcissist"... classy reply I recall you are in the medical profession and should know better ... mental health - the last bastion of politically correct discrimination I guess this obviously means you agree with everything he said about the issue itself, as you had to resort to bullying instead of meaningful dialogue. And for the record - there is nothing unfair (or even wrong) about classifying Trump thus. His persona during his inauguration speech is a far cry from the persona that attacked the family of a fallen soldier. Plenty of mental health professionals have identified Trump as having various mental health issues beyond narcissism. But of course you knew that. It's not like you'd let your unwavering partisanship blind you to facts. |
| Sebastian 22.01.2017 08:24 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Typical conservative - attack the person instead of the problem.Not the first time it's happened and probably not the last either. Well, once someone retorts to ad hominem, it's plain clear they've run out of arguments. |
| Saint Jiub 22.01.2017 08:32 |
The short version: It's okay to talk about psychiatric issues — but not okay to diagnose people you haven't treated. The American Psychiatric Association first began to follow the rule in 1973, but given recent events, it saw fit Wednesday to remind psychiatrists across the United States that the rule exists and must be followed. "The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates," Maria A. Oquendo, president of the APA, wrote, "but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible." link |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2017 12:56 |
Panchgani wrote: The short version: It's okay to talk about psychiatric issues — but not okay to diagnose people you haven't treated.Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you obviously lost the argument. It's amazing how much you time you waste trying to convert thoughtful people from different countries that the selfish American worldview is somehow better than theirs. Whatever gets you through the day. |
| Saint Jiub 22.01.2017 14:07 |
So i complain about a bipolar insult and suddenly I "obviously lost the argument"? Your previous posts were even-keeled though. |
| *goodco* 22.01.2017 17:14 |
Panchgani wrote:My apologies.*goodco* wrote: "our bipolar narcissist"... classy reply I recall you are in the medical profession and should know better ... mental health - the last bastion of politically correct discrimination I meant to say 'juvenile bipolar narcissist'....my description of him in the mid 80s, when he ran the USFL out of business. All of his actions since have simply reaffirmed my opinion of the man. A man who is more concerned about falsifying the attendance numbers for his inauguration against facts, than anything else. And that's all his press secretary had to say in his first appearance yesterday. It's all about HIM. Always has been, always will be. He cares nada about people like you and me. Now, as to the hardships to individuals, as well as increased costs to hospitals and states should the ACA cease: any logical comments you'd care to share regarding my prior post? |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2017 19:26 |
Panchgani wrote: So i complain about a bipolar insult and suddenly I "obviously lost the argument"?Yes - that's called an "ad hominem". There's nothing wrong with pointing these things out in addition to staying on point, but if you attack the person *instead of* the issue, anyone who understand logical fallacies no longer pays attention to you because you've lost all credibility. Panchgani wrote: Your previous posts were even-keeled though.That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me ;) |
| Oscar J 23.01.2017 10:54 |
I just love the "alternative facts" controversy currently. No need to watch "hilarious fail compilations" on Youtube anymore. To me, the US election and what it's resulted in depicts the absolute pinnacle of human stupidity. I have stopped cringing and just laugh at it at this point. |
| The Real Wizard 23.01.2017 16:08 |
Oscar J wrote: I just love the "alternative facts" controversy currently. No need to watch "hilarious fail compilations" on Youtube anymore. To me, the US election and what it's resulted in depicts the absolute pinnacle of human stupidity. I have stopped cringing and just laugh at it at this point.Yup - it's the trend on facebook and twitter right now, to hilarious results. But of course, the implications are terrifying, because facts can now become whatever anyone wants them to be - and about half of the US doesn't seem to notice or care because their partisan blinders are on. On the flip side - maybe the west has become too complacent, and a guy like Trump has helped people realize how special and fragile democracy is. It's going to suck for the next four years, but we also need to spend said years educating those aged 14-18, as they will be voting in the next election. Under 20% of millenials voted in this election, and the next group of them need to realize that voting is literally the only way to reject willful ignorance and say fuck you to people like Trump. |
| *goodco* 23.01.2017 18:56 |
Panchgani: I'll add one more thing: as to the 'medical field', my answer would be 'yes and no'. I work as an accountant for a health care provider. I am well aware of the failings of the ACA as to those who do not pay as required, the up and down memberships after getting long overdue medical attention, the rising costs because many let their health concerns lapse because they could not afford it. I am also aware of other insurances that are 'for profit', who let their CEOs get $10-40M golden parachutes upon leaving, while having 'NO' stamped on every legitimate claim until lawyers enter the picture. What we have now was never perfect. Still waiting for the GOP to offer up some better solutions after eight years. And would appreciate some positive input from them. I also work as my GOP councilman's county representative on a food bank task force, to insure that the needy do not go unfed during extreme weather events. He believes that those in need deserve assistance. Next question. |
| The Real Wizard 23.01.2017 19:48 |
*goodco* wrote: I am also aware of other insurances that are 'for profit', who let their CEOs get $10-40M golden parachutes upon leaving, while having 'NO' stamped on every legitimate claim until lawyers enter the picture.That's beyond horrific. A friend of mine works at a doctor's office in Connecticut, and it's her job to call the insurance companies to plead people's cases for them. Her phone calls sometimes literally determine whether people will live or die - and it doesn't always work out. It's stories like that have left me more than convinced that the US is a third world country dressed up as a developed one. It is not a civilized country if a third of its citizens and half its politicians are fine with things like this not changing. |
| Saint Jiub 23.01.2017 22:47 |
My father was hospitalized this weekend with pneumonia, so yawl will likely get a brief reprieve from my nonsense until this weekend, when I might have more time and my dad will have most probably have been released from the hospital. |
| Sebastian 24.01.2017 06:08 |
I'm sorry you're going through that at the moment. Wishing your father a swift recovery. |
| Saint Jiub 24.01.2017 21:00 |
My cousin just posted this apparent hoax less than one hour ago on Facebook and she apparently believes it: ... Get on the phone, people! In Case You Missed It The Senate voted 51 to 48: 1. To end coverage for preexisting conditions, veterans benefits, and aid to rural hospitals. 2. To remove discrimination protection for women in healthcare. 3. Against the provision allowing children to remain on their parent's insurance till the age of 26. 4. To cut off funding for the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 5. Against ACA contraceptive coverage and maternity care provision. 6. To direct committees to send budget legislation to defund and repeal the Affordable Care Act. For those who get health insurance through work, no pre-existing conditions. Lifetime caps for coverage are back for everyone. Real and disastrous actions are being taken that will affect more than just the 20-30 million people who will lose their health care coverage and the 3 million people who will lose their jobs. Despite their assertions of this being an action to "repeal and replace," no viable alternative plan has been proposed. The House votes Friday. As of this moment, no replacement exists For those worried about ACA coverage for themselves and their families: Senator Warren's staff said (the offices of Speakers Ryan and McConnell were being flooded with calls) what would help the most would be to call the five Republican senators who have broken away from the GOP to demand a slowdown of the repeal. Tell them how much you appreciate their efforts to stop the train wreck and share your story. They are: Senator Bob Corker - (202) 224-3344 Senator Lisa Murkowski - (202) 224-6665 Senator Rob Portman - (202) 224-3353 Senator Susan Collins - (202) 224-2523 Senator Bill Cassidy - (202) 224-5824 . |
| The Real Wizard 24.01.2017 22:59 |
What about it is a hoax? link link The vote did happen, and it's step one of taking away health care from over 20 million people. Your cousin is a couple weeks late to the party, though - it was on January 12. |
| The Real Wizard 25.01.2017 10:26 |
"Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people annually" link But no need to worry, folks - apparently this is "left wing media", and left wing media is all propaganda. Those people with cancer and diabetes are all rich, so they'll be fine, right? |
| Saint Jiub 25.01.2017 21:47 |
The Real Wizard wrote: What about it is a hoax? link link The vote did happen, and it's step one of taking away health care from over 20 million people. Your cousin is a couple weeks late to the party, though - it was on January 12. Half truth ... The vote did take place, and the wheels have been set in motion. However ... That Facebook post makes it look like all of the below items are a done deal ... Not so. 1. To end coverage for preexisting conditions, veterans benefits, and aid to rural hospitals. 2. To remove discrimination protection for women in healthcare. 3. Against the provision allowing children to remain on their parent's insurance till the age of 26. 4. To cut off funding for the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 5. Against ACA contraceptive coverage and maternity care provision. 6. To direct committees to send budget legislation to defund and repeal the Affordable Care Act. For those who get health insurance through work, no pre-existing conditions. Lifetime caps for coverage are back for everyone. |
| *goodco* 25.01.2017 23:52 |
Panchgani: First, hope your father is doing better. I also hope he either had insurance through his company, his company's retirement benefits, Medicare or Medicaid, or gawd forbid, the ACA (I do not know his age). And then it boils down to how much of a financial hit he or you will take. Just think if he had to be taken to the ER without insurance. Doesn't it suck that the discussion goes from 'feelings' to 'financial'? [Both my parents passed 30 years ago, so no needed comment as to 'emotions', but it is interesting that the conversation has suddenly moved on with no comments of his current situation. Hmmmm????] |
| The Real Wizard 26.01.2017 01:13 |
Panchgani wrote:Yeah, that's just foolish. Of course this is just one step of many - but we can be pretty certain that Trump will seal the deal.The Real Wizard wrote: What about it is a hoax? link link The vote did happen, and it's step one of taking away health care from over 20 million people. Your cousin is a couple weeks late to the party, though - it was on January 12.Half truth ... The vote did take place, and the wheels have been set in motion. However ... That Facebook post makes it look like all of the below items are a done deal ... Not so. |
| BETA215 26.01.2017 11:38 |
Panchgani wrote: My father was hospitalized this weekend with pneumonia, so yawl will likely get a brief reprieve from my nonsense until this weekend, when I might have more time and my dad will have most probably have been released from the hospital.*double poat, worry* |
| BETA215 26.01.2017 11:38 |
Panchgani wrote: My father was hospitalized this weekend with pneumonia, so yawl will likely get a brief reprieve from my nonsense until this weekend, when I might have more time and my dad will have most probably have been released from the hospital.*double post, sorry* |
| BETA215 26.01.2017 11:39 |
Panchgani wrote: My father was hospitalized this weekend with pneumonia, so yawl will likely get a brief reprieve from my nonsense until this weekend, when I might have more time and my dad will have most probably have been released from the hospital.I've had pneumonia when younger, it's terrible. Hope your dad gets better. It's horrible when you don't know how to deal with all the suffering and you just want to sleep all day long. |
| Saint Jiub 27.01.2017 22:50 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote:Yeah, that's just foolish. Of course this is just one step of many - but we can be pretty certain that Trump will seal the deal.The Real Wizard wrote: What about it is a hoax? link link The vote did happen, and it's step one of taking away health care from over 20 million people. Your cousin is a couple weeks late to the party, though - it was on January 12.Half truth ... The vote did take place, and the wheels have been set in motion. However ... That Facebook post makes it look like all of the below items are a done deal ... Not so. ... Trump said he believes in no preexisting condition restrictions and allowing health insurance till 26 on parents policy. Getting rid of either of these two items is political suicide, particularly when the republican party says they will have a replacement. To me something "better" will include tort reform (no jackpot justice), will permit buying drugs from Canada or other countries, allow selling insurance across state lines, and a reduction of medical beaurocracy and unnecessary laws. Also, the penalty "tax" for not having insurance should be increased as well. Will the democrats agree to any of the above? I cannot believe the democrats will oppose the legal lobby willingly. ACA is set to implode in 2018 when the Cadillac tax hits with a vengence ... and unions will be affected as well. The average age where I work is 55 ... there is no way for the company to avoid the cadillac tax penalty when the average age is 55 (unless they resort to age discrimination). My company has already jacked up the deductable to $5000 in a futile attempt to avoid the cadillac tax. The ACA is not affordable as it stands right now and it screws any middle class full time employee with company sponsored health care. |
| *goodco* 01.02.2017 06:12 |
'My father had pneumonia...." Oh, I decided to change the subject. Nice move. BTW.....you have still not commented on, challenged, or debated one single fact from a prior post of mine. Not surprised. It might also make you happy to know that I have been doing mucho overtime in the past two weeks, entering new clients into our database for those who signed up for the ACA. Just imagine if it was called 'KennedyCare'. What insurance does your father have? And, if it is the same carrier as mine, why should I pay for his care? Please explain, because in spite of working for a healthcare provider, I don't understand why I should pay higher premiums for his care. This 'socialism' boggles my frickin' mind. Isn't your family able to fend for itself, without leeching off of my finances? |
| Saint Jiub 01.02.2017 21:15 |
*goodco* wrote: 'My father had pneumonia...." Oh, I decided to change the subject. Nice move. BTW.....you have still not commented on, challenged, or debated one single fact from a prior post of mine. Not surprised. It might also make you happy to know that I have been doing mucho overtime in the past two weeks, entering new clients into our database for those who signed up for the ACA. Just imagine if it was called 'KennedyCare'. What insurance does your father have? And, if it is the same carrier as mine, why should I pay for his care? Please explain, because in spite of working for a healthcare provider, I don't understand why I should pay higher premiums for his care. This 'socialism' boggles my frickin' mind. Isn't your family able to fend for itself, without leeching off of my finances?You volunteered to pay into the insurance lottery ... no one held a gun to your head to make you pay. You could have saved a lot of money by not getting insurance. I had previous posts as to why the UCA (unaffordable care act) was wrong. A 40% excise Cadillac excise tax was my number one beef ... soak the middle class. regarding the inevitable end of UCA ... most republicans are not bent on political suicide ... so you are jumping the gun with your doomsday scenarios. link |
| Saint Jiub 02.02.2017 09:38 |
From the above link. "Obamacare cannot be fully undone — or replaced — without Democratic cooperation." |
| *goodco* 04.03.2017 23:06 |
No one held a gun to my head. Ooops....I was required to have insurance, which was automatically taken out of every third paycheck of the month. If you had a job, or ever held one, you would know that. Moron. btw...who is paying for your dad's hospital stay? Funny how the ACA is still in existence. Your boys are chicken. 'Damn, people actually want insurance and don't want to die.' And ......your president is now certifiably psychotic as of yesterday morning. |
| The Real Wizard 05.03.2017 02:08 |
*goodco* wrote: And ......your president is now certifiably psychotic as of yesterday morning."I am a passionate believer in integrating and interpreting nature’s elements into our daily lives to create a warm, nurturing and positive environment. I believe that these same natural benefits can be instrumental to enhancing the health and well-being of all children." link And so is his wife. |
| Saint Jiub 05.03.2017 12:52 |
*goodco* wrote: No one held a gun to my head. Ooops....I was required to have insurance, which was automatically taken out of every third paycheck of the month. If you had a job, or ever held one, you would know that. Moron. btw...who is paying for your dad's hospital stay? Funny how the ACA is still in existence. Your boys are chicken. 'Damn, people actually want insurance and don't want to die.' And ......your president is now certifiably psychotic as of yesterday morning.No ... you are not required to have insurance. You can opt out of your company sponsored health insurance, and then pay the obamacare penalty for not having health insurance. You can save tons of money and no longer have to pay for the health care of a moron's father. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.03.2017 04:39 |
Panchgani: spokesperson for the fuck-everybody-else-I-take-care-of-my-own-until-I-get-in-trouble-then-everyone-needs-to-bail-me-out-and-sympathize attitude. I find it increasingly hard to believe you have anything in your personality that anybody could possibly like. |
| The Real Wizard 06.03.2017 05:07 |
I've actually found a lot. He often has a dry sense of humour, and just recently he took one for the team against that Russian troll (who has thankfully since been banned). It's weird speaking about someone in third person when they're right there in the next room. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.03.2017 05:18 |
Then that is one subject we differ strongly on. |