The Case For Obamacare

[Foxrac]

No, NO Fixrac! You are the one being hypocritical. Myself and other members such as TxGolfer, Reba, etc. already have our own health insurance for which we pay god money out of our pocket. Not one other person pays a penny for our health care.

However, we are FORCE (through taxes) to pay for those who not only have no health insurance they also don't contribute one penny for the health care.

You tell us all, Foxrac, is it fair that we the responsible people suffer the consequences and pay the cost of the irresponsible?

If you say YES that is hypocritical on your part.

First, you don't understand about my post, also you are still hypocritical because you still have health insurance and pay monthly premium that used to cover on patients who abused their health.

There are some patients who abused their health already have their own health insurance but the premium is biggest one that used to treat any patients, even fault or no fault health problems.

That's part of life and we don't have much control on people whoever abused their health, especially drug abuses.

I don't smoke, drink the alcoholic beverage (extremely rare) and use illegal drugs so don't point with your finger at me.

Go confront at people whoever abused their health, not me and you are confronting at wrong people in here.

 

[rolling7]

Also, I'm totally aware for those whom through a criminal act by someone else became a drug addict, infected with AIDS, cripple for life, etc. These are not the folks I speak of. On the otherhand, those who become drug addicts, etc. through their own choice of life style made a decision that they are totally responsible for and must not pass the consequences to others.
We can not have apathy about this issue, we must speak out and tell everyone that they live their life in freedom and their body is theirs. But to abuse their body through irresponsible choices, they alone will suffer the consequences. Anything else will destroy society and not help benefit society.

 

[Foxrac]

Also, I'm totally aware for those whom through a criminal act by someone else became a drug addict, infected with AIDS, cripple for life, etc. These are not the folks I speak of. On the otherhand, those who become drug addicts, etc. through their own choice of life style made a decision that they are totally responsible for and must not pass the consequences to others.
e can not have apathy about this issue, we must speak out and tell everyone that they live their life in freedom and their body is theirs. But to abuse their body through irresponsible choices, they alone will suffer the consequences. Anything else will destroy society and not help benefit society.

I know about your frustration but I can't help with those society.

Those problems have been existed for many years, even 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.

I don't know how to fix the mindless society, neither is many politicians who attempt to improve the society.

 

[rolling7]

First, you don't understand about my post, also you are still hypocritical because you still have health insurance and pay monthly premium that used to cover on patients who abused their health.

There are some patients who abused their health already have their own health insurance but the premium is biggest one that used to treat any patients, even fault or no fault health problems.

That's part of life and we don't have much control on people whoever abused their health, especially drug abuses.

I don't smoke, drink the alcoholic beverage (extremely rare) and use illegal drugs so don't point with your finger at me.

Go confront at people whoever abused their health, not me and you are confronting at wrong people in here.

The very first statement you made in this post is 100% correct. BUT that does not make it RIGHT. Healy insurance premiums are kept low by those who have the insurance leading a responsible life. I'm well aware that shit happens but it would be unintentional. Those whom have health coverage and ABUSE their bodies must pay the consequences, not the other insured folks.

 

[Foxrac]

The very first statement you made in this post is 100% correct. BUT that does not make it RIGHT. Healy insurance premiums are kept low by those who have the insurance leading a responsible life. I'm well aware that shit happens but it would be unintentional. Those whom have health coverage and ABUSE their bodies must pay the consequences, not the other insured folks.

Tell to insurance companies.

 

[rolling7]

I know about your frustration but I can't help with those society.

Those problems have been existed for many years, even 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.

I don't know how to fix the mindless society, neither is many politicians who attempt to improve the society.

Foxrac, get off your soapbox! You did not even live in those days. Post your year of birth here....mine is '47. So I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to the 50s and 60s. Those days, anyone and everyone living irresponsible was an "outcast", the exact way it should be, to make them realize they would suffer on their own.
Organizations like the Salvation Army came about to help the drunks but no public funds were used. Only donations from kind and willing people supported these organizations. Let me give you a hint: Whenever the government gets it hand into an issue, the result is totally destructive.

 

[rolling7]

Tell to insurance companies.

No that is APATHY! Go up on the roof tops and shout it out for all people to hear.
MM sure ain't going to help. They LOVE apathy because it mean people listen to what they have to say instead of the people thinks for themselves.

 

[Foxrac]

Foxrac, get off your soapbox! You did not even live in those days. Post your year of birth here....mine is '47. So I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to the 50s and 60s. Those days, anyone and everyone living irresponsible was an "outcast", the exact way it should be, to make them realize they would suffer on their own.
Organizations like the Salvation Army came about to help the drunks but no public funds were used. Only donations from kind and willing people supported these organizations. Let me give you a hint: Whenever the government gets it hand into an issue, the result is totally destructive.

Please refrain from rude comment by tell me to get off my soapbox and I have no idea about what soapbox is for.

My family, including my parent, grandparent, aunts and uncles shared with me about past, that how I got know. I was born during crack epidemic and worst crime ever era. :roll:

Do not blame on me for those errors.

 

[rolling7]

Please refrain from rude comment by tell me to get off my soapbox and I have no idea about what soapbox is for.

My family, including my parent, grandparent, aunts and uncles shared with me about past, that how I got know. I was born during crack epidemic and worst crime ever era. :roll:

Do not blame on me for those errors.

First, I'm sorry of you felt I wronged you and I do apologize.
The fact you say you don't know what "soapbox" means tells me that you parents and grandparents have a lot more to share with you. It would be well worth your time to visit with them because they care share their life and tel you many things not in books nor on the internet

 

[Foxrac]

First, I'm sorry of you felt I wronged you and I do apologize.
The fact you say you don't know what "soapbox" means tells me that you parents and grandparents have a lot more to share with you. It would be well worth your time to visit with them because they care share their life and tel you many things not in books nor on the internet

Ok, sometime, I have to use internet or book for complicated sources and they are usually from true research, not bogus, even I checked DEA too.

I was born in 1987, it was during era of crack epidemic and worst homicide rate ever so crack epidemic ended in mid 90's and the crime, especially homicide had dropped to 1960's level now.
Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My grandfather was alcoholic and he was admitted to drug rehabilitation few times.

 

[Reba]

Soapbox | Ask.com Encyclopedia

 

[DeafBadger]

Just found this.

Mitt Romney stumping for Individual Mandate in 2006 at the Heritage Foundation.

Auto-captions are available.

I'm leaning more towards support of the ACA. Overall, I don't think it is too bad a bill. It's the same thing the Republicans were proposing just a few years ago.

I think the main reason there's so much Republican opposition to the ACA is because it was achieved by a Democrat that they are working hard to make a one-term president.

If Bush II had passed this, I don't think we'd hear much from Republican supporters about it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTByvLtYIYA]Mitt Romney First Introducing the Individual Mandate at Heritage in Jan. 2006 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TXgolfer]

Just found this.

Mitt Romney stumping for Individual Mandate in 2006 at the Heritage Foundation.

Auto-captions are available.

I'm leaning more towards support of the ACA. Overall, I don't think it is too bad a bill. It's the same thing the Republicans were proposing just a few years ago.

I think the main reason there's so much Republican opposition to the ACA is because it was achieved by a Democrat that they are working hard to make a one-term president.

If Bush II had passed this, I don't think we'd hear much from Republican supporters about it.

Mitt Romney First Introducing the Individual Mandate at Heritage in Jan. 2006 - YouTube

Well of course you are free to form your own opinion. A few corrections/thoughts though. 1) it wasn't "Republicans". It was " some Republicans"

2) The Chafee Bill was in 1993..... 19 years ago

3) Mitt's plan was a state plan (although it was still horrible) and wasn't meant to be a federal plan

4) If you are going to justify your decision on the fact that "some Republicans" were proposing it, how do you reconcile the fact that some Democrats were against it......then and now.

5) With the exception of a few political apologists the party would have imploded if this was a Bush plan.....Either that or he would have to resign.

6) Although most of us want Obama out of office, the reason's for disliking this bill have nothing to do with Obama. We see what a disaster SS and Medicare/Medicaid are and we are smart enough to realize we cannot afford another disaster.

 

[Foxrac]

It looks like you don't want medical care at lower cost.

That's sad.

 

[Foxrac]

Well of course you are free to form your own opinion. A few corrections/thoughts though. 1) it wasn't "Republicans". It was " some Republicans"

2) The Chafee Bill was in 1993..... 19 years ago

3) Mitt's plan was a state plan (although it was still horrible) and wasn't meant to be a federal plan

4) If you are going to justify your decision on the fact that "some Republicans" were proposing it, how do you reconcile the fact that some Democrats were against it......then and now.

5) With the exception of a few political apologists the party would have imploded if this was a Bush plan.....Either that or he would have to resign.

6) Although most of us want Obama out of office, the reason's for disliking this bill have nothing to do with Obama. We see what a disaster SS and Medicare/Medicaid are and we are smart enough to realize we cannot afford another disaster.

If many health insurances go bankrupt and many hospitals close down so it will be serious disaster, especially without ACA or healthcare reform.

 

[Foxrac]

If many health insurances go bankrupt and many hospitals close down so it will be serious disaster, especially without ACA or healthcare reform.

Additional comment for number 4.

Some democrats were against it because they wanted a full single-payer system, not because they didn't want health care reform.

Democrats knew that Republicans would never let single-payer pass, so they instead did the ACA in its current form.

 

[DeafBadger]

Well of course you are free to form your own opinion. A few corrections/thoughts though. 1) it wasn't "Republicans". It was " some Republicans"

Ok.

2) The Chafee Bill was in 1993..... 19 years ago

What is the relevance of the Chafee Bill to this discussion?

3) Mitt's plan was a state plan (although it was still horrible) and wasn't meant to be a federal plan

Is it true that on the Federal level, the Democrats originally wanted a single-payer system and compromised with the Republicans to pass the Individual Mandate program?

4) If you are going to justify your decision on the fact that "some Republicans" were proposing it, how do you reconcile the fact that some Democrats were against it......then and now.

No, it makes no difference to me who supports it or not. The bill stands or falls on it's own merits. It's merits seem fairly good to me. The fact that Republicans were proposing it before the Democrats were, is just a fact I was mentioning.

5) With the exception of a few political apologists the party would have imploded if this was a Bush plan.....Either that or he would have to resign.

I seriously doubt it.

6) Although most of us want Obama out of office, the reason's for disliking this bill have nothing to do with Obama. We see what a disaster SS and Medicare/Medicaid are and we are smart enough to realize we cannot afford another disaster.

It seems to me that if we end our overseas military adventurism, suddenly the money will be available to fund Social Security and Medicare. It seems to me that these programs are not "disasters" because they exist, but because politicians do not prioritize funding it.

It does not speak to whether these programs should exist or whether they are needed. It speaks to fiscal mismanagement by politicians.

If it SS and Medicare are "disasters," they do not have to be. Neither would the ACA.

I guess you'll have to bank on Romney's sincerity when he says he'll repeal the Act. As I've said, I don't believe he'll hold to this promise.

 

[Foxrac]

Ok.

What is the relevance of the Chafee Bill to this discussion?

Is it true that on the Federal level, the Democrats originally wanted a single-payer system and compromised with the Republicans to pass the Individual Mandate program?

No, it makes no difference to me who supports it or not. The bill stands or falls on it's own merits. It's merits seem fairly good to me. The fact that Republicans were proposing it before the Democrats were, is just a fact I was mentioning.

I seriously doubt it.

It seems to me that if we end our overseas military adventurism, suddenly the money will be available to fund Social Security and Medicare. It seems to me that these programs are not "disasters" because they exist, but because politicians do not prioritize funding it.

It does not speak to whether these programs should exist or whether they are needed. It speaks to fiscal mismanagement by politicians.

If it SS and Medicare are "disasters," they do not have to be. Neither would the ACA.

I guess you'll have to bank on Romney's sincerity when he says he'll repeal the Act. As I've said, I don't believe he'll hold to this promise.

You made a great point.

Yup, I don't think Mitt Romney is going to repeal ACA but he probably make ACA so more simplify and fix the flawed portions.

 

[TXgolfer]

Ok.



What is the relevance of the Chafee Bill to this discussion?



Is it true that on the Federal level, the Democrats originally wanted a single-payer system and compromised with the Republicans to pass the Individual Mandate program?



No, it makes no difference to me who supports it or not. The bill stands or falls on it's own merits. It's merits seem fairly good to me. The fact that Republicans were proposing it before the Democrats were, is just a fact I was mentioning.



I seriously doubt it.



It seems to me that if we end our overseas military adventurism, suddenly the money will be available to fund Social Security and Medicare. It seems to me that these programs are not "disasters" because they exist, but because politicians do not prioritize funding it.

It does not speak to whether these programs should exist or whether they are needed. It speaks to fiscal mismanagement by politicians.

If it SS and Medicare are "disasters," they do not have to be. Neither would the ACA.

I guess you'll have to bank on Romney's sincerity when he says he'll repeal the Act. As I've said, I don't believe he'll hold to this promise.

1 Cool

2 That is when Republicans seemed to support this.....Most haven't since then.

3 No there was no compromise.....The bill was forced through

4 Cool

5 I don't, we were pretty vocal about this as far back as the 90's

6 Won't make a difference.... War brings both costs and revenue....When war ends you lose both. Sounds good on paper but it just doesn't work.

 

[Barbaro]

I fail to comprehend that why Republicans in the past used to support the Single Payer System, and tried to pass it several times, and suddenly changed their minds to oppose it.

What's up with that?