Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Probably. And the left will let them have it. As long as they get their cut on the flip side.After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
My health insurance career started in june, 1966, one month before Medicare took effect. It took over 15 years for the Right to quite ranting about how we are all going to live in a communist world, and that it would go broke within 12 months.
i am prepared to hear the same song and dance for another 15 years under universal health coverage.
So, what's next, after health care?
Oh, I suppose that the Right will then demand another generation of fighters at $400 million each with which to blow our enemies up as they drive around the desert in their 1993 Nissan pickup trucks.
Probably. And the left will let them have it. As long as they get their cut on the flip side.Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
My health insurance career started in june, 1966, one month before Medicare took effect. It took over 15 years for the Right to quite ranting about how we are all going to live in a communist world, and that it would go broke within 12 months.
i am prepared to hear the same song and dance for another 15 years under universal health coverage.
So, what's next, after health care?
Oh, I suppose that the Right will then demand another generation of fighters at $400 million each with which to blow our enemies up as they drive around the desert in their 1993 Nissan pickup trucks.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to admit that it's just two sides of the same coin. Why do you think the feds want health care so badly? Do you think, just maybe, that centralized control of health care could come in handy militarily?
Probably. And the left will let them have it. As long as they get their cut on the flip side.To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
My health insurance career started in june, 1966, one month before Medicare took effect. It took over 15 years for the Right to quite ranting about how we are all going to live in a communist world, and that it would go broke within 12 months.
i am prepared to hear the same song and dance for another 15 years under universal health coverage.
So, what's next, after health care?
Oh, I suppose that the Right will then demand another generation of fighters at $400 million each with which to blow our enemies up as they drive around the desert in their 1993 Nissan pickup trucks.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to admit that it's just two sides of the same coin. Why do you think the feds want health care so badly? Do you think, just maybe, that centralized control of health care could come in handy militarily?
Absolutely, Black. It is all a conspiracy, just like flourinated water.....
You have serious comprehension probs
So, what you are saying is that if we repeal ACA, liberal will claim that we will have death panels. That is pretty confusing because I clearly remember Palin claiming that if we PASS ACA, we will have death panels......
So, what you are saying is that if we repeal ACA, liberals will claim that we will have death panels. That is pretty confusing because I clearly remember Palin claiming that if we PASS ACA, we will have death panels......
So, what you are saying is that if we repeal ACA, liberals will claim that we will have death panels. That is pretty confusing because I clearly remember Palin claiming that if we PASS ACA, we will have death panels......
Nah.. you didn't get the joke! It's mocking the panicked claims of Democrats that people will be dying in the streets(!) if we don't let them take over health care.
So, tell me, Blackie, just where is this free medical care and RX that you and the Right keep talking about? i would love to know just who they are and how I can contact them, because, my life, is, in fact, being shortened for lack of RX insurance.
So, what you are saying is that if we repeal ACA, liberals will claim that we will have death panels. That is pretty confusing because I clearly remember Palin claiming that if we PASS ACA, we will have death panels......
Nah.. you didn't get the joke! It's mocking the panicked claims of Democrats that people will be dying in the streets(!) if we don't let them take over health care.
Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.
I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.
It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.
You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.
Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.
Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).
I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.
As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.
And, yet, as I said before, every industrialized country on earth has some form of universal health care and not ONE of them has EVER discarded it to adopt our insurance model, which leaves millions uninsured, and burdens our employers with the lion's share of the cost of group health insurance, which makes them noncompetitive in the world marketplace. Ford, for example, has spent more per car manufactured in America on employee health insurance, than they spend on steel, since 1977. In spite of that, the RW can't seem to understand why manufacturers are moving jobs to other nations as fast as possible.
It's not failed dum dum. Why do you think people are desperate to fight for it. White wingers hate Obama, not healthcare. And he's gone.What's been happening is that the GOP has been sabotaging it. They own it now.Obamacare is dead, it failed. Hopefully the GOP will come up with something better. It would be nice if the dems helped, but they wont because its all about party and they don't give a shit about the American people.
If, ObamaCare was so Bad, why couldn't the right, with nothing but repeal, repeal it? Just being worth less, in the non-porn sector?
If, ObamaCare was so Bad, why couldn't the right, with nothing but repeal, repeal it? Just being worth less, in the non-porn sector?
Republicans have conservatives who are ant to reign in government control and icost of health care and allow people to attain it through private insurance. They believe in a competitive market to drive down premium cost with the individual seeking health care the latitude to choose the kind of care that fits with their situation that they can actually USE, rather than a one size fits all option.
Republican moderates want to expand Medicare and government involvement in healthcare, they are more aligned with the ACA mandate and government dictating the kind of insurance everyone will carry. Moderates are more closely aligned with Democrats than Conservatives.. As long as EVERY Republican (moderate and conservative) are demanding their wish list views of Health Care be accepted, and every Republican must vote for the same plan, those two extremes within the party will never come to a mutual agreement and concession towards a bill.
I have lost patience with you guys who are dead set in favor of repealing ACA, and replacing it with a health insurance system which NOBODY thinks is better than ACA. What I see is sour grapes, not solutions. The solution is what i have been saying for years. Universal health coverage, based on the Medicare model.
I have lost patience with you guys who are dead set in favor of repealing ACA, and replacing it with a health insurance system which NOBODY thinks is better than ACA. What I see is sour grapes, not solutions. The solution is what i have been saying for years. Universal health coverage, based on the Medicare model.
Your plan would result in a system like the VA for all of us. Think about that-----------------is that what you really want?
