It's not like the serfs have any choice in what the master offers no matter how ill thought out it is. Kudos, m'lord.
Just keeping it real dude....
It's not like the serfs have any choice in what the master offers no matter how ill thought out it is. Kudos, m'lord.
Just keeping it real dude....
The odds of you Rightists appealing the ACA is comparable to the odds of you getting into the WH. It ain't looking good for the Party of racist,homophobic,misogynistic,Holy Rolling,war mongers,Corporatists and angry old white dudes.
Making health insurance mandatory defeats the entire purpose of our country and the insurance industry. Insurance was designed to pay to reduce your risks. Now that it is mandatory - WHY even call it insurance?
Pre-existing conditions: Sorry, but as far as insurance goes - that is the point. You have higher risks, therefore your premiums are higher. If someone gets in a lot of car wrecks, is the government going to keep my rates down ? Yeah, right....
Like I said, this isn't insurance anymore, this is full blown socialism. I'm not saying healthcare doesn't need a reform, but this is a reform on insurance - not healthcare.
you are splitting hairs on that one...Finally, socialism? I'm calling bullshit on that one. Socialism requires the takeover of private industry by the state. Obamacare does nothing of the sort. It is still as privately operated, financed, and delivered as it was before. The government hasn't taken over squat. Even the public option was DOA. Socialism not found. If you want to call it fascist because it requires that you go through private entities, you may have a leg to stand on.
you are splitting hairs on that one...
I don't think so. A socialist healthcare system would be along the lines of Britain's NHS (publicly financed, publicly delivered....doctors are government employees) or a single payor system such as Canada's (public finance, private delivery). We are still largely privately financed (our insurance industry) and privately delivered (by independent doctors, medical organizations, hospitals, etc....that are not government owned or run).
Would anyone be upset about Obamacare if it was left for the states to use or not use it? They should have started that way, if for no other reason than to have some control groups to see if it works or not.
As far as pre-existing conditions go, hell yes people with als and crippling deformities etc should be covered. People who live on cigarettes and 72 oz sodas should have to pay their fat diabetic emphazyma asses through care.
I've lived in Alberta for the last 8 years, the care here SUCKS. Once you get treated it's not too bad (though still not great). But the waits are days to over a YEAR depending on what you're having. At least Canada has a few good ideas we could learn from in uhc though, like $10 packs of cigarettes to subsidize the increase strain smoking puts on the healthcare system.
Let me also point out, not from hurp durp internet regurgitation but from experience, health care isn't free here what so ever. My taxes would make most Americans die of a heart attack. You can't contribute it to high wages here either, because even though I have to pay my journeymen $30+ dollars per hour, a box of cereal is $8.50, a nice Honda fourwheeler is $12k, and a CHEAP house is $285k. Thank the Lord for corporate tax rates.
So yeah, just let states vote on it individually and problem solved.
And not all of them are genetic. Either way, the person who will cost more to the insurer should be paying more - that's fair. Shifting the cost on others is the kind of equalist bullshit that amounts to robbery and wealth redistribution.For point 1:
Not all preexisting conditions are from ones own actions... there are genetic conditions that made it nearly impossible for some to get insurance.
Oh, I thought the recession was over and we're in a recovery? Funny how the leftists can't keep their arguments straight.For point 2:
That definitely has nothing to do with the recession we were in now does it?
Hint... given the high costs that employers currently pay for their employees insurance the fee for doing not doing so is almost laughable.
You mean those ponzi schemes that will go broke unless the government finds more suckers to rob?For point 3:
Ever hear of medicare and medicaid?
Oh, I see - refusing to give special privileges to women in sexist. The liberal doublespeak never ceases to amuse me. We should just support the strong, independent victims... even though they are equal to men and can do anything that men can... but really they are oppressed by the patriarchy... even though they don't need men, and have surpassed men in education and starting salaries... they are still just victims... and if you don't give in to their demands then you're a misogynist and sexist... although it's really all about equality. LMAO.For point 5:
Just admit you're sexist or that you are fully willing to help pay to raise said child and I very much doubt it is the latter.