Obamacare
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Can we maybe not wish anyone to die?
Nah. I mean, I don't want to start up concentration camps or anything but if someone dies of an treatable medical condifion because they were unsure of how they'd be able to pay for it because they don't have insurance because they voted for the fascist that campaigned on cutting health insurance for the poor, im cool with that.
I guess that's a conversation you'll have to have with him. I only know what he says on here.
This just happened to be where I put that post. I could just as well have put it in the general politics thread, but a healthcare thread seemed more appropriate.
Hey, if you regret saying them and want to apologize or clarify then go ahead and do so. It would be a step up from what Trump does when people quote his old statements back at him - I don't think he has the mental capacity to regret, nevermind admit fault or grow.
That's, like, the opposite of healthcare.
EDIT: Wishing for people to die, that is.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Weird how you seem to think he should apologise when you're basically advocating the same thing he is, just not with the more direct terms he uses:
You both seems to be saying that you don't mind if people's bad choices come back to bite them in the ass when it comes to an issue that might kill them...
The sick and the poor came to Jesus seeking help, and Jesus told them they should have planned better.
GasBandit
Staff member
As opposed to Jesus then turning to the sick and the poor's neighbors and saying "if y'all don't pay for this guy's health care, you're going to hell!"?
And the real sad thing is that it's been proven again and again that a society is better off not letting people end in in desperate situations because they "deserved it".
Post automatically merged:
That's actually in the Bible... or did they make a camel that fits through the eye of a needle and i'm ignorant about it?
Also, wasn't there something about a poor woman giving as little as she could being more worthy then the rich giving lavishly?
Giving everything to help others was, like, one of his big things...
EDIT: Oh, and aren't you all already paying everyone's emergency care through higher prices, because they have to recoup their costs (and make a lot of profit - i mean, really, no way it's just recouping costs) of those people that can't even pay by getting their property repossessed, coz they don't have any?
GasBandit
Staff member
The important distinction is in whether that giving is "giving," as in charity... or if it is being taken in the name of charity, which then may or may not actually go to said charity.
Yes, there's really no forcing someone to give when you're just promising them eternal agony if they don't.
That's another issue, and one that's not limited to the government... you should know that, since Mega-Churches and needing a 4th private jet are a US thing...
Taxation is theft amirite?
So, I don't have time to go back and look through this thread, but did I at some point mention that I'm actually on "Obamacare"?
Of course, Arizona calls it "AHCCCS", or "Access" for short. And it's essentially considered Medicaid. But I bought it through the Healthcare.gov website, so there you go.
Of course, Arizona calls it "AHCCCS", or "Access" for short. And it's essentially considered Medicaid. But I bought it through the Healthcare.gov website, so there you go.
figmentPez
Staff member
I disagree. Hospitals still have to have a certain amount of capital to function. They may not have to build routes to consumers, but they have to have buildings, and vehicles, and equipment, and personnel, etc. If they can't make as much money as they are making now, they won't want to compete, so they'll find ways to make sure they don't. Just like the cable companies make up excuses why they shouldn't have to compete.
GasBandit
Staff member
The thing is, there's lots of fat to be trimmed in American medicine. Nobody denies that - even the hospitals know they charge way more than they "need to operate." If that wasn't true, we wouldn't be getting massive discounts for paying cash instead of going through insurance. And it definitely IS very different from having to literally create your own physical infrastructure. Yes, they don't WANT a competitive market, but the trick is creating an environment that forces competition (and punishes collusion). Because, as I said, without competition, it doesn't work. But even with competition lowering the profits, there's still plenty of wiggle room for a balance to be found.
I absolutely agree. The biggest problem is, what else? All state-run isn't a good option; most state-run with not-covered-by-insurance more expensive varieties leads to the problem you have with schools and, to a point, the UK had with hospitals. All just as non-profit private organisations means churches and similar control most of them, which undermines personal freedom - wether it's an abortion, a blood transfusion, or bigger boobs, not being able to get the medical help you need because all local hospitals are run by the same extreme church is problematic too.
They thought it was so important to get Republican support they started at a weak bargaining position to appease them and then none of them voted for it anyways.
It was Biden thinking McConnel could be reasoned with and Obama naively believing it.
Worst part is they're still acting like that's true
One of reason I've been so in favor of medicaid for all is that I did qualify for medicaid after a suicide attempt and that was one of the only times in my life I've had any help for my mental health issues. I lost it when I moved to florida bc governor rick scott declined the medicaid expansion to save the federal budget, and I fell apart again with nothing to catch me this time
We have a real big issue of privatizing services that have no right to be privatized, like prisons and juvenile detention centers. Remember that story about those judges that were sending kids to private detention centers for mild infractions because they got kickbacks from the center for every bed they filled with kids? This shouldn't be a thing. People shouldn't be profiting off holding other people in detention or confinement.
Hell, we still have some people calling for the privatization of the USPS because it's not "profitable" but it's not supposed to be profitable. It's a service that is supposed to be open to all American's and people rely on it for more then just letters and junk mail. Some old person in some small rural town gets their medication through USPS because UPS and FedEX don't find the area profitable enough to actually service, and yet some people are perfectly fine with him now suffering so the USPS can turn a profit.
I wouldn't hold my breath for MFA at this point, not unless we get a dramatic shift.
Hell, we still have some people calling for the privatization of the USPS because it's not "profitable" but it's not supposed to be profitable. It's a service that is supposed to be open to all American's and people rely on it for more then just letters and junk mail. Some old person in some small rural town gets their medication through USPS because UPS and FedEX don't find the area profitable enough to actually service, and yet some people are perfectly fine with him now suffering so the USPS can turn a profit.
I wouldn't hold my breath for MFA at this point, not unless we get a dramatic shift.
It's gotten sooo frustrating trying to explain to people why the postal service of all things should not be squeezing them for a profit. There is a propaganda war in this country that my side is losing badly
Post automatically merged:
Social media supposedly has a liberal bias but the accounts with the largest followings are conservative. Funny how that works out
It should also be mentioned that if the USPS wasn't burdened with fully vesting every employee's pension (something no other government or private institution is required to do), whether they are close to retirement or not, it would be by far the most profitable government service. Even then, it stupid to look at it in terms of profitablity: what it ACTUALLY is is a wildly successful and efficient public service that viewed very positively by the public at large. It's only Republicans looking for UPS/FedEx money that want to get rid of it.
Where are you getting your data? Outside of maybe Facebook, most social media accounts with the highest followers are very left wing. For comparison, Donald Trump's own account had 88 million followers or so when it was nuked. Barack Obama has 130 million. The rest in the top 10 are mostly left leaning celebrities.
Also, you are going in assuming every follow is legit. There are countries that have been using our social media reliance to their advantage through troll farms, places that generate thousands of fake social media accounts, steal abandoned accounts, produce cheap memes (often by just super-imposing a head or switching around some words) and then enter random threads to rant about whatever is the hot button political conspiracy theory. Considering pretty much all of these memes and rants often glorify Putin, you can probably guess the worst country that does it. They often are found padding up right wing accounts to make them look more popular then they actually are.
No data here, just anecdotal evidence from what I've seen of left and right wing media figures on twitter and youtube. Lot of lefties would kill to hit a million followers. Also I don't consider centrist lib celebrities to be lefties but that's a whole different argument
Ah yes if you mean actual lefties of the usual worldwide variety then yes they don't usually get as popular, but that just has a lot to do with demographics. People on the left don't usually wrap themselves around their politics. Politics are important to them but not the spectacle and the personality of politics. It's the opposite with people on the right, who sometimes contour their entire personalities around the political party they follow. Leftist politicians and personalities are also less likely to grift people.
Fun little fact, but Candice Owens used to be a leftist commentator who even sued one of her schools for racism. She had no following though and wasn't getting any interest, so she deleted her website and decided during the Trump ascension that she would just spout off right-wing talking points as a black woman and claim racism doesn't exist. Almost overnight she was in the grift and the voice of the black conservative movement, because she was saying all the right things to conservatives. Whether she actually believes that stuff is irrelevant.