Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Human cost of ACA GOP defiance

slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 1:26:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

The rhetoric he swallowed is that Obama and Democrats are responsible for his predicament. As you mention below, he's first and foremost responsible. But secondly, the governor of his state is responsible for declining the medicaid expansion (with the help of the Supreme Court which made that optional). But the guy just buys into the garbage spewed by some conservatives about the ACA, so he blames the people who actually tried to make sure this kind of situation would be one he could survive through.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

I want to agree with your sentiment, but "you sure effed up, go cry somewhere else" doesn't actually solve any problems. People become a drain on society all the time. Sometimes it's stupidity, and sometimes it's just an honest mistake. We can feel smug and leave them to their misfortune , or try to mitigate the negative impact. The latter makes more sense to me.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nobody is "stolen from" by the ACA repeal. The idea that if they're granted it at some point they're entitled to it is crap.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:30:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Nobody is "stolen from" by the ACA repeal. The idea that if they're granted it at some point they're entitled to it is crap.

Oh, and by the way, Salon is s**t.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 10:26:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 1:26:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

The rhetoric he swallowed is that Obama and Democrats are responsible for his predicament. As you mention below, he's first and foremost responsible.

Well I wasn't addressing you with questions about someone else's post, but....If that's the case then the statement about conservatives in bad spots is totally irrelevant and makes no sense; Considering a) He is still a conservative & b) his political beliefs were not the cause of his current predicament.

But secondly, the governor of his state is responsible for declining the medicaid expansion (with the help of the Supreme Court which made that optional).

It's funny to me that you blame conservative politicians for opposing a bill that was crammed down their throats without even a single vote in its favor. It's also funny you choose to blame conservatives (and SCOTUS, no less) for the abundant legal flaws in the written language of this bill. It's almost like people didn't even read it before they passed it.......

But the guy just buys into the garbage spewed by some conservatives about the ACA, so he blames the people who actually tried to make sure this kind of situation would be one he could survive through.

If we both agree that he's to blame for his current predicament, I don't care who he decides to scapegoat and I don't see why you do either. And for the record, I don't think Obama and crew deserve credit for creating a miserable failure.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

I want to agree with your sentiment, but "you sure effed up, go cry somewhere else" doesn't actually solve any problems.

What problem? Him loosing one eye hurts you in some way?

People become a drain on society all the time. Sometimes it's stupidity, and sometimes it's just an honest mistake. We can feel smug and leave them to their misfortune , or try to mitigate the negative impact. The latter makes more sense to me.

We already "help" our "misfortunate" with a plethora of failed welfare programs. Mitigating negative impact can be done without rewarding and enabling incompetence.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.

What do you mean he is an idiot? He lived by conservative principles, some of which are listed below. Are you claiming those conservative principles are idiotic?

- Unregulated health care market pay as you go.
- Gov has no authority to force individual to have health insurance, but does have the authority to force hospitals to accept anyone who has a life threatening emergency.
- Business should have the burden of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, based upon market conditions and the companies choice.

Secondly, where did you get that he has denied having health insurance his entire life?

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 1:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Nobody is "stolen from" by the ACA repeal. The idea that if they're granted it at some point they're entitled to it is crap.

I'm not certain who or what you are quoting when you put "stolen from". If you are referring that there is no impact should ACA be repealed or should the SCOTUS rule that individuals from states who did not set up their own exchange are ineligible for premiums subsidies on insurance, then it is cleare there is a well defined impact from such events.

You are making an argument on semantics, which is pretty worthless when one is trying to navigate through life when dealing with chronic or life threatening medical conditions.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.

What do you mean he is an idiot?

I mean he is an idiot.....not sure where the the disconnect is there.

He lived by conservative principles, some of which are listed below. Are you claiming those conservative principles are idiotic?

Lol....some conservative principals are indeed idiotic, yes. However, you have no idea what principals this man lived by other than his stated disdain for Obamacare. You can only generalize on a generalization made by a terrible news article. And finally, for the record, voluntarily opting out of health insurance makes you an idiot and has nothing to do with conservative ideology.

- Unregulated health care market pay as you go.
- Gov has no authority to force individual to have health insurance, but does have the authority to force hospitals to accept anyone who has a life threatening emergency.
- Business should have the burden of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, based upon market conditions and the companies choice.


Secondly, where did you get that he has denied having health insurance his entire life?

The article said he has proudly paid all of his own medical bills and specifically chose not to have health insurance. Did you read what you posted?

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

This statement is tantamount to me posting an Obama-phone article and claiming that all liberals just want free cell phones. It's a huge, baseless, unintelligent generalization that isn't worth my time.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:28:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 1:38:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 5:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Nobody is "stolen from" by the ACA repeal. The idea that if they're granted it at some point they're entitled to it is crap.

I'm not certain who or what you are quoting when you put "stolen from". If you are referring that there is no impact should ACA be repealed or should the SCOTUS rule that individuals from states who did not set up their own exchange are ineligible for premiums subsidies on insurance, then it is cleare there is a well defined impact from such events.

You are making an argument on semantics, which is pretty worthless when one is trying to navigate through life when dealing with chronic or life threatening medical conditions.

It wouldn't be any worse than it was before the bill was passed.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 10:26:24 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 1:26:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

The rhetoric he swallowed is that Obama and Democrats are responsible for his predicament. As you mention below, he's first and foremost responsible.

Well I wasn't addressing you with questions about someone else's post, but....If that's the case then the statement about conservatives in bad spots is totally irrelevant and makes no sense; Considering a) He is still a conservative & b) his political beliefs were not the cause of his current predicament.

Assuming he voted for Nikki Haley, his conservative beliefs are at least partially responsible for the financial situation he finds himself in now.

But secondly, the governor of his state is responsible for declining the medicaid expansion (with the help of the Supreme Court which made that optional).

It's funny to me that you blame conservative politicians for opposing a bill that was crammed down their throats without even a single vote in its favor. It's also funny you choose to blame conservatives (and SCOTUS, no less) for the abundant legal flaws in the written language of this bill. It's almost like people didn't even read it before they passed it.......

The SCOTUS made the medicaid expansion optional. Nikki Haley declined the option. If South Carolina had accepted the expansion, the guy wouldn't be in the dire financial situation he is now in.

But the guy just buys into the garbage spewed by some conservatives about the ACA, so he blames the people who actually tried to make sure this kind of situation would be one he could survive through.

If we both agree that he's to blame for his current predicament, I don't care who he decides to scapegoat and I don't see why you do either. And for the record, I don't think Obama and crew deserve credit for creating a miserable failure.

I care because I think people should be informed when they vote. This guy has been screwed by a conservative governor, but he blames liberals. No doubt he'll continue to vote the same way, despite having been hung out to dry financially.

And I'm in no way trying to give any Dems credit for the broken parts of the ACA. This is just an example of a part that would have been beneficial, and they're being blamed for it not being in place.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

I want to agree with your sentiment, but "you sure effed up, go cry somewhere else" doesn't actually solve any problems.

What problem? Him loosing one eye hurts you in some way?

Him losing his savings and now winding up as a greater drain on society is the problem I'm talking about. Are you somehow under the impression that the suffering of others in society has no impact on yourself?

People become a drain on society all the time. Sometimes it's stupidity, and sometimes it's just an honest mistake. We can feel smug and leave them to their misfortune , or try to mitigate the negative impact. The latter makes more sense to me.

We already "help" our "misfortunate" with a plethora of failed welfare programs. Mitigating negative impact can be done without rewarding and enabling incompetence.

That sounds a whole lot like you've bought into the bull that most people on welfare choose to stay poor and leech off of the government. If that's the case, please just own up to it now so I can stop wasting my time responding to you.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 7:49:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/16/2015 10:26:24 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 1:26:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

The rhetoric he swallowed is that Obama and Democrats are responsible for his predicament. As you mention below, he's first and foremost responsible.

Well I wasn't addressing you with questions about someone else's post, but....If that's the case then the statement about conservatives in bad spots is totally irrelevant and makes no sense; Considering a) He is still a conservative & b) his political beliefs were not the cause of his current predicament.

Assuming he voted for Nikki Haley, his conservative beliefs are at least partially responsible for the financial situation he finds himself in now.

Wrong!!! Choosing not to have health insurance is the only reason he is in his current situation. even if he registered dem and actively campaigned and voted for Haley's opponent, it wouldn't have changed his predicament in the least. SC was going red regardless.

But secondly, the governor of his state is responsible for declining the medicaid expansion (with the help of the Supreme Court which made that optional).

It's funny to me that you blame conservative politicians for opposing a bill that was crammed down their throats without even a single vote in its favor. It's also funny you choose to blame conservatives (and SCOTUS, no less) for the abundant legal flaws in the written language of this bill. It's almost like people didn't even read it before they passed it.......

The SCOTUS made the medicaid expansion optional. Nikki Haley declined the option. If South Carolina had accepted the expansion, the guy wouldn't be in the dire financial situation he is now in.

There is no substance to this reply. Of course republicans decline to lift a finger to support a flawed bill that was passed without any consenting republican vote and in the face of overwhelming republican resistance. You live in a world where conservatives just abandon their beliefs because an extremely poorly written law was passed. I live in the real world where there are consequences for your actions.

But the guy just buys into the garbage spewed by some conservatives about the ACA, so he blames the people who actually tried to make sure this kind of situation would be one he could survive through.

If we both agree that he's to blame for his current predicament, I don't care who he decides to scapegoat and I don't see why you do either. And for the record, I don't think Obama and crew deserve credit for creating a miserable failure.

I care because I think people should be informed when they vote. This guy has been screwed by a conservative governor, but he blames liberals. No doubt he'll continue to vote the same way, despite having been hung out to dry financially.

Lol, I'm sure you're loosing sleep over all the uniformed democratic voters too aren't you! This guy was screwed by himself, nobody's fault but his own. You are so desperate to kick the blame can at the feet of conservative politicians that you refuse to acknowledge clear and obvious fact.

And I'm in no way trying to give any Dems credit for the broken parts of the ACA. This is just an example of a part that would have been beneficial, and they're being blamed for it not being in place.

Again, I don't care who this idiot scapegoats for his own shortcomings.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

I want to agree with your sentiment, but "you sure effed up, go cry somewhere else" doesn't actually solve any problems.

What problem? Him loosing one eye hurts you in some way?

Him losing his savings and now winding up as a greater drain on society is the problem I'm talking about. Are you somehow under the impression that the suffering of others in society has no impact on yourself?

I don't think him loosing his eye affects me or society in the least. And fyi, the ACA, even if implemented as designed, would not have kept this idiot from losing his savings, so I don't even know why you brought that up.

People become a drain on society all the time. Sometimes it's stupidity, and sometimes it's just an honest mistake. We can feel smug and leave them to their misfortune , or try to mitigate the negative impact. The latter makes more sense to me.

We already "help" our "misfortunate" with a plethora of failed welfare programs. Mitigating negative impact can be done without rewarding and enabling incompetence.

That sounds a whole lot like you've bought into the bull that most people on welfare choose to stay poor and leech off of the government. If that's the case, please just own up to it now so I can stop wasting my time responding to you.

Lol, first and foremost. You replied to my post which was addressed to another person entirely. If you don't want to continue, please understand that you were not included in my conversation to begin with and you are welcome to but out at any time.

Secondly. God forbid any American dare to expect anything more than the bare minimum of positive results from a welfare system. How many successful people do you know that were ever on welfare? Are they the exception, or the rule? If you honestly believe our welfare system is an efficient and well oiled program then I honestly believe you are the most naive person on earth.
hatshepsut
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:43:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing....

True in general, though not in health care. They guy in question is not being denied medical care. Losing your eyesight is horrid, but if it does happen to him, it won't be because doctors refused to examine his condition or offer some treatment for it.

Instead, what's at issue is the guy will go bankrupt because he'll be held liable for the bills.

What's also at issue is the ridiculous way we do health care, unlike for any other market. In effect, we do hold basic care to be a social good just like Europe does, although we guarantee provision for fewer services. No hospital or doctor who accepts Medicare or Medicaid can turn away a patient who presents with a serious medical need. The doctor must either provide or make a referral to someone who will. And the hospital must eat the costs of treatment if the patient can't pay.

So, we have a social good but decline to pay for it through taxes, instead dumping the costs onto the doctors and hospitals. They respond by putting outrageous sticker prices on their chargemaster to bag those few cases they do get to collect in full on. (Insurance firms and their customers of course don't pay the sticker rates either.)
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:04:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:28:14 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:38:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 5:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Nobody is "stolen from" by the ACA repeal. The idea that if they're granted it at some point they're entitled to it is crap.

I'm not certain who or what you are quoting when you put "stolen from". If you are referring that there is no impact should ACA be repealed or should the SCOTUS rule that individuals from states who did not set up their own exchange are ineligible for premiums subsidies on insurance, then it is cleare there is a well defined impact from such events.

You are making an argument on semantics, which is pretty worthless when one is trying to navigate through life when dealing with chronic or life threatening medical conditions.

It wouldn't be any worse than it was before the bill was passed.

How could it not be any worse? The only ability to get insurance with pre-existing conditions clauses was to get a job at a corporation and work there for a year. It would be a policy and coverage of your employers choosing and you would not be covered for the pre-existing condition the first year of employment.

Seeing how somewhere around 50% of population has health insurance through their employer, it is a mathematics impossibility for the other 50% to magically find an employee magically willing to give them health insurance.

So coming back around, no it is not the same prior to the ACA.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.

What do you mean he is an idiot?

I mean he is an idiot.....not sure where the the disconnect is there.

He lived by conservative principles, some of which are listed below. Are you claiming those conservative principles are idiotic?

Lol....some conservative principals are indeed idiotic, yes. However, you have no idea what principals this man lived by other than his stated disdain for Obamacare. You can only generalize on a generalization made by a terrible news article. And finally, for the record, voluntarily opting out of health insurance makes you an idiot and has nothing to do with conservative ideology.

You obviously did not read the points. It is conservative ideology which brought the lawsuit against the ACA that failed in the Supreme Court. The entire premise of that lawsuit was to repeal the ACA because the Federal government did not have the authority to mandate individuals get health insurance or be penalized. They failed as the supreme court positioned the penalty for not having health insurance as a tax, which the feds have the right to impose.

Stop trying to weasel out of the individual mandate as a connection to conservative principle. If you are some variant from the Republican party, good for you, but I am referring to the mainstream conservative think tanks.

- Unregulated health care market pay as you go.
- Gov has no authority to force individual to have health insurance, but does have the authority to force hospitals to accept anyone who has a life threatening emergency.
- Business should have the burden of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, based upon market conditions and the companies choice.


Secondly, where did you get that he has denied having health insurance his entire life?

The article said he has proudly paid all of his own medical bills and specifically chose not to have health insurance. Did you read what you posted?

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

This statement is tantamount to me posting an Obama-phone article and claiming that all liberals just want free cell phones. It's a huge, baseless, unintelligent generalization that isn't worth my time.

Good day then and enjoy your time in denial.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:28:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 6:43:13 AM, hatshepsut wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing....

True in general, though not in health care. They guy in question is not being denied medical care. Losing your eyesight is horrid, but if it does happen to him, it won't be because doctors refused to examine his condition or offer some treatment for it.

Since he does not qualify for medicaid, the only treatment he can receive, if he can't pay, is at an emergency room. Reagan and the republicans signed an emergency care act that requires hospitals perform their medical services without accepting payment upfront thus forcing hospitals to be finances of the debt this guy would rack up.

There are non-profit clinics dedicated helping those without means, but they are also under the scrutiny of fiscal conservatives as far as getting federal and state grants.

This guy is f'ed. If the supreme court rules that he can't get a subsidy for insurance on the federal exchange next year, he is really f'ed.

Instead, what's at issue is the guy will go bankrupt because he'll be held liable for the bills.

What's also at issue is the ridiculous way we do health care, unlike for any other market. In effect, we do hold basic care to be a social good just like Europe does, although we guarantee provision for fewer services. No hospital or doctor who accepts Medicare or Medicaid can turn away a patient who presents with a serious medical need. The doctor must either provide or make a referral to someone who will. And the hospital must eat the costs of treatment if the patient can't pay.

So, we have a social good but decline to pay for it through taxes, instead dumping the costs onto the doctors and hospitals. They respond by putting outrageous sticker prices on their chargemaster to bag those few cases they do get to collect in full on. (Insurance firms and their customers of course don't pay the sticker rates either.)

Yep, sticker price is outrageous. I once got a bill for an allergic reaction from an emergency clinic for over $2,000 for benedryl and steroids. It was knocked down 60% or more after I told them I was not paying that amount.

There is no pricing a consumer can use to shop for cheapest services if dealing with a non-emergency because Republicans and Democrats are not willing to take the burden of healthcare off of our businesses. This employee based insurance scheme is killing open market principles. Those are the principles that have the power to reduce health care costs, yet neither party is willing to go there. ACA was a good start by mandating personal responsibility.

In Singapore one of the top rated free markets the gov takes 30% out of check as forced savings into medical and retirement savings.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:49:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's just face it, in today's politics, the liberty to pursue your own idea of happiness is no longer an inalienable right. You will be happy by the government's standard, or you will pay a fine, whether you like it or not.

Right to life doesn't imply intrinsic quality of life anymore either; it's now a right to unlimited near immortality. Can you supersize my healthcare ACA?

No limit ACA, can I get a hollaback? Dems4life! (literally)
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 9:46:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 8:49:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Let's just face it, in today's politics, the liberty to pursue your own idea of happiness is no longer an inalienable right. You will be happy by the government's standard, or you will pay a fine, whether you like it or not.

What do you mean today's politics? It was not but a few years after the formation of the united states of america that the Whiskey rebellion pretty much confirmed the power of the federal government. You don't get the freedom to drink whiskey without paying your tax. You don't get the freedom to live here unless you have some responsibility to pay for your healthcare rather than sucking the collective teat to pay for your health care.

Right to life doesn't imply intrinsic quality of life anymore either; it's now a right to unlimited near immortality. Can you supersize my healthcare ACA?

No limit ACA, can I get a hollaback? Dems4life! (literally)

This is my biggest gripe with the conservative base. They promote the broken health care system, don't want any change, did not contribute to any discussion about changing the health care system to a more free market where consumers decide on where to get services.

Once they stand up and decide that it is possible to provide everyone with a base level of health care protection (hell we do it today via emergency rooms, why can't we do it in a better way?). That is when they can promote nation wide markets where individuals have true choice and competition at the Dr. and hospital level drives prices down rather than the continued increase well above inflation.

We are going to end up with a Canadian style universal health care because the republicans can't pull their heads out of their arses.

This dream of everyone being responsible and saving 20% of their income in a health care savings account and letting anyone who doesn't die in the street is nothing more than wishful thinking.

If you are going to pass laws which require hospitals become finance companies and perform services before payment, there is a reasonable expectation that everyone covered under the law has means to pay for those types of services.

Now that is good a conservative economic principles.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 12:22:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.

What do you mean he is an idiot?

I mean he is an idiot.....not sure where the the disconnect is there.

He lived by conservative principles, some of which are listed below. Are you claiming those conservative principles are idiotic?

Lol....some conservative principals are indeed idiotic, yes. However, you have no idea what principals this man lived by other than his stated disdain for Obamacare. You can only generalize on a generalization made by a terrible news article. And finally, for the record, voluntarily opting out of health insurance makes you an idiot and has nothing to do with conservative ideology.

You obviously did not read the points.

You obviously think your irrelevant points have anything to do with what I said.....There is NOTHING in conservative ideology that would lead this man to think that not having health insurance is a good idea. Your points are completely irrelevant to your example. This man could have been a full blown democrat and still be in the exact same position he is in now. Conservative ideology cannot possibly be to blame for making him refuse health insurance which is the only reason he is where he is. Furthermore, the fact that Obamacare failed to support this man in the case for which it was clearly designed is obvious evidence of the incomptence of democratic lawmakers.

It is conservative ideology which brought the lawsuit against the ACA that failed in the Supreme Court. The entire premise of that lawsuit was to repeal the ACA because the Federal government did not have the authority to mandate individuals get health insurance or be penalized. They failed as the supreme court positioned the penalty for not having health insurance as a tax, which the feds have the right to impose.

So what!! Of course republicans openly resist a law they unanimously repudiated. That's what happens when you cram a poorly constructed bill down the throats of millions of people that refuse to accept it.

Stop trying to weasel out of the individual mandate as a connection to conservative principle. If you are some variant from the Republican party, good for you, but I am referring to the mainstream conservative think tanks.

I don't care about opposing the individual mandate (other than to say I whole heartedly support said opposition). That has NOTHING to do with this mans current affliction.

- Unregulated health care market pay as you go.
- Gov has no authority to force individual to have health insurance, but does have the authority to force hospitals to accept anyone who has a life threatening emergency.
- Business should have the burden of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, based upon market conditions and the companies choice.


Secondly, where did you get that he has denied having health insurance his entire life?

The article said he has proudly paid all of his own medical bills and specifically chose not to have health insurance. Did you read what you posted?

No reply here. Ok no worries, I know it's tough to admit you posted this crap without actually having read the whole thing. Its even harder to admit what a terrible example it is, but hey, that's life as a member of the flock I guess.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

This statement is tantamount to me posting an Obama-phone article and claiming that all liberals just want free cell phones. It's a huge, baseless, unintelligent generalization that isn't worth my time.

Good day then and enjoy your time in denial.

Good day, enjoy your time running away from people that force you to question your own sincere ignorance....
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:02:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 9:46:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 8:49:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Let's just face it, in today's politics, the liberty to pursue your own idea of happiness is no longer an inalienable right. You will be happy by the government's standard, or you will pay a fine, whether you like it or not.

What do you mean today's politics? It was not but a few years after the formation of the united states of america that the Whiskey rebellion pretty much confirmed the power of the federal government. You don't get the freedom to drink whiskey without paying your tax. You don't get the freedom to live here unless you have some responsibility to pay for your healthcare rather than sucking the collective teat to pay for your health care.

The correct comparison/analogy would be: the government will supply you with government whiskey at your expense whether you are an alcoholic or not.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:04:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 9:46:38 AM, slo1 wrote:

Right to life doesn't imply intrinsic quality of life anymore either; it's now a right to unlimited near immortality. Can you supersize my healthcare ACA?

No limit ACA, can I get a hollaback? Dems4life! (literally)

This is my biggest gripe with the conservative base. They promote the broken health care system, don't want any change, did not contribute to any discussion about changing the health care system to a more free market where consumers decide on where to get services.


I never promoted old anything. I just said there are no limits to how much healthcare is considered a right. Near immortality is a right under the ACA because there are no limits. (yet)
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 11:06:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 12:22:46 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
This author is much more nice than I would be. Classic example of how people swallow rhetoric and hyperbole with out really understanding what it means. Everyone is a conservative until they realize they get in a position where hard work is not enough to get them out of a really bad spot.

You do realize this man had opted out of health insurance for his entire life right? Pretty important fact to omit before blasting someone for "swallowing rhetoric". The fact that he has never had health coverage suggests to me that his mind was made up far before healthcare became a hot political topic.

More importantly though, it also suggests to me that this man is an idiot. Call me callous, but I don't think a lifetime of dice rolling deserves pity when you finally come up with snake eyes.

An exerpt of article.
http://www.salon.com...

Mr. Lang can blame Obama and the Affordable Care Act all he likes, but he"d be in the same situation if the ACA had never passed, only he"d also be fighting against insurance company discrimination based on his pre-existing condition. The reason he can"t get care now is because the Republicans who control his state have blocked his access to Obamacare"s benefits. They decided that South Carolina didn"t need or want funding from the federal government to expand coverage to low-income residents, and the consequence of that decision is that people who would otherwise qualify for coverage are left wanting.

What do you mean he is an idiot?

I mean he is an idiot.....not sure where the the disconnect is there.

He lived by conservative principles, some of which are listed below. Are you claiming those conservative principles are idiotic?

Lol....some conservative principals are indeed idiotic, yes. However, you have no idea what principals this man lived by other than his stated disdain for Obamacare. You can only generalize on a generalization made by a terrible news article. And finally, for the record, voluntarily opting out of health insurance makes you an idiot and has nothing to do with conservative ideology.

You obviously did not read the points.

You obviously think your irrelevant points have anything to do with what I said.....There is NOTHING in conservative ideology that would lead this man to think that not having health insurance is a good idea. Your points are completely irrelevant to your example. This man could have been a full blown democrat and still be in the exact same position he is in now. Conservative ideology cannot possibly be to blame for making him refuse health insurance which is the only reason he is where he is. Furthermore, the fact that Obamacare failed to support this man in the case for which it was clearly designed is obvious evidence of the incomptence of democratic lawmakers.

I'm not certain what you are talking about? Where did I say conservative ideology is the reason why he did not buy health insurance. What I said is that he has conservative ideology and does not understand the implications of promoting conservative ideology and how it impacted him after he had a medical condition. Stop blowing smoke up my arse and focus.

It is conservative ideology which brought the lawsuit against the ACA that failed in the Supreme Court. The entire premise of that lawsuit was to repeal the ACA because the Federal government did not have the authority to mandate individuals get health insurance or be penalized. They failed as the supreme court positioned the penalty for not having health insurance as a tax, which the feds have the right to impose.

So what!! Of course republicans openly resist a law they unanimously repudiated. That's what happens when you cram a poorly constructed bill down the throats of millions of people that refuse to accept it.

Exactly, and many of those people have no clue as to why they refuse to accept it and the consequences to themselves of refusing it. That is what this article was about.

Stop trying to weasel out of the individual mandate as a connection to conservative principle. If you are some variant from the Republican party, good for you, but I am referring to the mainstream conservative think tanks.

I don't care about opposing the individual mandate (other than to say I whole heartedly support said opposition). That has NOTHING to do with this mans current affliction.

Of course it has to do with his current predicament. He can't get insurance. He can get it the next enrollment period, however, if he and you had your way, he would not be able to get insurance until he was poor enough to qualify for medicaid. I don't understand how you don't understand this concept.

- Unregulated health care market pay as you go.
- Gov has no authority to force individual to have health insurance, but does have the authority to force hospitals to accept anyone who has a life threatening emergency.
- Business should have the burden of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, based upon market conditions and the companies choice.


Secondly, where did you get that he has denied having health insurance his entire life?

The article said he has proudly paid all of his own medical bills and specifically chose not to have health insurance. Did you read what you posted?

No reply here. Ok no worries, I know it's tough to admit you posted this crap without actually having read the whole thing. Its even harder to admit what a terrible example it is, but hey, that's life as a member of the flock I guess.

I ignored your statement because no where does it state in the article that he has never in his entire life had health insurance. A reasonable person would interpret that the article was referring to the more recent history of this gentlemen. Regardless, there is no reason to split hairs, because it does not diminish the point that there is a large disconnect betwee conservative supporters and the policies that they support.

This is not the only issue where this disconnect is obvious. Take Kansas who is on the lower end of the economic rebound after impliment tax breaks for the rich. They have mounting deficit while other states are reducing debt, yet are are not seeing job growth. They would have done better using that money for tax breaks to attract business. Again, conservative sheeple supporting conservative policies and being hurt rather than helped.

There are plenty of examples where that came from. Texas having good job growth yet their counties are more in debt than they ever have been. Go figure.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

This statement is tantamount to me posting an Obama-phone article and claiming that all liberals just want free cell phones. It's a huge, baseless, unintelligent generalization that isn't worth my time.

I guess it was worth your time. ha!
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 11:07:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:04:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/17/2015 9:46:38 AM, slo1 wrote:

Right to life doesn't imply intrinsic quality of life anymore either; it's now a right to unlimited near immortality. Can you supersize my healthcare ACA?

No limit ACA, can I get a hollaback? Dems4life! (literally)

This is my biggest gripe with the conservative base. They promote the broken health care system, don't want any change, did not contribute to any discussion about changing the health care system to a more free market where consumers decide on where to get services.


I never promoted old anything. I just said there are no limits to how much healthcare is considered a right. Near immortality is a right under the ACA because there are no limits. (yet)

I thought the ACA was death panels. Mortality is guaranteed with death panels.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 9:12:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 11:06:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:22:46 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about? Where did I say conservative ideology is the reason why he did not buy health insurance. What I said is that he has conservative ideology and does not understand the implications of promoting conservative ideology and how it impacted him after he had a medical condition. Stop blowing smoke up my arse and focus.

Well you are a slo1, so let me help you, step by step. You did not say conservative ideology is the reason he didn't buy health insurance. You, and your example, said it's the reason he can't get insurance currently. The CLEAR and ONLY reason this man lacks health insurance is because he waited until he was sick and broke before he decided he needed it. Do you understand now? You can try moving the goal post all you want, it's not going to fly.

And if "all" you are saying is that this man does not understand that supporting conservatives kept him from a free trip on the gravy train then fine. Please specifically clarify that it was not GOP resistance that caused this man's current problems and that rather, you are only concerned that his own beliefs seemingly running contrary to his needs.
If that's the case then we can agree this guy is a stupid person that appears to be conservative. In that same vein, I'm sure we can also agree that there are numerous liberal examples of said behavior as well.

So what!! Of course republicans openly resist a law they unanimously repudiated. That's what happens when you cram a poorly constructed bill down the throats of millions of people that refuse to accept it.

Exactly, and many of those people have no clue as to why they refuse to accept it and the consequences to themselves of refusing it. That is what this article was about.

How many democrats don't have a clue about the policies they support? Why aren't you crying about them again? Or did I miss that thread? This article, right from the title, was attempting to blame conservative politics for this mans problems, that was its sole purpose. It has zero subjective reasoning and is mockery of journalism. This mans problem is his own and he is exactly who I don't want to give money to for free eye surgery. There is absolutely zero consequence of rejecting Obamacare for millions of conservatives that were smart enough to always carry insurance. To common thread is not conservative beliefs, it's idiots without insurance.

Of course it has to do with his current predicament. He can't get insurance. He can get it the next enrollment period, however, if he and you had your way, he would not be able to get insurance until he was poor enough to qualify for medicaid. I don't understand how you don't understand this concept.

As mentioned countless times. He can't get insurance because he waited until he was sick and broke to buy it. Insurance programs are proactive systems. You can ignore personal responsibility and blame the dirty GOP for opposing a terrible law all you want, but I promise you're not going to change the mind of a conservative with this crap. If anything he is a picturesque example of why conservatives resist Obamacare.

I ignored your statement because no where does it state in the article that he has never in his entire life had health insurance. A reasonable person would interpret that the article was referring to the more recent history of this gentlemen.

I'm reasonable, and interpret the statement "all of his own medical bills" to mean exactly that.

Regardless, there is no reason to split hairs, because it does not diminish the point that there is a large disconnect betwee conservative supporters and the policies that they support.

The point of this example, and your post, is to blame the GOP for this mans problems. You're trying to move the goal post again (unless you make the requested concessions above) . And sorry, but to any conservative that fact diminishes this example considerably. That's why one sided tripe like this news article only circulates in liberal circles. You understand that right?

This is not the only issue where this disconnect is obvious. Take Kansas who is on the lower end of the economic rebound after impliment tax breaks for the rich. They have mounting deficit while other states are reducing debt, yet are are not seeing job growth. They would have done better using that money for tax breaks to attract business. Again, conservative sheeple supporting conservative policies and being hurt rather than helped.

Oh you're an economist now too? Or is this another broad brush generalization with zero substance? Not that I think that whatever info your regurgitating is accurate, but you do realize that tax breaks are not expecting anything close to an instantaneous return right? Btw, how is Detroit doing?

There are plenty of examples where that came from. Texas having good job growth yet their counties are more in debt than they ever have been. Go figure.

Lol, yes Texas is a great example of a conservative state in dire financial straits for its politics. Was this for real?

I guess it was worth your time.

Good one junior!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 1:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 11:07:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:04:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/17/2015 9:46:38 AM, slo1 wrote:

Right to life doesn't imply intrinsic quality of life anymore either; it's now a right to unlimited near immortality. Can you supersize my healthcare ACA?

No limit ACA, can I get a hollaback? Dems4life! (literally)

This is my biggest gripe with the conservative base. They promote the broken health care system, don't want any change, did not contribute to any discussion about changing the health care system to a more free market where consumers decide on where to get services.


I never promoted old anything. I just said there are no limits to how much healthcare is considered a right. Near immortality is a right under the ACA because there are no limits. (yet)

I thought the ACA was death panels. Mortality is guaranteed with death panels.

Entitlements without limits.

Everyone is a king.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 9:05:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 9:12:45 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 11:06:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:22:46 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:44:16 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about? Where did I say conservative ideology is the reason why he did not buy health insurance. What I said is that he has conservative ideology and does not understand the implications of promoting conservative ideology and how it impacted him after he had a medical condition. Stop blowing smoke up my arse and focus.

Well you are a slo1, so let me help you, step by step. You did not say conservative ideology is the reason he didn't buy health insurance. You, and your example, said it's the reason he can't get insurance currently. The CLEAR and ONLY reason this man lacks health insurance is because he waited until he was sick and broke before he decided he needed it. Do you understand now? You can try moving the goal post all you want, it's not going to fly.


You are still not reading properly and have moved to the rhubarb patch. Let me repeat:

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.


And if "all" you are saying is that this man does not understand that supporting conservatives kept him from a free trip on the gravy train then fine. Please specifically clarify that it was not GOP resistance that caused this man's current problems and that rather, you are only concerned that his own beliefs seemingly running contrary to his needs.
If that's the case then we can agree this guy is a stupid person that appears to be conservative. In that same vein, I'm sure we can also agree that there are numerous liberal examples of said behavior as well.

So what!! Of course republicans openly resist a law they unanimously repudiated. That's what happens when you cram a poorly constructed bill down the throats of millions of people that refuse to accept it.

Exactly, and many of those people have no clue as to why they refuse to accept it and the consequences to themselves of refusing it. That is what this article was about.

How many democrats don't have a clue about the policies they support? Why aren't you crying about them again? Or did I miss that thread? This article, right from the title, was attempting to blame conservative politics for this mans problems, that was its sole purpose. It has zero subjective reasoning and is mockery of journalism. This mans problem is his own and he is exactly who I don't want to give money to for free eye surgery. There is absolutely zero consequence of rejecting Obamacare for millions of conservatives that were smart enough to always carry insurance. To common thread is not conservative beliefs, it's idiots without insurance.

Of course it has to do with his current predicament. He can't get insurance. He can get it the next enrollment period, however, if he and you had your way, he would not be able to get insurance until he was poor enough to qualify for medicaid. I don't understand how you don't understand this concept.

As mentioned countless times. He can't get insurance because he waited until he was sick and broke to buy it. Insurance programs are proactive systems. You can ignore personal responsibility and blame the dirty GOP for opposing a terrible law all you want, but I promise you're not going to change the mind of a conservative with this crap. If anything he is a picturesque example of why conservatives resist Obamacare.

I ignored your statement because no where does it state in the article that he has never in his entire life had health insurance. A reasonable person would interpret that the article was referring to the more recent history of this gentlemen.

I'm reasonable, and interpret the statement "all of his own medical bills" to mean exactly that.

Regardless, there is no reason to split hairs, because it does not diminish the point that there is a large disconnect betwee conservative supporters and the policies that they support.

The point of this example, and your post, is to blame the GOP for this mans problems. You're trying to move the goal post again (unless you make the requested concessions above) . And sorry, but to any conservative that fact diminishes this example considerably. That's why one sided tripe like this news article only circulates in liberal circles. You understand that right?

This is not the only issue where this disconnect is obvious. Take Kansas who is on the lower end of the economic rebound after impliment tax breaks for the rich. They have mounting deficit while other states are reducing debt, yet are are not seeing job growth. They would have done better using that money for tax breaks to attract business. Again, conservative sheeple supporting conservative policies and being hurt rather than helped.

Oh you're an economist now too? Or is this another broad brush generalization with zero substance? Not that I think that whatever info your regurgitating is accurate, but you do realize that tax breaks are not expecting anything close to an instantaneous return right? Btw, how is Detroit doing?

It does not matter what you think. Facts are facts. The rebound in Kansas is not as strong as most of america. Wait all you want for your trickle down bs at the state level to kick in, while blue states like NY actively offer 10 year tax break programs to bring in business to the state. They are now kicking arse on job growth because of their actually bringing in business versus giving tax break to the rich and hoping they spend or invest in state rather than the other 49 states.

You are obviously not following the rebound from the last recession, so yes compared to you I am the premiere economist in all of the universe.

There are plenty of examples where that came from. Texas having good job growth yet their counties are more in debt than they ever have been. Go figure.

Lol, yes Texas is a great example of a conservative state in dire financial straits for its politics. Was this for real?

Honestly, I don't even understand what this point means. I give a fact that TX counties are greater in debt than any time in history despite the job growth or economic rebound and you come up with some unintelligible sentence. Supporting conservative politicians now = higher property tax while wage inflation is non existent. 2% wage increases since 2008 if lucky, all goes to the county. Such lovely growth, yeahhhhh!

I don't think you are comprehending the point and intent of the article. I bow out of this cluster f of a mess.

I guess it was
hatshepsut
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 1:35:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 8:28:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
Since he does not qualify for medicaid, the only treatment he can receive, if he can't pay, is at an emergency room. ... There are non-profit clinics dedicated helping those without means, but they are also under the scrutiny of fiscal conservatives as far as getting federal and state grants.

The clinics may be under scrutiny but I doubt any politician will vote to kill them. It would be political suicide to do so in view of the field day the media would have afterward. I don't doubt that insured, private-pay patients get better care overall than "charity" patients do. There's plenty of inequality in our health care system. But the article you cited makes it sound like all this uninsured guy can do is sit at home while he goes blind.

If he had hemorrhoids, that might be the case. Doctors advertise band ligation treatments to remove them, but the tab runs $8000 & up and and the doctors who do this require proof of insurance or ability to pay up front. Indeed, many insurance plans don't cover hemorrhoids, which are medically minor but still impact quality of life.

Yet conditions that threaten life or limb, such an injury or illness that may lead to blindness, are looked at differently. Many doctors are even willing to do pro bono work for those who can't pay when something like this comes up. Emergency rooms are able to arrange follow-up care, often at the same hospital or at one of its associated clinics.

... This employee based insurance scheme is killing open market principles.

On this I tend to agree with you. Linking health care to employment is absurd. Businesses started offering health insurance as a "bennie" back in World War II when we were under price & wage controls. Meaning they could offer it without violating the controls, and at the time, insurance was cheap. Today costs are out of control because this insurance system has isolated both the insurance companies and the providers from much of the competition they might face otherwise.

ACA doesn't do anything to change this, however. It still has all the private insurers and providers, and most people still get their plans through work or a through a working spouse. 24 states refused the Medicaid expansion, though a few have backtracked on that.

ACA has cut the uninsured population from 47 million to 33 million, looking good so far as companies have rushed into the new subsidized market. But remember when they first deregulated airlines in 1978? Plane tickets were dirt cheap for quite a while, until the mergers & acquisitions shook out in favor of a powerful few carriers who now can set prices more to their advantage. I think it will go the same way with ACA. Although it stopped denial for pre-existing conditions and limits the high-risk rate to three times the lowest rate, it doesn't put any limit on across-the-board rate hikes. And once that subsidy money gets tight and the healthy folks now on the plans get sick, those rates will skyrocket.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 8:18:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 9:05:59 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/18/2015 9:12:45 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 11:06:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:22:46 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/17/2015 8:13:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 2:11:19 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 1:01:36 PM, slo1 wrote

Well you are a slo1, so let me help you, step by step. You did not say conservative ideology is the reason he didn't buy health insurance. You, and your example, said it's the reason he can't get insurance currently. The CLEAR and ONLY reason this man lacks health insurance is because he waited until he was sick and broke before he decided he needed it. Do you understand now? You can try moving the goal post all you want, it's not going to fly.


You are still not reading properly and have moved to the rhubarb patch. Let me repeat:

Lol....this reminds me of a quote by one of my favorite comic writers....."If you can't win on reason, go with volume." - Bill Waterson.

That you have to resort to triplicating a broad and ignorant generalization to support your completely bogus claim speaks volumes. Keep lumping everyone you disagree with into broad categories that makes it easier for you to marginalize them. That will most certainly help you avoid having conversations with anyone that disagrees with you.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.

The entire irony for middle america supporting the fiscal conservative right is that they don't understand that intent and effort doesn't fix everything. They support policy and concepts, yet they don't have the fiscal means or knowledge to protect themselves when there is no safety net, the very safety net they advocated abolishing or not establishing.


And if "all" you are saying is that this man does not understand that supporting conservatives kept him from a free trip on the gravy train then fine. Please specifically clarify that it was not GOP resistance that caused this man's current problems and that rather, you are only concerned that his own beliefs seemingly running contrary to his needs.
If that's the case then we can agree this guy is a stupid person that appears to be conservative. In that same vein, I'm sure we can also agree that there are numerous liberal examples of said behavior as well.
.

How many democrats don't have a clue about the policies they support? Why aren't you crying about them again? Or did I miss that thread? This article, right from the title, was attempting to blame conservative politics for this mans problems, that was its sole purpose. It has zero subjective reasoning and is mockery of journalism. This mans problem is his own and he is exactly who I don't want to give money to for free eye surgery. There is absolutely zero consequence of rejecting Obamacare for millions of conservatives that were smart enough to always carry insurance. To common thread is not conservative beliefs, it's idiots without insurance.


As mentioned countless times. He can't get insurance because he waited until he was sick and broke to buy it. Insurance programs are proactive systems. You can ignore personal responsibility and blame the dirty GOP for opposing a terrible law all you want, but I promise you're not going to change the mind of a conservative with this crap. If anything he is a picturesque example of why conservatives resist Obamacare.


The point of this example, and your post, is to blame the GOP for this mans problems. You're trying to move the goal post again (unless you make the requested concessions above) . And sorry, but to any conservative that fact diminishes this example considerably. That's why one sided tripe like this news article only circulates in liberal circles. You understand that right?

Way to dodge everything that was specifically related to the title of your post (and your example) and add more unsubstantiated detail to your irrelevant economic beliefs.

It does not matter what you think. Facts are facts. The rebound in Kansas is not as strong as most of america. Wait all you want for your trickle down bs at the state level to kick in, while blue states like NY actively offer 10 year tax break programs to bring in business to the state. They are now kicking arse on job growth because of their actually bringing in business versus giving tax break to the rich and hoping they spend or invest in state rather than the other 49 states.

Thanks for the update on deep blue Detroit...... Also, cutting taxes in general is a conservative belief, you understand that right? That New York had to resort to tax cuts to stimulate its economy is not a win for liberal politics. That is just like claiming this idiot in your example not having health insurance is a lose for conservative politics.

There are plenty of examples where that came from. Texas having good job growth yet their counties are more in debt than they ever have been. Go figure.

Lol, yes Texas is a great example of a conservative state in dire financial straits for its politics. Was this for real?

Honestly, I don't even understand what this point means. I give a fact that TX counties are greater in debt than any time in history despite the job growth or economic rebound and you come up with some unintelligible sentence. Supporting conservative politicians now = higher property tax while wage inflation is non existent. 2% wage increases since 2008 if lucky, all goes to the county. Such lovely growth, yeahhhhh!

Honestly, from all our previous discussion, I don't exactly expect you to understand much. I don't care about some county in Texas, or their debt. Those counties could have liberal policies for all I know, you have provided zero substance and this line of discussion is a complete tangent to boot. The state of Texas has experienced equal or higher growth and equal or lower unemployment than the entire country every year since the recession. And fyi, US debt is higher than its ever been too, so if our rebound is as strong as you imply, the debt for some counties in Texas should be no problem.

Now go ahead and let's have four more conversations on economics so you can keep dodging lines of discussion relevant to your post.

I don't think you are comprehending the point and intent of the article.

What was the title of the article?......."The Horrific Human Cost of the GOP's Anti-Reform Crusade" what was the title of your post?..."Human Cost of ACA GOP Defiance".

Sorry slow....I know exactly what the point of this tripe is. It's to blame the GOP for this man's life failures and for the flaws in a purely Democratic piece of legislation. You both failed, MISERABLY!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:41:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The real outrage of that article is after god knows how many decades of liberal rule of the government why surgeries like that cost 9000 dollars.

No excuses. ACA doesn't even come close to fixing this.