A sitting President

[Dan Drives a Van]

From one person to another. People who oppose it are labeled haters and greedy. Help me understand why it is "greed or hate" to want to keep the money you have earned but not "greed or envy" to want to take someone else's money to pay for something that they don't have.

You're right too. Why should I support someone else's healthcare? I don't have cancer or debilitating diseases.

This is why I'm also opposed to paying for public schools. Why should I pay my own money I earned so a bunch of kids who never worked a day in their life can learn?

It's all just a liberal scheme to redistribute knowledge.

[slag]

Not that I want to get into this, but your experience doesn't represent the entire impact of the ACA.

I haven't formed a complete opinion on this, but I know some conservatives who are happy about the impact of the law on them personally and some from the left side who aren't.

[CbEagle]

As opposed to subsidized dairy, poultry, oil, wheat, soybeans, coal, pork, beef, pharmaceuticals, transportation, all to make the general public pay higher prices to pay for all of those industries. Get a little smarter before you post.

[slag]

I want subsidies for fried oreos.

[Dim Bulb]

Agree

Not that I want to get into this, but your experience doesn't represent the entire impact of the ACA.

I haven't formed a complete opinion on this, but I know some conservatives who are happy about the impact of the law on them personally and some from the left side who aren't.

My sister, a raving liberal, got slammed on the ACA. And, as I said, my friends at the big drug company are rubbing their hands in glee and giggling like schoolgirls. As I have said many times, they couldn't care less who controls Congress and the White House, they win either way.

Re, redistribution: Let's not forget phone service. Those of us in cities are subsidizing people in Nebraska getting phone service through the government forcing phone companies to provide service everywhere through PUCs. The rat bastard socialist commies, why should Huskers have phones?

[Riccardo]

Yep there are positives and negatives, like any other program

People without insurance now covered is a good thing, deadbeat kids being covered until 26 a good thing, people not getting tossed due to pre-existing conditions a good thing, people tossed from plans/docs they liked a bad thing, people paying more/higher deductibles a bad thing, people previously without insurance now on medicaid - healthcare and healthwise - probably a wash.

[Riccardo]

Speaking of raving libs, this was amusing

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us...ulty.html?_r=0

[Raptor]

Don't forget...

as a swear word. Well done. Forgot about that one.

You might want to read up on who benefits from the ACA and who supported it. That's right, insurance companies and drug companies. And they contribute to whom? Oh, that's right, Congresspeople. And those Congresspeople vote by majority for legislation that you didn't like.

So instead of following the money and spewing hate at a payola scheme out of control aided and abetted by both parties and the Supreme Court, it's easier to blame "liberals" for anything you don't like. Rained on your birthday? Liberals. Cat had kittens? Freaking liberals. Mass shooting in Kuala Lumpur? Terrorist liberals. They brought the wrong wallpaper? Yup, paperhanging fascist liberals.

And you could do the reverse for rabid leftists too, blaming conservatives for everything that goes wrong. We just got to get off this bus.

DB

..the Congress that passed this plan, isn't required to be on it. They have thier own plan which will coverv them until the day they die.

[McCarthy12]

Saw that. Pretty funny. Rules for thee but not for me! I agree with your take on Obamacare. Definitely some pluses and minuses. The sad part, to me anyway, is that, as Dimmy said, the insurance companies win either way.

How do you:
1. Take care of the poor, elderly, vets;
2. Have healthcare available for as many other people as possible;
3. Keep prices and timelines for care as reasonable as possible; and
4. Ensure that doctors are compensated enough so that bright people still want to be doctors.

That should be the goal, IMO. I don't know the best way to do it, though. I'm not sure the free market, with the current state of insurance, accomplishes this. I think the US is too big to have an effective single payer system.

[Dim Bulb]

Bwahaaa....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us...ulty.html?_r=0

Pinheads arguing about pinpricks.

[Raptor]

Exactly....

Saw that. Pretty funny. Rules for thee but not for me! I agree with your take on Obamacare. Definitely some pluses and minuses. The sad part, to me anyway, is that, as Dimmy said, the insurance companies win either way.

How do you:
1. Take care of the poor, elderly, vets;
2. Have healthcare available for as many other people as possible;
3. Keep prices and timelines for care as reasonable as possible; and
4. Ensure that doctors are compensated enough so that bright people still want to be doctors.

That should be the goal, IMO. I don't know the best way to do it, though. I'm not sure the free market, with the current state of insurance, accomplishes this. I think the US is too big to have an effective single payer system.

...talking to several brokers while shopping for a plan for my company, all told me the plan had "good" intentions but has been so compromised going through the system it ended up being a larger mess.

Didn't matter either way the insurance companies were insulated from any outcomes.

Like you and Ric mentioned is has is perks and pitfalls but it's a Frankenstein of a setup.

[Raptor]

Or Eagles tickets...

I want subsidies for fried oreos.

Particularly the PSLs.

[Dim Bulb]

My personal bias shows

Saw that. Pretty funny. Rules for thee but not for me! I agree with your take on Obamacare. Definitely some pluses and minuses. The sad part, to me anyway, is that, as Dimmy said, the insurance companies win either way.

How do you:
1. Take care of the poor, elderly, vets;
2. Have healthcare available for as many other people as possible;
3. Keep prices and timelines for care as reasonable as possible; and
4. Ensure that doctors are compensated enough so that bright people still want to be doctors.

That should be the goal, IMO. I don't know the best way to do it, though. I'm not sure the free market, with the current state of insurance, accomplishes this. I think the US is too big to have an effective single payer system.

I don't think there can ever be a free market in health care, the insurance and drug companies won't let there be one. They have to keep that insurance control over your health care, it's basically them rationing what care you can get, and it isn't driven by your needs, it is driven by the companies' economics.

Basically, I mean even without ACA, you don't have the ability to make free market decisions, because there is no free market. I think the question then became (prior to ACA), who do you trust more? The government or Blue Cross or Merck? All of them are controlling your choices. Bad choices all around, if you asked me. Which you didn't.

[Dim Bulb]

Don't sweat it OB

just for being so fucking full of hate.

It must really be terrible to be you.

The only book he's ever read is The Protocols of the Elders of Badass Liberals.

[CbEagle]

Thats a platform I can get behind, mmmmmm f'in good