Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.
Obama care has some positive components to it, but it doesn't go near as far as needed, to solve the healthcare issues.
You have to remember, there was a mad dash to get something passed, while the dems still had control of the house.
You should never rush a law. You expect me to judge idiots less harshly?
Especially when they're so disconnected from the poor and middle class so as to fine them for not having insurance at all? I only pay 172 and that's half my monthly paycheck. I have to do this or I'll be 'fined'. Also? That's not even a full plan. I don't feel I'm adequately covered, especially seeing as how I can go maybe to only two places.
So, I don't have to remember anything other than that it needs severe changes. Beneficial changes.
We care we are just in favor of personal responsiably.ah good old republicans, not caring about the poor since inception.
Well, the counter could be pretty simple a 2/3 vote in both houses would do.
So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.
Pretty much, yeah. Although, to be fair, Mitt Romney did institute a version here in Massachusetts that works more or less well. Of course, there are differences, like the fact that Mass. has a public option for those who can't afford private health insurance (MassHealth). But, as a means toward allowing everyone access to health care, depending on the fairness of the private for-profit health insurance industry may not have been the best way to go, no.
-- A2SG, though it's worth noting that the ACA is firmly based on solid market-based conservative principles.....
What works on a state level might not work on a national level, however. It's easier to implement things like this over a smaller population, but not always a larger one.
Very true. But the lack of some form of public option (even an expansion of medicare serving in that capacity) is a definite factor. By not giving people an alternative to expensive health insurance, it puts everyone more and more at the mercy of the private for-profit health insurance industry....which generates BILLIONS of dollars in profit every year.
-- A2SG, heck, Mass. has only non-profit insurance carriers, and they still manage to make money hand over fist, even enough to pay one outgoing CEO millions in bonuses and severence....
Considering that they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, which was a source of cheap and affordable care to women and men everywhere (Yes, they offer services for men, too!), I don't think their main concern is affordable insurance for citizens. So yeah there should be some kinda alternative insurance that is actually good and decent, but I'm pretty sure most politicians are bought anyway. I mean how else would corporations be considered people?
As long as we keep the same standard:Turn about is fair play. If the Domocats insisted that we do not know what was in theirs until it passed turn about for the Republicans doing the same thing is fair play.
Let's say someone takes your soda from the break room fridge. How much money do you spend to attempt to retrieve the soda?ignore abuse?
One of the rules of Obamacare is that for a plan to qualify, it must pay out a certain percentage of the premiums in benefits. The insurance companies must also justify proposed increases.So basically it was never going to work as intended no matter what. Do people just straight up ignore human nature when making laws? You can't assume people default to charity. Humans are greedy.
I think we all can agree with that.It seems to me we have some options: Obviously, those people who cannot afford health care do not deserve it.
Whoa, hold up there, buddy. This is a Christian site.Of course, people with life threatening illnesses or injuries who cannot afford medical care should not be made to suffer through the illness or injury. This is where I think Republicans had the right idea with "death panels". Doctors should be able to decide whether a patient's finances can cover the cost of treatment, and if not the doctor would just shoot them. Or hang them, or suffocate them; whatever is deemed the most humane.
Agreed.It is ludicrous to suggest that the lives of the poverty stricken and poor is worth the financial burden to upstanding citizens.
Humane, perhaps, but not more economical because there must be some economic incentive to do the scut work of society - it has not all been mechanized yet. You "humanists" have no foresight.[/sarcasm]The more humane and economical solution of course, is to simply delete the poor and poverty stricken entirely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?