Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Daves Take on Obamacare


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#31 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,306 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:50 AM

Obama won twice...so there's that

 

Castro had quite a run too...so there's that. 

 

We aren't a dictatorship Panthro. 
 



#32 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,306 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:52 AM

As we all know, the US Government is the most efficient, well oiled machine going today.  We pay $1200 for a flashlight and call it an emergency lighting system, we pay dead people for years without ever knowing they have passed.  We have fraud dripping from every program. 

 

Then, it is natural to have a bloated, non efficient, can't get out of its own way government to take over the healthcare system in America.  We know already that we have nothing to fear like coercement and privacy issues from our government, they would never do that.  And they say they are doing this for our good and to SAVE money.  Yep, bank it.  Big savings coming your way from the same folks that bring us all the other penny pinching programs like USPS.

 

The wonderful, awe inspiring website for the Obamacare is a microcosm of what you will see.  They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for a relic of a site that does not work.  634 million to be exact.  This is just the start of the good things you can expect from your government.  Pay more, get exponentially less.

 

But hey, you can soon rule over an electorate by rationing things or at least by threatening such.  As long as you can manipulate the public and have them need you and vote to keep in office, no price is too high.

 

Road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
 



#33 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,501 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:52 AM

Castro had quite a run too...so there's that. 

 

We aren't a dictatorship Panthro. 
 

 

The majority voted for a president who ran on healthcare reform. If the majority did not want it they could have voted for McCain or Romney



#34 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,306 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:58 AM



#35 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,512 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:02 AM

Castro had quite a run too...so there's that.

We aren't a dictatorship Panthro.


Wat, no Hitler?

Disappointing.

#36 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,512 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:03 AM

The majority voted for a president who ran on healthcare reform. If the majority did not want it they could have voted for McCain or Romney


Yeah but a bunch of black people voted which invalidates the whole process for g5 and stirs.

#37 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,306 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:08 AM

You're a racist POS Delhommey. 

 

Nothing else needs to be said. 



#38 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,050 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:28 AM

You sound as if you still buy into the original propaganda. Do you really believe your health care will cost YOU less (do you work/) and your health care is going to be better now?


Depends on who you ask. Some people will pay more some about the same and some less, and I think people who can now get insurance who couldn't before would think their coverage is significantly better than zero and possibly life saving.

#39 PanthersBigD

PanthersBigD

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:43 AM

You sound as if you still buy into the original propaganda.  Do you really believe your health care will cost YOU less (do you work/) and your health care is going to be better now?

 

I have had insurance through my employer since I began my career 14 years ago. Costs have risen and coverage has weakened every year. The ACA is not the only driver in the cost increase, but it's a convenient scapegoat.

 

I understand that I will have to pay more for everyone to have access to healthcare and I accept that because I believe it is the right thing to do and that it will yield positive benefits for our country.



#40 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:28 AM

As we all know, the US Government is the most efficient, well oiled machine going today.  We pay $1200 for a flashlight and call it an emergency lighting system, we pay dead people for years without ever knowing they have passed.  We have fraud dripping from every program. 

 

Then, it is natural to have a bloated, non efficient, can't get out of its own way government to take over the healthcare system in America.  We know already that we have nothing to fear like coercement and privacy issues from our government, they would never do that.  And they say they are doing this for our good and to SAVE money.  Yep, bank it.  Big savings coming your way from the same folks that bring us all the other penny pinching programs like USPS.

 

The wonderful, awe inspiring website for the Obamacare is a microcosm of what you will see.  They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for a relic of a site that does not work.  634 million to be exact.  This is just the start of the good things you can expect from your government.  Pay more, get exponentially less.

 

But hey, you can soon rule over an electorate by rationing things or at least by threatening such.  As long as you can manipulate the public and have them need you and vote to keep in office, no price is too high.

 

So you are saying that American Capitalists are less efficient at running a health care system than socialist societies?



#41 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,982 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:36 AM

So you are saying that American Capitalists are less efficient at running a health care system than socialist societies?

 

Tangled web there.

 

I think that we could have started smaller than this bill, but whatever.

 

Opening up all insurance companies to be able to sell to anyone who is a citizen, while forcing hospitals and doctors offices to accept all accredited companies would have been a start.

 

Also tort reform, and medicare/medicaid reform could have been great starting spots as well.



#42 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:27 PM

Tangled web there.

 

I think that we could have started smaller than this bill, but whatever.

 

Opening up all insurance companies to be able to sell to anyone who is a citizen, while forcing hospitals and doctors offices to accept all accredited companies would have been a start.

 

Also tort reform, and medicare/medicaid reform could have been great starting spots as well.

I am not a fan of the ACA, President Obama made a deal with the devil (the pharmaceutical and insurance industries) to get it enacted.

 

I'm all for reasonable tort reform and there is always room for improvement in things as complex as Medicare/Medicaid.

 

Unfortunately, the time for half measures has long since passed.  If Congress had done nothing, most Americans would have been unable to afford health insurance by 2020.  Something needed to be done.

 

The GOP has been diddling themselves for the last three years, ever since the passage of the ACA, and has yet to provide any realistic alternative. They would rather waste everyone's time and American taxpayer's dollars with political theatrics, attempting to defund the ACA 42 times. 

 

The answer is single payer.

 

Every other western government has been providing healthcare to their citizens for generations now.  So we are not talking about theoretical differences here. 

 

Let's compare private healthcare to government healthcare. 

 

All other western governments are providing healthcare to their citizens for significantly less than what American private industry can.  What's more, these government programs are providing equal or better health care outcomes (their citizens are living longer than our citizens).  

 

Who wants to pay more and get less?  Apparently a lot of poorly informed American citizens do. 



#43 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,982 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:47 PM

I am not a fan of the ACA, President Obama made a deal with the devil (the pharmaceutical and insurance industries) to get it enacted.

 

I'm all for reasonable tort reform and there is always room for improvement in things as complex as Medicare/Medicaid.

 

Unfortunately, the time for half measures has long since passed.  If Congress had done nothing, a majority of all Americans would have been unable to afford health insurance by 2020.  Something needed to be done.

 

The GOP has been diddling themselves for the last three years, ever since the passage of the ACA, and has yet to provide any realistic alternative. They would rather waste everyone's time and American taxpayer's dollars with political theatrics, attempting to defund the ACA 42 times. 

 

The answer is single payer.

 

Every other western government has been providing healthcare to their citizens for generations now.  So we are not talking about theoretical differences here. 

 

Let's compare private healthcare to government healthcare. 

 

All other western governments are providing healthcare to their citizens for significantly less than what American private industry can.  What's more, these government programs are providing equal or better health care outcomes (their citizens are living longer than our citizens).  

 

Who wants to pay more and get less?  Apparently a lot of poorly informed American citizens do. 

 

I am not a fan of the ACA either, hastily put together, and I have never seen a government program come in at or under budget.  This country doesn't have the money to fund a single payer program as long as we are the bully/police of the World.



#44 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:06 PM

I am not a fan of the ACA either, hastily put together, and I have never seen a government program come in at or under budget.  This country doesn't have the money to fund a single payer program as long as we are the bully/police of the World.

 

We definitely could afford to cut back on our military spending which is many, many times greater than our closest rival.

 

I refuse to believe every western socialist nation is capable of running their healthcare systems more efficiently than Americans could. 

 

As far as being able to afford single payer?  We already spend significantly more per capita than any other nation on healthcare. 

 

Maybe if we modeled our healthcare system after those of those more efficient socialist governments we would get similar cost savings?



#45 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,359 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:07 PM

Yeah but a bunch of black people voted which invalidates the whole process for g5 and stirs.

 

I could make a statement about you and farm animals that could be backed up with just as much as you back up your idiotic statements.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.