I'd Like To Ask Our Left Leaning Friends Here A Question.

[Reagan]

If obamacare is so good -- then why after it was passed, obama issued an executive order EXEMPTING Congress and all of their staffers from this new law??

[Hagar]

14 minutes ago, Reagan said:

If obamacare is so good -- then why after it was passed, obama issued an executive order EXEMPTING Congress and all of their staffers from this new law??

Imo, that's the smoking gun.  

Which brings my question.  If Trump issued an executive order reversing Obama's, and Congress & Staffers were put on Obama Care, how would Congress vote then?  I wonder?

[Englebert]

24 minutes ago, Reagan said:

If obamacare is so good -- then why after it was passed, obama issued an executive order EXEMPTING Congress and all of their staffers from this new law??

I've heard commentators asking the Obamacare supporters if Obamacare is so good, why is it so unpopular. Their answers basically all say the same thing...because the American people are so stupid we have to tell them what is good for them. It is unpopular because of the messaging...and Republican obstructionism (when Democrats owned both Houses and the White House).

I've heard supporters of Obamacare say Congress was exempted because they already have good healthcare. Obamacare is designed for the poor and those that couldn't get healthcare otherwise, therefore is not needed for Congress and their staffers. It is one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard. We should repeal Obamacare and then require all that voted for it that you now must get your healthcare through the non-existent exchange. That would be karma at it's finest.

[Remmus]

Obamacare ain't for everybody.  It was to cover the gap between those that have good employee sponsored care and those that don't.  Some of these people are the hard working minimum wage crowd, also students (who now can stay on their parent's plan...I love this), and some that had crappy plans and wanted to shop around (typically contract workers).  Of course when everyone got insurance, the surge of claims didn't tie out with the current level of rates ...rates went up.  Employer sponsored plans run by the private sector is not the answer.  There's too many getting the shaft that get left out in the cold and rely on emergency room care.  I've previously said the biggest issue with getting a public run plan is the huge fear over another entitlement that will of course raise taxes.  We all know the 1%-ers have been hell bent on not paying a nickle more for the greater good of the society...even to fix roads and bridges.  They want to cut from social programs to pay for everything.

This is about ideology and not healthcare.  Conservatives don't want to be responsible for anyone else's problems.  There is real evidence that enabling bad decisions with a federal program makes things worse.  On the flip side, we need ditch diggers, waitresses, and so on.  Not everyone in society will make it to the middle class or above.  Is all about the type of country we want to live in.  We need to find the right mixture of personal accountability and fairness.

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Obamacare ain't for everybody.  It was to cover the gap between those that have good employee sponsored care and those that don't.  Some of these people are the hard working minimum wage crowd, also students (who now can stay on their parent's plan...I love this), and some that had crappy plans and wanted to shop around (typically contract workers).  Of course when everyone got insurance, the surge of claims didn't tie out with the current level of rates ...rates went up.  Employer sponsored plans run by the private sector is not the answer.  There's too many getting the shaft that get left out in the cold and rely on emergency room care.  I've previously said the biggest issue with getting a public run plan is the huge fear over another entitlement that will of course raise taxes.  We all know the 1%-ers have been hell bent on not paying a nickle more for the greater good of the society...even to fix roads and bridges.  They want to cut from social programs to pay for everything.

This is about ideology and not healthcare.  Conservatives don't want to be responsible for anyone else's problems.  There is real evidence that enabling bad decisions with a federal program makes things worse.  On the flip side, we need ditch diggers, waitresses, and so on.  Not everyone in society will make it to the middle class or above.  Is all about the type of country we want to live in.  We need to find the right mixture of personal accountability and fairness.

That statement is utterly bogus. The 1% are hell bent on getting their taxes lowered because they pay the most and are the target of the Left. They do work hard to have tax deductions carved out for them because the Left works so hard to confiscate their wealth through taxes, unless they contribute large sums to the Democrat politician (and thus the carve out). If they didn't fight back, they would go broke trying to pay their taxes. A simplified tax code could solve this. They are also very charitable with their time and account for paying the most taxes and account for giving the most to charities. I'm not sure why Liberals have such hate for the rich (and successful), but the hate is prevalent. I guess it might be labeled as "extreme envy".

[77]

If it aint odd enough for the people that make the laws and are supposed to work in our best interest it aint good enough for me and my family period! 

[Remmus]

21 minutes ago, Englebert said:

That statement is utterly bogus. The 1% are hell bent on getting their taxes lowered because they pay the most and are the target of the Left. They do work hard to have tax deductions carved out for them because the Left works so hard to confiscate their wealth through taxes, unless they contribute large sums to the Democrat politician (and thus the carve out). If they didn't fight back, they would go broke trying to pay their taxes. A simplified tax code could solve this. They are also very charitable with their time and account for paying the most taxes and account for giving the most to charities. I'm not sure why Liberals have such hate for the rich (and successful), but the hate is prevalent. I guess it might be labeled as "extreme envy".

Some of that wealth comes on the backs of everyone else.  I don't dislike the ultra rich, but there used to be a time in this country where the wealthy paid their share (World War II).  

So kill off all the social programs and entitlements and base it on inefficiency or whatever you want, that scenario helps the rich more than anyone else. 

[stevenash]

Hmmm- Sounds to me like you want one police department and a single payer healthcare plan.  But, of course, you are a CENTRIST!!!!

[Englebert]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Some of that wealth comes on the backs of everyone else.  I don't dislike the ultra rich, but there used to be a time in this country where the wealthy paid their share (World War II).  

So kill off all the social programs and entitlements and base it on inefficiency or whatever you want, that scenario helps the rich more than anyone else. 

If the rich people wanted to kill off social programs, those programs would be gone.

What is your definition of fair share? If you pay no taxes, are you paying your fair share? Let's get a definition of fair share, because every Liberal and/or Democrat has never been able to answer that question when posed to them.

[Remmus]

3 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Hmmm- Sounds to me like you want one police department and a single payer healthcare plan.  But, of course, you are a CENTRIST!!!!

Don't want marshal law, but also don't want 5 different PD's handing out tickets on the same road.  We have that in my area.  Seems inefficient and a money grab.  single payer health is about not trusting the private sector to put patient health over profits.  

[Remmus]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

If the rich people wanted to kill off social programs, those programs would be gone.

What is your definition of fair share? If you pay no taxes, are you paying your fair share? Let's get a definition of fair share, because every Liberal and/or Democrat has never been able to answer that question when posed to them.

Hey, wealth redistribution sucks if you don't qualify...lol  That is socialism.  No arguments here.  Use that money to pay for things that benefit all, not to fatten up a tax return for someone that barely worked.

[stevenash]

13 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Hey, wealth redistribution sucks if you don't qualify...lol  That is socialism.  No arguments here.  Use that money to pay for things that benefit all, not to fatten up a tax return for someone that barely worked.

Please give me the names of two or three socialist countries that arent on the verge of insolvency and afford the underprivileged better circumstances than the United States.

[PhatMack19]

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

This is about ideology and not healthcare.  

My family's health insurance when from a PPO for $450 a month with a $3,000 deductible to a HMO that no one takes for $1300 a month with a $12k deductible.  

That's not ideology, that's lunacy!  Small businesses are being destroyed by this law.  I will pay the fine this year for the 2nd time unless Trump does something to fix it.  

[PhatMack19]

My sister is a doctor.  She finished her residency in May and took over a clinic that is affiliated with one of the local hospitals.  Obamacare is not accepting new doctors into the system even though older doctors are dropping out like flies.  If she has an Obamacare patient, she has to do all of her orders under a Dr from the hospital that was previously signed up.  

 

If the goal is truly getting everyone health care, then why would they not accept new doctors?  More patients and less doctors just doesn't math to me.  Maybe I just don't get the ideology.  

[stevenash]

28 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

My sister is a doctor.  She finished her residency in May and took over a clinic that is affiliated with one of the local hospitals.  Obamacare is not accepting new doctors into the system even though older doctors are dropping out like flies.  If she has an Obamacare patient, she has to do all of her orders under a Dr from the hospital that was previously signed up.  

 

If the goal is truly getting everyone health care, then why would they not accept new doctors?  More patients and less doctors just doesn't math to me.  Maybe I just don't get the ideology.  

I am sure you will be told by the left that the plan is too detailed and intricate for you to understand and you should just accept it because their intentions are so "pure".

[BS Wildcats]

7 hours ago, stevenash said:

I am sure you will be told by the left that the plan is too detailed and intricate for you to understand and you should just accept it because their intentions are so "pure".

Big girl could help, you know she's a nurse and we're all stupid.

[77]

designed to collapse the system so they (left) can install single payer and it would have worked if clinton would have won but guess what!

[stevenash]

Rem- Your theory that the profit motive is the problem with healthcare is, from my perspective, way off base.  It is the profit motive that has lead to most of the discoveries of life saving and life extending medicines/treatments rather than the product of government involvement.  The VA is a sterling example of what happens when the government is the major player in the healthcare business, or for that matter, just about any other business.  Competition is the best hope for cost control rather than a bloated bureaucracy accountable to nobody.  I have stated this before but since you are new to the board, will restate again.  In 1991, 1 GB of flash memory cost $45,000. Today, a phone with 64GB of flash memory can be purchased for $99 plus a two year contract.  Rest TOTALLY ASSURED that this was accomplished by the public and NOT by the government.  If I have a doctor/nurse taking care of me, I want them compensated well enough to do their job well and I want the pharmaceutical companies to make enough profit to allow them to do as much R&D as possible for the sake of my offspring.  Government is not the answer.

[Remmus]

22 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Rem- Your theory that the profit motive is the problem with healthcare is, from my perspective, way off base.  It is the profit motive that has lead to most of the discoveries of life saving and life extending medicines/treatments rather than the product of government involvement.  The VA is a sterling example of what happens when the government is the major player in the healthcare business, or for that matter, just about any other business.  Competition is the best hope for cost control rather than a bloated bureaucracy accountable to nobody.  I have stated this before but since you are new to the board, will restate again.  In 1991, 1 GB of flash memory cost $45,000. Today, a phone with 64GB of flash memory can be purchased for $99 plus a two year contract.  Rest TOTALLY ASSURED that this was accomplished by the public and NOT by the government.  If I have a doctor/nurse taking care of me, I want them compensated well enough to do their job well and I want the pharmaceutical companies to make enough profit to allow them to do as much R&D as possible for the sake of my offspring.  Government is not the answer.

Neither is private players.  I also stated that a lot this research is sponsored by the NIH as well.  Most conservatives distrust government at all costs and tend to overly trust capitalism.  Capitalism doesn't have an answer for every scenario unless you want the USA to look more like Brazil.  There you have gated off section of "haves" and vast amounts of slums with "have nots."  

[stevenash]

Capitalism doesn't have the answer for every scenario?  I agree.  But government is the ABSOLUTE  WORST BUSINESS MANAGER that ever existed and its goal ought to be less involvement rather than more.  The collective wisdom of the private markets in solving issues is far greater than that of a bloated bureaucracy that is under no obligation to compete/perform.  Greece is a great example of where the government has been over involved in all aspects of public life.   Brazil?  How does it look versus Venezuela?  I would submit to you that private enterprise has considerably more to do with the advancement of this country in the last 200 years than government does.  Let me know how the citizenry has benefitted from a couple of stalwarts such as the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.  After that, let me know why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis.  Then I would like to know why the U.S. Postal Service has defaulted on its debt several times and how Solyndra benefitted this country.  Following that, I would like to know if the fiscal methods of Detroit are, in your "Centrist" opinion, desireable ones.

[Remmus]

There we go with EXTREME statements.  Absolute worst has been indoctrinated into conservatives heads like all corporations are evil are drilled into the heads of liberals.

Lets not go into the laundry list of evil private sector ventures.  Read Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer if you haven't already.  Private and Public "interests" are more tied in this country than many believe.

The Department of Education is too liberal, but is necessary because some areas will choke out schools in certain areas when there's no supervision.  

[stevenash]

58 minutes ago, Remmus said:

There we go with EXTREME statements.  Absolute worst has been indoctrinated into conservatives heads like all corporations are evil are drilled into the heads of liberals.

Lets not go into the laundry list of evil private sector ventures.  Read Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer if you haven't already.  Private and Public "interests" are more tied in this country than many believe.

The Department of Education is too liberal, but is necessary because some areas will choke out schools in certain areas when there's no supervision.  

Yea, right.  The individual states are certainly incapable of dealing with such issues.  For the record, I needed no indoctrination to see how incompetent the Federal Government is when it comes to business matters.  If my statement is extreme, it would be easy to counter by giving me a list of business successes that involve the Federal Government.

[stevenash]

You are obviously one of those who believes that every ill experienced by this country has a solution that is tied to another tax and another bureaucrat.  So much for Centrism.

[Tigers2010]

13 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

My family's health insurance when from a PPO for $450 a month with a $3,000 deductible to a HMO that no one takes for $1300 a month with a $12k deductible.  

That's not ideology, that's lunacy!  Small businesses are being destroyed by this law.  I will pay the fine this year for the 2nd time unless Trump does something to fix it.  

Dear Lord, have you been looking at my life. This is the exact situation I am in. Paying the penalty and praying it works out. Obamacare has been an outright death sentence. Those that can't see that are likely those who haven't pulled their weight from the get go. I do not feel bad for not wanting to pay more to cover those who go without. Like I said before, I work very hard to keep my family afloat, and the bums that refuse to do anything keep wanting to take a little more and a little more.

There is a reason that the disgrace of a president gave them the exemptions. It was because he knew it was garbage. When this country stops rewarding laziness and down right criminal behavior with money and benefits from the members of society who actually contribute, maybe things will turn around. 

[stevenash]

Come on Rem- tell Tigers2010 that, in spite of what he has gone through, it is worth it because it is for the "common good "and if the government says it is good, it is and it is high time that he finally pay his "fair share".  ( at least that is until "free college" makes it to the forefront again at which time his "fair share" is insufficient and he needs to pay more)