What is the real reason GOP hates the Affordable Care Act

Absolutely correct.

End taxpayer subsidies of employer based health insurance, and corporate America will chase everyone to the insurance market.

And those people won't want to deal with the arbitrary behavior of the industry.

They'll demand regulation, or better yet, the Public Option.

 

Name one Federal program that is bankrupt.

 

You know what I mean. Over budget, facing fiscal crisis, cut backs and rate increases, money printing to pay for it etc.. You know full well what I mean, don't get technical. How is Medicaid doing? Way over budget? Gobbling up more resources then education? Go fix your current problems and get back to me, don't expand them.How is Medicare? Taking more then ever? Facing fiscal doom? Just like Social Security?

 

I'm not sure how you can spin 50,000,000 uninsured Americans living longer into its being because of their lack of coverage, but you can certainly try if your ideological dogma compels you to.

The US, with the highest health care cost on the planet, ranks 35th in longevity, and is obviously surpassed by many nations where everyone is covered at far lower cost.

Why do you believe innovation in American medical research would suffer if the $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy to the privileged were ended, but funding of the National Institutes of Health that issues grants for promising projects and studies continued? Do you want to strangle medical research in America as well as allowing tens of millions to go uninsured whilst others are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer?


.

 

I suggest you do a little research on health care in the modern countries. Most conservatives seem to rely on blogs and Fox Noise for their understanding of what goes on outside their bubble.

In every civilized country with some sort of universal care, life expectancy is longer.

You can find statistics that suggest the survivor rates for cancer are slightly higher in the US than for most European countries (but lower than France), but the diffrence is not significant, unless you take cost into account.

In all of these countries the cost of health care is less than half of what we pay, both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.

The US may not lag in medical innovation, but procedures like in vitro fertilization, laser eye surgery and open heart surgery were not pioneered in the United States.

And since all of these innovations came from countries with single payer systems, it's pretty obvious that medical research did not stop because there was only one funding source. For that matter, much of the medical research done in the US today is funded by the NIH (the government).


(Conservatives and conservative politicians regularly parrot Heritage positions, and Heritage talking points are nearly always at the center of right wing media.)
"Stop trying to shift blame, Obamacare is all on you."

That was a strage non sequiter. You claimed that the Heritage Foundation didn't speak for the GOP. I replied that for the most part they often do.

Your response was a non sequiter.

I would love to see you prove that health insurance evolved into a non competative opigopoly because of government regulation. This ought to be good.

 

Longevity isnt a good measurement. Docs can make you say no to crack rocks. Survivor rates are what I am talking about. You know the difference, don't dodge.

 

Survival = longevity. Since most of those who survive life-threatening maladies are the elderly, you make an excellent case for the government-run coverage that demographic enjoys universally. Let's incrementally lower the age eligibility to extend inclusion to progressively lower risk groups, and the cost will progressively diminish!

And I had thought that you were a silly hardcore ideologue that wanted to throw money at the problem by perpetuating a $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy to a shrinking elite amidst skyrocketing costs!

 

That's funny because in my last post I claimed that the ACA is the republican idea of universal healthcare, whereas self payor is the liberal idea! Don't want to try to prove me wrong, huh? Is that because you realize you can't and your attempts will expose you as not being able to.........therefore its just much more convenient to not even try?

 

Uggh....free market healthcare is what Republican health care looks like. Maybe with a NIT like Friedman, maybe a voucher like Ryan. But market economics, with cash/voucher aid to people who can't afford it maybe. That is right wing(ish) and Republican. This ACA things is a full on disaster of central planning, and every Democrat in Congress passed it and then went around parading like a dumb ass:

View attachment 25154

No doubt though that commie medicine, the nationalized version you want, is a left wing idea for sure. Just further all the way left.

 

Maybe they knew it would fail and be a complete waste of time and money. What sane person would like something like that?

 

So, explain this?

View attachment 25158
View attachment 25159

 

Well, if it's anything like nursing school, we have a shortage of qualified candidates. The tax comment is kind of amusing as progressives DEMAND they pay more. You forgot about malpractice insurance which is probably more than their student loans.

 

Maybe the doctors should demand the millionaire moguls above pay their fair share.

Like I said, sucks to be a doctor. Most doctors are financially incompetent to begin with.

 

Well, I haven't heard many doctors complain about anything other than government compensation for payment.

/chuckle I haven't had any experience with financially incompetent doctors. Probably the opposite every case.

 

Uh, no, they do not.

You have choices. And there are variations in those choices depending on what insurance company you're dealing with.

I don't know where you got that notion.

But, speaking as someone who has shopped the exchange and the private market extensivly in the last month, talked to brokers and bought coverage, I can tell you unequivocably that they are not all the same.

 

Can I quote any left of center organization and claim it is the position of all the left even when they all vote against it and have many reasons not to like it?

This projection makes me know that you know obamacare is a (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

And of course there is a key difference between Romneycare and Obamacare: Romneycare was a state law. Obamacare is a federal law requiring the purchase of a product. I don't like any government regulating inactivity, much less the federal government.

 

There's this thing called "freedom".

O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MACare killed that.

You should read the Constituiton of the United States some day. If you ever do, you'll be sure to realize that O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MACare is in direct violation of many parts of the Constituiton.

If you're honest.

As a general rule, NO ONE who claims O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MACare is "great" is honest.

 

Looks like fascism.

Government doesn't get to define what responsibilities individuals may choose to carry...and ONLY individuals are capable of being "responsible".

Government doesn't get to "mandate" that any particular "responsibility" be acted upon by any individual.

ONLY fascists want government to boss people around like that. If a free man wishes to abjure health insurance, that's his problem. If he gets sick and dies because he's no insured, that's his problem.

OUR problem is that fascists want to steal money from people responsible enough to buy their own insurance to take care of the useless (*)(*)(*)(*)s that won't buy their own. Guess how much authority the government has to perform that fascist act? That's right, NONE.

What's that, you say? Oh, you're falsely using the "general welfare" clause as if it was a specific power of the Congress.

1) It's not.

2) If two or more people are robbed by the government, or even just one, to provide health care funding for a person who refused to buy his own coverage, then the "greater good" is served by letting the freeloader die, thereby allowing the useful people to keep the money they worked hard to earn. Keeping a working man happy while letting a freeloader die, at the incredibly painful expense of LIMITING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT...well, everyone that matters profits from that.

And just th....er. feel, the other freeloaders get an amazingly valuable free lesson when one of their own dies at the gates of the hospital becuase he was too cheap to pay for his insurance.

 

Yeah, that is a real problem for cons in America, they have to be here with a government they don't like doing things to them they don't like.

 

But gov. does define your responsibilities and mandate what you will do with them. It is called law, they been doing it for a long time.

 

And they choose who they want to allow to obey their laws by their political leanings.
Example the healthcare law says that unions must pay into the system also through fees. But however cause their donations and political cheerleading for Obama he gave them a free pass. Cause of their political leanings there were exempt from the law.
This is not how the law should be. We all should be threat the same in the eyes of the law no matter how we vote.

 

You should talk to a libertarian some time. The Mayor would set you straight.

When the government passes laws defining responsibilities, it's acting unlawfully. It's not the government's job to make those definitions.

Responsibilities and duties are only those when the individual accepts them as personal obligations. Otherwise, it's an intrusive unjust tax.

 

None of my points were "exaggerated or imaginary" You are like Obama and believe one size fit all - just like one policy fits all. The fact a single male with an individual policy MUST have maternity benefits (and that is why his policy was cancelled_ shows the arrogance of Democrats and why they will pay dearly for Obamacare in November

- - - Updated - - -

Please book your reservation at Fantasy Island and let us know how it goes

Anytime the government gets involved the cost soars and the taxpayers get screwed

 

Given the fact Democrats have bellowed for years that the profit has to be taken of health care may be a factor in people not wanting to take the rick of becoming a Doctor.

Why invest in the education, renting an office, hiring staff, purchasing medical equipment - when you not allowed to set your own prices so you can pay your expenses and make a profit/ Serving the "common good" will not cut it and for some reason liberals are shocked over the opposition from people who refuse to work for nothing