Obamacare more expensive

[EmmieJ]

I still stand by this. When I see teens in public school hanging out and compare that with groups of homeschool kids, there is no question the homeschoolers are more mature.

That's all I have time for right now.

I'm going to steal (and modify) a line from Dan Ackroyd: Jericho, you ignorant ass!

[desertvixen]

I find it interesting that those who want 'smaller government' are usually the same ones lobbying for control over people's personal lives.

This. Especially since enforcement is rarely cheap.

Plus, on the whole question of healthcare or military spending, the two play into each other. Less people have died in this conflict than others due to advances in medicine, but many more have also come home with health needs related to that war -not just the mental, but also things like amputees, burn victims. Those treatments aren't cheap either.

[dairyfreelife]

To those interested and posting random things about Obama's Affordable Care Act, you can read the bill and about the Act at the following two websites.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/ ... e-overview

Not breaking links because they are government websites.

[mirele]

My sister hates Obama and Obamacare...but you know what? She damn well took advantage of it when it passed and plopped my ne'er do well nephew back on her insurance. And when he OD'ed again and had to go back into the hospital and then into long-term treatment, it certainly wasn't my sister footing the bill.

I'd call her out on her hypocrisy, but I'm the mean sister who walked out when I wouldn't continue arguing with her about the Occupy movement.

[Austin]

My sister hates Obama and Obamacare...but you know what? She damn well took advantage of it when it passed and plopped my ne'er do well nephew back on her insurance. And when he OD'ed again and had to go back into the hospital and then into long-term treatment, it certainly wasn't my sister footing the bill.

I'd call her out on her hypocrisy, but I'm the mean sister who walked out when I wouldn't continue arguing with her about the Occupy movement.

Oh, I've found out about so many people who do nothing but bitch about the ACA but slapped their 24-year-olds on it the first day they were able. The hypocrisy of it is stunning sometimes.

[Nothing2CHere]

I think the government getting out of healthcare would be the most efficient. Let capitalism do its work.

Healthcare should not be treated as a commodity to be purchased solely by those who have the means in order to profit the providers.

[Boltingmadonna]

Nothing2CHere said:

Healthcare should not be treated as a commodity to be purchased solely by those who have the means in order to profit the providers.

Amen. FlorenceHamilton is also correct. Here's how for-profit health insurance "helps" everybody: the ideal for the insurers is to collect as big a premium as possible and pay NOTHING. So you get dumping of the chronically ill and those with potentially expensive conditions, plus giving legitimate subscribers a runaround of denial and non-payment of services they have a right to, in the hope that maybe they'll just die before they can collect. Not all insurance companies are like this--primarily thanks to that ol' debbil, government regulation and oversight!

Here's another question for Jericho, should he ever return: how much are you willing to pay to help the needy, as you claim you want to? If you're afraid to tell us what you actually contribute each month, give us a figure you think would be reasonable for someone of your income level. I have asthma. I picked up ONE medication last week and paid 165 dollars for a month's supply. Asthma is one of the biggest problems for poor kids these days. Are you willing to pick up the tab monthly for even one medication, for one person? If not, how do you think charity is going to provide for those kids? I think you're really just saying you expect someone else to take care of it. Do you remember what Jesus said to the rich young man? "Go and sell what you have, and give it to the poor. Then come and follow me." Well, how 'bout it--are you going to sell your possessions and give away the money? Why quote the Book of Proverbs--Old Testament--and fail to obey the words of Jesus, who is supposedly your personal savior, Lord, and King?

Also, FYI, I could not help but notice that you incorrectly referred to the Nobel Prize as the "noble prize." Also, you spoke of "spending money to obviation." That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

transitive verb. : to anticipate and prevent (as a situation) or make unnecessary (as an action)

Heck yes, I think spending money to anticipate and prevent poor health care, and to make it unnecessary, would be a great idea! But I don't think you meant that. When you said "you" were homeschooling your children, did you really mean that? Or did you mean that your wife is doing it, while you lure heathen women on the internet to give you the spanking you are too embarrassed to ask for IRL? I suggest you take your head out of your ass and get some larnin' before you mess up those poor kids' minds.

And finally, Boogalou, I love you. :dance:

[formergothardite]

You know, if Jericho really came here to snark on fundies, you would have think he would have done so by now. I'm kind of thinking that was a lie.

[lovefromgirl]

Why? Fox news is a mainstream news source. If you want to start nitpicking sources you could find fault with practically any source.

I am leery of Fox as a news organisation. Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll have heard of the things other Murdoch-owned "news" sources have done to obtain their "news". I get my news these days from NPR, the BBC, the Economist, the Guardian... you know, places that aren't mouthpieces for the far-right or the far-left AND haven't had any major integrity issues lately.

[lovefromgirl]

Taking an aside from the merits of public heath care- about which I could wax lyrical for days- the article linked by the OP was actually misleading (shocking for Fox News, I know). The revised CBO numbers, when taken in their entirety, actually show the health care bill will reduce the deficit by an additional $50 billion.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ezra-klein

Annnnnd that's what I mean. Thank you, naysayersspeak. <3

[lexiloumarie]

When does Obamacare start?

How much do we have to suck up? $5 trillion more debt in 3 years! Something has to give.

A few factors. Start with the idea that when Bush came into office we had a surplus so we can't blame any of this on Clinton. If his economic policies were that shitty, they would have exploded before the 8 years were up. (See Bush's final year in office for reference)

1.)

You're in a recession, so income will go down commercially, privately, publicly, etc. Let's work with a scenario, purely hypothetical. If 10% of the middle class lost jobs, and/or took pay cuts that dropped them out of their current income group during the recession that's 10% of a higher tax bracket not paying as much into the budget. In fact they may not be paying anything in if were considered unemployable. Now stretch that across all tax brackets. Add in a tax cut on the highest of the earners.

2.) War goes from only supplemental budgets, to the main book keeping so that all those little 101.9 billion bills start adding up.

[Soldevi]

Ah, the good old 'it's the same for all the European countries' and 'socialism is communism' Jericho.

[emmiedahl]

You cannot blame or reward a president for economic problems in most cases. It is a lot more complicated than that. A president definitely can wipe out an economy or conversely help it to grow, but in general they are not the holders of the keys to the economy. I don't really blame Bush for the economy any more than I blame Obama. Because the things that happened would have happened with almost anyone in office. Similar with Clinton, he came in on an upswing and failed to fuck it up, good for him I suppose but he does not deserve a lot of credit.

Wars add up to a lot more expense than health care. As long as we can afford to kill innocent people, we can afford to give children their shots and diabetics their insulin. Socialized health care would be cheaper than "Obamacare" but the Republicans will never let it happen. Own it, Republicans. You wanted a hybrid system so your insurance companies could continue to make millions/billions off the system. Now you whine that it is too expensive, but it is only expensive because of all the profiteering. The only way to make it cheaper and to also cover everyone is to completely socialize it.

[oscar]

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate everyone with knowledge and expertise who's provided their perspective in this thread.

[formergothardite]

I'm betting that Jericho will not come back to this thread, but when he does come back, it won't be to snark on fundies. Of course, he might come back to this thread to tell us all how busy he has been and how killing people is way more important that making sure people have health care.

[Witsec1]

He also never explained how the government stomps out all the little non-profits.

Of course, he doesn't even need to form a non-profit organization to raise money for his neighbor's health care.

[emmiedahl]

He never responded to my suggestion that he get together with his church and make that private charity happen by giving the poor in his community a livable amount of money so welfare is unnecessary.

[Sola]

He never responded to my suggestion that he get together with his church and make that private charity happen by giving the poor in his community a livable amount of money so welfare is unnecessary.

I suspect he is too busy starting his private charity which will feed all the poor to reply to you Emmie :lol: