Republican bill stops funding to states issuing DL's to illegals

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If the feds start using it for extortion, the courts would never put up with that.

They did with the 21 year drinking age

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Free markets work best for everything.

Free markets was some guy who never went to Medical School calling himself a doctor and selling cocaine laced snake oil.

View attachment 307073

Free markets do not mean anarchy. You still have to become a certified MD and when you do you should be able to charge what you want. With plastic surgery and lasik, insurance doesn’t cover it, free markets dictate price and it works great. You’re an absolute uneducated moron.

 

[Rigby5]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

Legal immigrants are provided the opportunity just like everyone else to obtain a drivers license.

The OP specifically called out illegal immigrants and drivers licenses. But you already knew that and simply chose to shift the topic to legal immigrants and driver’s licenses.

What does legal status have to do with driver's licenses that are supposed to be about safety?
What about a tourist who does not want citizenship, but just wants to be able to rent a car here and drive, for the years they are visiting?
Are you going to deny them a US driver's license while a legal resident because they are undocumented as far as citizenship?

 

[Indeependent]

Republican bill stops funding to states issuing DL's to illegals

And it has no chance of passing

With holding federal funding would be illegal because it is actually state money anyway, that the feds were not even legally justified in taking in the first place. The only way it has gotten through the courts is because the feds give most of the tax money they withhold back again to the states, equitably. If the feds start using it for extortion, the courts would never put up with that.
Clearly traffic is under state jurisdiction and the feds have none.

Could you step and stop NY from taking Income Taxes?

States have the legal authority to impose income tax, but it is not clear the feds do.
There was no federal income tax until 1909, and it is still very questionable if federal income tax is legal.
{...
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3,
...}
If the feds are just taxing so that they can then control the states by with holding funds, that clearly would be illegal.
The states pre-exist the federal government, so the federal government really can not legally control the states except in the explicit ways the states gave federal authority over them in the Constitution.

They tax us up to cover up their pilfering.

 

[Indeependent]

Free markets work best for everything.

Free markets was some guy who never went to Medical School calling himself a doctor and selling cocaine laced snake oil.

View attachment 307073

Which is harder than ever to do since the ACA automated every move they make.

 

[Rigby5]

Commie Care was not sabotaged by anybody. The commies had complete control over it. They put out this BS that it didn't work because of the Republicans because even they knew it was a complete failure. Every Republican voted against it, and it still passed. So how in the world can you say that Republicans sabotaged it when they couldn't even stop it?

The problem was, even though the ACA was THEIR idea, they were the ones who threatened to filibuster it if it included a public option or a Medicare Buy in, either of which would have fixed most of the problems. The fact the Democrats were burdened with guys like Jim Webb and Joe Lieberjew (who only thinks the Zionist Entity should have health care paid for by Americans,not actual Americans), who kept these options off the table in the Senate version.

But this STILL could have been fixed in the conference, had not Ted Kennedy passed away.

Utter bull. It was never "our" idea. Just because some organization wrote about it, and some loser RINO governor instituted it in his state doesn't make it OUR idea. The Republicans knew they were going to lose on the Commie Care vote, so they tried to dilute it as much as possible. Had they not, it would have been even more destructive than it already is today.

No, ACA is mandated private health insurance, almost exactly the same as states mandating auto insurance.
It is an extremely conservative and right wing position.
And in fact it came from right wing sources.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

Legal immigrants are provided the opportunity just like everyone else to obtain a drivers license.

The OP specifically called out illegal immigrants and drivers licenses. But you already knew that and simply chose to shift the topic to legal immigrants and driver’s licenses.

What does legal status have to do with driver's licenses that are supposed to be about safety?
What about a tourist who does not want citizenship, but just wants to be able to rent a car here and drive, for the years they are visiting?
Are you going to deny them a US driver's license while a legal resident because they are undocumented as far as citizenship?

Unless you’re here legally such as a travel visa, work visa, green card, etc. you do not have the right to get a drivers license. Period. End of story.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Commie Care was not sabotaged by anybody. The commies had complete control over it. They put out this BS that it didn't work because of the Republicans because even they knew it was a complete failure. Every Republican voted against it, and it still passed. So how in the world can you say that Republicans sabotaged it when they couldn't even stop it?

The problem was, even though the ACA was THEIR idea, they were the ones who threatened to filibuster it if it included a public option or a Medicare Buy in, either of which would have fixed most of the problems. The fact the Democrats were burdened with guys like Jim Webb and Joe Lieberjew (who only thinks the Zionist Entity should have health care paid for by Americans,not actual Americans), who kept these options off the table in the Senate version.

But this STILL could have been fixed in the conference, had not Ted Kennedy passed away.

Utter bull. It was never "our" idea. Just because some organization wrote about it, and some loser RINO governor instituted it in his state doesn't make it OUR idea. The Republicans knew they were going to lose on the Commie Care vote, so they tried to dilute it as much as possible. Had they not, it would have been even more destructive than it already is today.

No, ACA is mandated private health insurance, almost exactly the same as states mandating auto insurance.
It is an extremely conservative and right wing position.
And in fact it came from right wing sources.

ACA was put in place to force healthy people to pay for the sick. If you don’t want to drive and want to Uber everywhere you don’t have to have auto insurance. Your conflation is false.

 

[Rigby5]

You are severely misinformed. The only insurance companies that have to deal with Commie Care or it's requirements are those that join the system. I have several preexisting conditions. No other company has to take me except those companies that signed onto Commie Care.

Commie Care did not reduce costs to anybody except those who get a taxpayer government subsidy. They increased dramatically.

So let me get this straight. YOu are complaining because no regular insurance company would take you due to your pre-existing conditions, except the ones who are in the ACA, and you are whining about that.

Do you think anyone would take you if there was no ACA?

Well I had health insurance my entire adult life until the day Commie Care started. Yes, they did and would take me.

Almost no one had health insurance until after 1957, and health insurance is a totally impractical, unfair, expensive, and and illegal way to deal with health care.
With health insurance, the wealthy get tax breaks to subsidize their health care, while the poor get nothing.

But ACA greatly increased the health care access for everyone, as well as reducing the cost to everyone.
Anyone who claims ACA reduced their health care is confused or not telling the truth.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow, you buy into all the right wing lies.

First, malpractice is only a SMALL slice of medical costs. In fact, total costs of malpractice expenses, including both insurance and "preventive medicine" (I.E. taking the extra step so you don't cut off the wrong fucking leg) is all of 55 Billion a year out of a 3 Trillion Health Care industry, or about 2.4%. Taking away people's right to seek redress against medical incompetence (96,000 Americans a year die from medical mistakes, you think they are all faking it?)

Britian also has universal health care.. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

And in your article, they state it was written by people at Harvard, a very left wing institute who I'm sure is behind socialized medical care.

Defensive medicine is a very large contributor to the rise of healthcare costs in the United States. DefensiveMedicine.org cites surveys that estimate defensive medicine adds costs of up to $850 billion annually in the United States. It may contribute as much as 34% of the annual healthcare costs in the United States.

Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs

• Medical malpractice insurance varies greatly based on location and specialty. Insurance premiums for obstetricians/gynecologists in New York were as high as $215,000 in 2017 while in California they were just under $50,000.
• Male physicians are also more likely to be sued than female doctors. About 40 percent of male doctors have been sued during their careers while almost 23 percent of female doctors have been sued. Just over 20 percent of male doctors had more than one suit filed against them while just under 10 percent of female doctors were sued more than once.

Coverage can also affect medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors who want more coverage for multiple practices will pay more, as will physicians who need coverage across state lines. The malpractice insurance cost by specialty will also vary. Some specialties, such as orthopedic surgeries, are considered higher risk for insurance carriers, and premiums will reflect this.

How Much Does Medical Malpractice Insurance Cost?

Again, quality for SOME people, not everyone, and that's the problem. I've got mine fuck you might work for your house or car, but it shouldn't work for our health care.

The only way to reduce the waste of medical malpractice costs, is to have more government oversight to prevent malpractice.
The cause of high medical malpractice insurance is a history of poor performance by doctors.
Obviously doctors in private practice will always be guilty of making mistakes.
However, if you have them working for agencies like the VA, that is greatly reduced because they work more in teams.

How would government prevent malpractice? Can you explain that to me?

If you were a carpenter, and worked on government homes making 15 bucks an hour while private companies paid their carpenters 25 bucks an hour, why would you stay unless nobody in the private market wanted to hire you? The only reason you'd stay is because you don't meet the standards of the private market. It's the same thing with medical care.

A good physician is not going to work for half of the money they could otherwise make working somewhere else. They are inferior to private healthcare facilities otherwise they would choose to work there. A team of bad doctors is no different than one bad doctor. The "team" at the VA that wanted to change my fathers prescriptions would have killed him. Thank God my father still had his senses to get a second opinion at the Clinic, otherwise he would not be here with us today.

That is easy.
When you have a profit motive, it is like having medical practitioners working on commission.
The more work they do and the faster they do it, the more they make.
That is bound to cause more accidents and mistakes.
Which a government health care program, there is no profit motive or incentive, so then doctors are not tempted by greed to take on too much or do it too quickly.
They are salaried instead, and therefore can work more safely and there is a larger staff to oversee their work, so that they do not make as many mistakes.
The government also then can self insure, so there are no payments to an insurance company that skims profits, from malpractice insurance.

Most medical practitioners do NOT like private for profit practice.
They are forced to meet quotas that reduce their quality of care.
The quality of private for profit practice is much lower than you claim, and the corporations that own the hospitals are extremely corrupt and greedy.

The only reason more do not go to the VA instead is that the VA just is not hiring.
They do not need more doctors.
Most doctors are NOT motivated by money.
They just have no choice because the big medical corporations now own all the hospitals and insurance companies. So there is no alternative. It is a monopoly.

As for your example with the VA, you have no proof of what the private practitioner claimed.
What the VA wanted to prescribe may have even been better.
You have no way of knowing.

But if there were private insurance companies, all health care providers would be getting paid about half as much, so then there would be no difference between all medical pay, including private vs VA.
So then the skill levels would be equal.

You might like that little make believe world, but it's not reality. There is nothing government is in charge of that's a long term success. Can you name me one government entity that government is in charge of that doesn't have a world of problems?

If we allowed them to takeover our healthcare, we are slaves to them. They can tell us how much we can weigh, what we are not allowed to eat, what we can smoke if we can smoke, how much we have to exercise etc, etc. If you don't think that would ever happen, guess again.

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

That is both unfair and inaccurate.
There is no country that bans anyone from acessing health care by law.
But the US does ban access to health care, by costs.

In Japan and under the NHS you are not banned from health care, no matter what you do.
The reality is you simply are not prioritized if you deliberately harm your health.
And that is as it should be.
Those who deliberately harm their health in this country, cost all those who also pay into the same insurance pool as well.
So in this country, those who deliberately harm their health care are in effect stealing from everyone else.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm all for making it cheaper to become a doctor. We should provide scholarships to promising medical students.

Only 11% of Britons have supplemental health insurance.

England : International Health Care System Profiles

British people are happier with their health care system than we are with ours.

They do? N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

If we change the 14th Amendment, improve our immigration laws and deport the majority of the illegals here, give doctors a 10% tax rate for their first 30 years of practice I would support UH. Otherwise it would never work here due to costs and likely doctor shortages.

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

I presume you have taken all the hard science courses require of a medical doctor.

Those questions are in the fields of sociology and economic, not medicine.
Immigrants pay into taxes and medical costs, while taking out less than citizens do.
Illegal immigrants simply do not and can not get any medical access except the ER, which they still have to pay for.
Clearly the main obstacle to more doctors is how much it costs to become a doctor.

They lower wages which causes Americans to need social welfare.

While in theory large groups of immigrant could lower wages, but that has actually never happened.
Instead, immigrants have always increased wages because they produce more than they take, and they boost the economy in general, adding to all facets of the economy as consumers.
We sell them food, charge them rent, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Look at what I wrote again.
No where do I say that you said anything at all.
A lot of people are critical of ACA because they lost their old doctors, and the main point I was making is that they are wrong to blame ACA.
ACA had nothing to do with it.
It was not ACA that prevented people from keeping their old doctors, it was their insurance companies deliberately trying to harm people in retaliation for ACA.

So why would insurance companies, who got in on this deal with Commie Care, want to sabotage their very own advantage?

I signed up for Commie Care when my employer (like so many others) dropped that benefit for their employees. My provider is the Cleveland Clinic. Commie Care only offered one company that would allow me to continue that care I've had for my entire life; one plan.

The deal was, they wanted slightly less than one third of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible, a 7K out of pocket, a $50.00 doctor copay, no dental and no prescription coverage. Basically yes, I could keep my doctor and facility, but I wouldn't have enough to live on when you include the cost of my medication they didn't cover.

So it's a lie that Commie Care was going to let you keep your doctors and facility at a reasonable cost. One third of net pay every month is not reasonable, especially when you have to get run over by a bus to use the damn policy.

That is silly.
Before ACA, the average cost of health care insurance was about $1200/month for a family, the deductible was $10k, $10k out of pocket, and $100 copay. Almost no insurance ever covered dental or prescriptions.
So clearly ACA cut costs almost in half.
Which is why insurance companies do not like ACA.
They also dislike that they have to take pre-existing conditions.

ACA had nothing at all to do with the changes private insurance companies decided on their own to impose.

Insurance never covered prescriptions?!
Are you high or just stupid?

That is right.
Before ACA prescriptions were not covered by insurance.
That is why so many went to Canada to get prescriptions.
You could get prescription insurance, but it was prohibitively expensive.
ACA changed that.

Without my being sarcastic, you must be a very low wage earner to never have had a plan that includes prescription coverage.

No, traditionally dental and prescriptions just were never part of employer plans.
I have always been a very high wage earner, but most of the time I worked as an independent contractor, so got no employer benefits at all. Instead I often had my own employees and offered the benefits to them.

 

[Rigby5]

If the feds start using it for extortion, the courts would never put up with that.

They did with the 21 year drinking age

Good point.
{...
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed by the United States Congress on July 17, 1984.[1][2][3] The act was a controversial bill that punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by 10 percent. The law was later amended, lowering the penalty to 8 percent from fiscal year 2012 and beyond.[4]

Despite its name, this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age, just its purchase. However, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia extended the law into an outright ban. The minimum purchase and drinking ages is a state law, and most states still permit "underage" consumption of alcohol in some circumstances. In some states, no restriction on private consumption is made, while in other states, consumption is only allowed in specific locations, in the presence of consenting and supervising family members, as in the states of Colorado, Maryland, Montana, New York, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The act also does not seek to criminalize alcohol consumption during religious occasions (e.g. communion wines, Kiddush).

The act was expressly upheld as constitutional in 1987 by the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole.
...}

But there is a slight difference, in that one can claim that a higher drinking age caused more accidents and associated traffic costs, so then could maybe justify the federal fund withholding. But it was also not a complete withholding, but only 10%.
The feds could also claim there was a problem of people driving across state lines to drink when there was an age difference, causing even more accidents.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

Legal immigrants are provided the opportunity just like everyone else to obtain a drivers license.

The OP specifically called out illegal immigrants and drivers licenses. But you already knew that and simply chose to shift the topic to legal immigrants and driver’s licenses.

What does legal status have to do with driver's licenses that are supposed to be about safety?
What about a tourist who does not want citizenship, but just wants to be able to rent a car here and drive, for the years they are visiting?
Are you going to deny them a US driver's license while a legal resident because they are undocumented as far as citizenship?

Your argument shit the bed when you went with the tourist example. I drive in the UK and Mexico yet I don’t require a state-issued drivers license from the country I am visiting. If you are a legal documented visitor or temporary long term visitor, there is still no need for a full driver’s license. You are so concerned about safety? At a minimum, you should be pushing “documented” “legal” status.

 

[Rigby5]

Free markets work best for everything.

Free markets was some guy who never went to Medical School calling himself a doctor and selling cocaine laced snake oil.

View attachment 307073

Free markets do not mean anarchy. You still have to become a certified MD and when you do you should be able to charge what you want. With plastic surgery and lasik, insurance doesn’t cover it, free markets dictate price and it works great. You’re an absolute uneducated moron.

Yes, "free market" DOES mean "anarchy".
If there is any regulation at all, then it is NOT a free market, but a fair market.

If you have a free market and doctors are free to charge what they want, then there is no way to prevent a doctor from just lying and telling you that you are going to die unless you have an expensive operation that is totally made up.
As soon as you regulate at all what is fair and unfair, you have a fair market and not a free market.
No one should ever want a free market, and only crooks want one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They do? N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

If we change the 14th Amendment, improve our immigration laws and deport the majority of the illegals here, give doctors a 10% tax rate for their first 30 years of practice I would support UH. Otherwise it would never work here due to costs and likely doctor shortages.

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

I presume you have taken all the hard science courses require of a medical doctor.

Those questions are in the fields of sociology and economic, not medicine.
Immigrants pay into taxes and medical costs, while taking out less than citizens do.
Illegal immigrants simply do not and can not get any medical access except the ER, which they still have to pay for.
Clearly the main obstacle to more doctors is how much it costs to become a doctor.

They lower wages which causes Americans to need social welfare.

While in theory large groups of immigrant could lower wages, but that has actually never happened.
Instead, immigrants have always increased wages because they produce more than they take, and they boost the economy in general, adding to all facets of the economy as consumers.
We sell them food, charge them rent, etc.

The problem is, wages are determined by how much you can pay somebody else to do the job. So when people come here and undercut what our workers will work for, it holds American wages down. If they were not here, and the employer can't find somebody to do X job for $15.00 an hour, he or she must increase their offer. With illegals around, he can pay $10.00 an hour or less.

 

[jknowgood]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

In California and New York it automatically registers them to vote.

No!
Applying for a driver's license will also automatically start a voter registration application process, but it will NOT add people to the voter registration rolls if they are not qualified or eligible. For example, they have to be over 18, be citizens, not be felons, etc.

Not in California.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And in your article, they state it was written by people at Harvard, a very left wing institute who I'm sure is behind socialized medical care.

Defensive medicine is a very large contributor to the rise of healthcare costs in the United States. DefensiveMedicine.org cites surveys that estimate defensive medicine adds costs of up to $850 billion annually in the United States. It may contribute as much as 34% of the annual healthcare costs in the United States.

Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs

• Medical malpractice insurance varies greatly based on location and specialty. Insurance premiums for obstetricians/gynecologists in New York were as high as $215,000 in 2017 while in California they were just under $50,000.
• Male physicians are also more likely to be sued than female doctors. About 40 percent of male doctors have been sued during their careers while almost 23 percent of female doctors have been sued. Just over 20 percent of male doctors had more than one suit filed against them while just under 10 percent of female doctors were sued more than once.

Coverage can also affect medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors who want more coverage for multiple practices will pay more, as will physicians who need coverage across state lines. The malpractice insurance cost by specialty will also vary. Some specialties, such as orthopedic surgeries, are considered higher risk for insurance carriers, and premiums will reflect this.

How Much Does Medical Malpractice Insurance Cost?

The only way to reduce the waste of medical malpractice costs, is to have more government oversight to prevent malpractice.
The cause of high medical malpractice insurance is a history of poor performance by doctors.
Obviously doctors in private practice will always be guilty of making mistakes.
However, if you have them working for agencies like the VA, that is greatly reduced because they work more in teams.

How would government prevent malpractice? Can you explain that to me?

If you were a carpenter, and worked on government homes making 15 bucks an hour while private companies paid their carpenters 25 bucks an hour, why would you stay unless nobody in the private market wanted to hire you? The only reason you'd stay is because you don't meet the standards of the private market. It's the same thing with medical care.

A good physician is not going to work for half of the money they could otherwise make working somewhere else. They are inferior to private healthcare facilities otherwise they would choose to work there. A team of bad doctors is no different than one bad doctor. The "team" at the VA that wanted to change my fathers prescriptions would have killed him. Thank God my father still had his senses to get a second opinion at the Clinic, otherwise he would not be here with us today.

That is easy.
When you have a profit motive, it is like having medical practitioners working on commission.
The more work they do and the faster they do it, the more they make.
That is bound to cause more accidents and mistakes.
Which a government health care program, there is no profit motive or incentive, so then doctors are not tempted by greed to take on too much or do it too quickly.
They are salaried instead, and therefore can work more safely and there is a larger staff to oversee their work, so that they do not make as many mistakes.
The government also then can self insure, so there are no payments to an insurance company that skims profits, from malpractice insurance.

Most medical practitioners do NOT like private for profit practice.
They are forced to meet quotas that reduce their quality of care.
The quality of private for profit practice is much lower than you claim, and the corporations that own the hospitals are extremely corrupt and greedy.

The only reason more do not go to the VA instead is that the VA just is not hiring.
They do not need more doctors.
Most doctors are NOT motivated by money.
They just have no choice because the big medical corporations now own all the hospitals and insurance companies. So there is no alternative. It is a monopoly.

As for your example with the VA, you have no proof of what the private practitioner claimed.
What the VA wanted to prescribe may have even been better.
You have no way of knowing.

But if there were private insurance companies, all health care providers would be getting paid about half as much, so then there would be no difference between all medical pay, including private vs VA.
So then the skill levels would be equal.

You might like that little make believe world, but it's not reality. There is nothing government is in charge of that's a long term success. Can you name me one government entity that government is in charge of that doesn't have a world of problems?

If we allowed them to takeover our healthcare, we are slaves to them. They can tell us how much we can weigh, what we are not allowed to eat, what we can smoke if we can smoke, how much we have to exercise etc, etc. If you don't think that would ever happen, guess again.

Fat in Japan? You're breaking the law.

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

That is both unfair and inaccurate.
There is no country that bans anyone from acessing health care by law.
But the US does ban access to health care, by costs.

In Japan and under the NHS you are not banned from health care, no matter what you do.
The reality is you simply are not prioritized if you deliberately harm your health.
And that is as it should be.
Those who deliberately harm their health in this country, cost all those who also pay into the same insurance pool as well.
So in this country, those who deliberately harm their health care are in effect stealing from everyone else.

Perfect example. And what defines as harming your healthcare? What you eat, what you drink, what kind of risky activities you are involved in, how many different people you have sex with, how much you weigh.......

I don't want to live in such a society, and that's one of the reasons I'm against a total takeover by the government when it comes to healthcare. Government would be able to determine what is and what is not healthy for it's people. Isn't that kind of what we do with our household pets???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are severely misinformed. The only insurance companies that have to deal with Commie Care or it's requirements are those that join the system. I have several preexisting conditions. No other company has to take me except those companies that signed onto Commie Care.

Commie Care did not reduce costs to anybody except those who get a taxpayer government subsidy. They increased dramatically.

So let me get this straight. YOu are complaining because no regular insurance company would take you due to your pre-existing conditions, except the ones who are in the ACA, and you are whining about that.

Do you think anyone would take you if there was no ACA?

Well I had health insurance my entire adult life until the day Commie Care started. Yes, they did and would take me.

Almost no one had health insurance until after 1957, and health insurance is a totally impractical, unfair, expensive, and and illegal way to deal with health care.
With health insurance, the wealthy get tax breaks to subsidize their health care, while the poor get nothing.

But ACA greatly increased the health care access for everyone, as well as reducing the cost to everyone.
Anyone who claims ACA reduced their health care is confused or not telling the truth.

They got you hook, line, and sinker. The only objective of Commie Care was to create as many new government dependents as possible. Between Commie Care and food stamps alone, Obama was able to create over 40 million more new government dependents. It was no accident either.

Democrats need to generate new voters. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. If you think those Democrat politicians give a crap about your healthcare, you are living in a different world. Democrats never do anything without an underlying advantage for their party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Commie Care was not sabotaged by anybody. The commies had complete control over it. They put out this BS that it didn't work because of the Republicans because even they knew it was a complete failure. Every Republican voted against it, and it still passed. So how in the world can you say that Republicans sabotaged it when they couldn't even stop it?

The problem was, even though the ACA was THEIR idea, they were the ones who threatened to filibuster it if it included a public option or a Medicare Buy in, either of which would have fixed most of the problems. The fact the Democrats were burdened with guys like Jim Webb and Joe Lieberjew (who only thinks the Zionist Entity should have health care paid for by Americans,not actual Americans), who kept these options off the table in the Senate version.

But this STILL could have been fixed in the conference, had not Ted Kennedy passed away.

Utter bull. It was never "our" idea. Just because some organization wrote about it, and some loser RINO governor instituted it in his state doesn't make it OUR idea. The Republicans knew they were going to lose on the Commie Care vote, so they tried to dilute it as much as possible. Had they not, it would have been even more destructive than it already is today.

No, ACA is mandated private health insurance, almost exactly the same as states mandating auto insurance.
It is an extremely conservative and right wing position.
And in fact it came from right wing sources.

My mother never had auto insurance in her life. Neither did my grandparents. None of them ever drove a car before. So what did they want you to do if you couldn't afford insurance, commit suicide? Healthcare and driving are different in that driving is an option. You don't have to drive or get insurance to do so.