ACA: Repeal and Delay?

[kaz]

Anecdotal stories make a terrible argument, and for good reason.

It does happen, but you have the wrong reason. The correct reason is in your story, re-read it after I explain it to you. No one doesn't work because other people do or don't get benefits. They don't work because they get more benefits for not working.

What we absolutely need to do is make sure that no one ever gets more money for not working than working. Welfare should phase out in a way that you always get more total money if you work. The problem is that we have cutoffs for welfare. I had one guy who worked for my business who every period end counted his hours to make sure he didn't exceed the cutoffs. That is flat out stupid.

Now re-read what you wrote. That is what you in your own story pointed out. They did not decide to work because of what anyone else gets, they decided to not work because they got less than if they worked. That is a rational decision, frankly. Democrats know that too, it's how they enslave the poor to vote for them. The last thing a Democrat wants is a poor person to succeed

No, you are talking about something different than what I am. If you give benefits to the poor people without children as incentives to go back to work, instead of only helping and giving benefits to those with kids, you create an environment where people who can't afford to have children do so. Plain and simple.

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

 

[Lewdog]

BTW, out of the 19 states that didn't expand Medicaid, all 19 were blocked by Republicans.

"Arizona is one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid, many of them run by Democrats. Republicans have blocked expansion in the remaining 19 states. "

Obamacare's Medicaid expansion divides Republican governors

BTW... this article is from November 2016, NOT March 2015 like the one Captain Crunch posted.

They can be said right now Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and Social Security are the death of this country… Fact

It can be said right now, your Fuhrer said he would not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or social Security if elected President... Fact

 

[Lewdog]

No, you are talking about something different than what I am. If you give benefits to the poor people without children as incentives to go back to work, instead of only helping and giving benefits to those with kids, you create an environment where people who can't afford to have children do so. Plain and simple.

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

 

[Bassman007]

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

I am the parent of two children and no one gave me that, so you are full of shit

 

[Kondor3]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Then again, that "lot of Americans" who rely upon such would never vote Republican anyway...

But apparently many did.

Coyote, are you trying to sell us on the idea that a lot of people voted for Trump, who rely upon ObamaCare?

Sorry... no sale... just not buyin' that...

 

[Lewdog]

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

I am the parent of two children and no one gave me that, so you are full of shit

You probably didn't know about it because it wasn't on Info Wars.

 

[Rustic]

BTW, out of the 19 states that didn't expand Medicaid, all 19 were blocked by Republicans.

"Arizona is one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid, many of them run by Democrats. Republicans have blocked expansion in the remaining 19 states. "

Obamacare's Medicaid expansion divides Republican governors

BTW... this article is from November 2016, NOT March 2015 like the one Captain Crunch posted.

They can be said right now Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and Social Security are the death of this country… Fact

It can be said right now, your Fuhrer said he would not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or social Security if elected President... Fact

The fact remains all of those are bankrupt, they cannot stand under their own weight. And the printed paper will run out soon…

 

[Bassman007]

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

I am the parent of two children and no one gave me that, so you are full of shit

You probably didn't know about it because it wasn't on Info Wars.

Or I am an American taxpayer and am not qualified to get free stuff, but I am qualified to pay for free stuff for other people..................

 

[kaz]

Giving out more free shit never leads to giving out less free shit ... ever ...

Yes, yes it does when you put a rule on free shit that you have to have a child to get it. Here in Kentucky it is a never ending cycle. It has changed some sense Medicaid expansion but it still happens. You have young poor people that have kids to get benefits... then they have more kids to get more benefits... then when those kids get old enough to have kids, they stay at home and have kids too. And the cycle goes on and on... with several people living in one house just having kids in order to get benefits. If you make it so that single poor people have benefits, then they won't have those kids like that, and then they will have a better opportunity to make something of themselves.

And you propose to solve the problem by giving them more welfare even if they don't have kids so they don't need to have kids to get more welfare. That's categorically ridiculous

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

I tried Googling it and the States are all so different it's hard to get a clear answer on that.

But clearly welfare recipients like everyone else make rational decisions on their own circumstance. You don't affect welfare rates or children by changing the benefits anyone else gets. You affect them by changing what they get. We need to reduce welfare abuse by affecting what they get, not what someone else does

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, and you don't get it, so at this point I'll make one last reply. Is it easier to get ahead in life with or without a child when trying to get started in life? Should a person feel compelled to have a child they can't afford just in order to get health care and food? Do you want to bring more children into a life of poverty that is a never ending cycle, or give young poor people a chance to get out of poverty? Now quit being a complete douche bag for a minute and use some unbiased reasoning skills.

You only get healthcare and food for yourself by having a child if you take it from the child. Government doesn't give you healthcare for having a child, just the child

Wrong. Parents of a child get a Medical card. they also get WIC and SNAP benefits that a single person don't get. On top of that, they go to the top of the list in HUD.

I am the parent of two children and no one gave me that, so you are full of shit

You probably didn't know about it because it wasn't on Info Wars.

Or I am an American taxpayer and am not qualified to get free stuff, but I am qualified to pay for free stuff for other people..................

Are you allowed to drive for free on state highways outside your own state?

 

[NYcarbineer]

SEVEN YEARS the GOP has had, at least, to write the replacement bill for Obamacare.

And they've got nothing.

 

[MisterBeale]

If the establishment would just deregulate the medical market, lot of poor folk could afford medical care.

The rich could use "licensed practitioners" and the poor could use those who are alternatively trained.

This is the damned information age. However, government regulation make the market artificially rigid in price structure, both in those who deliver services, for extending the patent on drugs, devices and procedure unnecessarily. If they loosened up the free market, these things would take care of themselves.


But the medical establishment, the schools, education, the professional class, etc. have such a vested interested in making health prohibitively expensive, that folks pay way more to stay healthy, and heal than is necessary.

That could be highly dangerous and a regressive move.

Why?

 

[BlueGin]

Why not make Obamacare a choice from the start? Like an opt in…
Well the reason why control freaks that are progressives can't handle people disagreeing with them… Fact

Not a fact.

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness. Otherwise there was no way the insurance companies would accept pre-existing conditions.

It's nothing to do with control freaks and not handling disagreement - jeez you guys are a one-trick pony. It's economics.

See that's the problem of the whole concept of paying into a pool… Deadbeats only benefit from it by abusing it.
I will never pay into a pool for anything it's a rotten concept made to fail… Fact

If you are in an insurance pool....

Do you really want to be the one with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills?

I don't worry about what might happen, ultimately that's out of my control. But insurance/single payer or whatever you want to call it will not stop Shit from happening. So you can take your nanny state and shove it up your ass if you want to. I just soon I have nothing to do with the nanny state. It's not my style

Very true...it will not prevent you from getting bone cancer

But it will pay for a million dollars in treatment to save your miserable life

Only if Medicare deems your treatment as "medically necessary". Otherwise it's out of pocket.

 

[BlueGin]

Hey numbnuts, how many states with Republican Govenors took advantage of Medicaid expansion under the ACA?

Plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/medicaid-expansion-in-red-states.html

Wrong, did you even read what you linked? That's an OP piece...

As Red States Balk, Medicaid Expansion Stops At 31 States

And citizens from all states can purchase insurance on the federal exchange. Remember...it went to the Supreme Court .

 

[Lewdog]

Hey numbnuts, how many states with Republican Govenors took advantage of Medicaid expansion under the ACA?

Plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/medicaid-expansion-in-red-states.html

Wrong, did you even read what you linked? That's an OP piece...

As Red States Balk, Medicaid Expansion Stops At 31 States

And citizens from all states can purchase insurance on the federal exchange. Remember...it went to the Supreme Court .

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion to the poor?

 

[BlueGin]

Hey numbnuts, how many states with Republican Govenors took advantage of Medicaid expansion under the ACA?

Plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/medicaid-expansion-in-red-states.html

Wrong, did you even read what you linked? That's an OP piece...

As Red States Balk, Medicaid Expansion Stops At 31 States

And citizens from all states can purchase insurance on the federal exchange. Remember...it went to the Supreme Court .

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion to the poor?

Means they can purchase an alternative plan with a gov subsidy on the federal exchange. They aren't limited to their own state Medicare/caid coverage. So why you Libs still whining about it.

 

[Lewdog]

Hey numbnuts, how many states with Republican Govenors took advantage of Medicaid expansion under the ACA?

Plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/medicaid-expansion-in-red-states.html

Wrong, did you even read what you linked? That's an OP piece...

As Red States Balk, Medicaid Expansion Stops At 31 States

And citizens from all states can purchase insurance on the federal exchange. Remember...it went to the Supreme Court .

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion to the poor?

Means they can purchase an alternative plan with a gov subsidy on the federal exchange. They aren't limited to their own state Medicare/caid coverage. So why you Libs still whining about it.

Sigh...no it doesn't mean that. Jesus, why do you think there is still so many uninsured people in states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion? Because they don't have the internet or something? GTFO...

 

[BlueGin]

Plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/medicaid-expansion-in-red-states.html

Wrong, did you even read what you linked? That's an OP piece...

As Red States Balk, Medicaid Expansion Stops At 31 States

And citizens from all states can purchase insurance on the federal exchange. Remember...it went to the Supreme Court .

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion to the poor?

Means they can purchase an alternative plan with a gov subsidy on the federal exchange. They aren't limited to their own state Medicare/caid coverage. So why you Libs still whining about it.

Sigh...no it doesn't mean that. Jesus, why do you think there is still so many uninsured people in states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion? Because they don't have the internet or something? GTFO...

Must be why people in NM have coverage with Insurers based out of Utah and Texas to name two. And why a huge North Carolina insurance carrier is partnering with a NM based provider to learn their Medicare/caid model.

You GTFO.

 

[Coyote]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Then again, that "lot of Americans" who rely upon such would never vote Republican anyway...

But apparently many did.

Coyote, are you trying to sell us on the idea that a lot of people voted for Trump, who rely upon ObamaCare?

Sorry... no sale... just not buyin' that...

For sure some are.

Trump voters didn’t take him literally on Obamacare. Oops?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Then again, that "lot of Americans" who rely upon such would never vote Republican anyway...

But apparently many did.

Coyote, are you trying to sell us on the idea that a lot of people voted for Trump, who rely upon ObamaCare?

Sorry... no sale... just not buyin' that...

For sure some are.

Trump voters didn’t take him literally on Obamacare. Oops?

You look long enough you can find anyone with a stance....much like WAPO did.

Obamacare is imploding upon itself...as predicted it would. Kill it