ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[GreecePwns]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

[Night Strike]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

[GreecePwns]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

[Night Strike]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it is not the agenda that Phattscotty believe he is supporting, but if what he asks for were implemented, that would very much be the result.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you think corporations and special interests would have more control than they have now? I think I would point out, again, that you really don't know anything about the beliefs of the Tea Party.

The one thing supposedly uniting the Tea Party is lower taxes and smaller government. The problems of today are only going to get worse with less oversight.

Per my "not knowing anything about the Tea Party".. how can anyone, when there are no true beliefs of the Tea Party, just a bunch of different people who use the title for their own ends.

[PLAYER57832]

i definitely recall you talking about how the political spectrum has shifted to the right over recent years. my apologies if i misinterpreted what you said. but who says i'm trying to avoid discussion? if i don't respond to a post it could be for any number of reasons.

You have only to compare Ronald Reagan's views to George W. Bush or any of the current Republican "spokespeople" to see that things have shifted right in many areas.

The one exception is race. Even very ardent conservatives now embrace what would be a highly liberal (or communist) position about race back in the 50's or 60's.

A "perhaps" exception is homosexuality... most younger voters of any "stripe" are less afraid of homosexuality than older folks. However, that does not necessarily mean they are fully in favor of homosexual marriage (there is a "push back").

Another exception is probably the environment. Many of you have grown up when recycling, water conservation and pollution were "non issues". That was not always the case by any means. Also, business people are generally not stupid and are not going to ignore something that will save money just because it helps the environment. But, a lot of what is claimed to be "for the environment" is really just exloitation, not truly helpful (I mean the thousands of "green" and "natural" products.. some are great, but definitely not all).

The environmental left, in turn has changed to realize that making money is not a terrible thing, either. Communes might be "fun" when you are young, in your twenties, but after a while you start to just want "your own stuff". (etc). (yes.. definitely stereotyping, but I have more than a little experience with the folks). People are only willing to sacrafice when they really, really must. Making money, however, is something most people will get into and if it also helps the environment.. great!

The biggest change that has happened, however in the past 20 years is an extreme polarization that IS much more evidenced by the right. Folks like Newt (not that he is really a leader any longer) thrived by NOT listening, NOT working with anyone who disagreed. There truly was a time when senators, etc of the different parties would fight over policies, but then socialize "in the evening", would all help each other's families when needed, etc. Now.. that doesn't happen as much. These things go in cycles, and I believe the pendulum is swinging back a bit. However, those waving the Tea Party "flag" want nothing of it.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

No one is claiming that the recent bill is the end all to get all. It was a compromise, a minor improvement over what we have.

However, if, as you claim it was such a "boon" to the insurance companies, why did they object so vociferously.

The major beneifts of the law are that insurance companies can no longer exclude children with pre-existing conditions and soon will not be able to exclude adults. This requirement that they cover everyone means that they will no longer be able to dump the most expensive people onto taxpayer programs, as they have in the past.

Ultimately, we need a truly universal coverage systems mirrored after one of the European systems. But as long as people like you go into apoplexia at anything that even halfway tinges of "socialism", refusing to even consider the details.. we will be stuck with a program designed for insurance profits.

[GreecePwns]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

No one is claiming that the recent bill is the end all to get all. It was a compromise, a minor improvement over what we have.

However, if, as you claim it was such a "boon" to the insurance companies, why did they object so vociferously.

They objected when the real left* tried to do something about the fact that said insurance companies wrote the vast majority of it.

*Not the artificial one known as mainstream Democrats. This includes only a select few (Kucinich, Weiner, and Sanders come to mind)

[PLAYER57832]

No one is claiming that the recent bill is the end all to get all. It was a compromise, a minor improvement over what we have.

However, if, as you claim it was such a "boon" to the insurance companies, why did they object so vociferously.

They objected when the real left* tried to do something about the fact that said insurance companies wrote the vast majority of it.

*Not the artificial one known as mainstream Democrats. This includes only a select few (Kucinich, Weiner, and Sanders come to mind)

My point all along (completely aside from anything the Democrats may or may not have said) is that this bill will offer a small improvement. That is all. It is not a true fix, but as I noted, at least my kids will be able to leave Medicare (well, we will keep them on technically "in case", but the insurance will pick up the vast majority of their costs) when we get insurance. And, at least my husband and I will be able to be truly insured in 2012, not paying the full price for what will be mostly just trauma coverage (virtually everything else will be excluded by the insurance companies).

[PLAYER57832]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Your right to make money ends when it means you get to push anyone really needing insurance onto the taxpayers... and are able to leave millions with no coverage at all because it doesn't suit your profit motive.

You have the right to sell food for a profit. You do not have the right to lock up your store and refuse to sell food to any but the wealthy because they will pay you what you want to get.. and let everyone else starve.

More to the point, you don't have the right to form exclusive buying clubs that only allow a select few in and then leave everyone else out there to buy only the most expensive leavings that the cooperative rejects... and make no mistake, a profitable buying cooperative is much more akin to what insurance companies do than anything really free market.

[Phatscotty]

I'm fine with exceptions to corporate welfare. The less they get from this corporatist screed, the better.

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Your right to make money ends when it means you get to push anyone really needing insurance onto the taxpayers... and are able to leave millions with no coverage at all because it doesn't suit your profit motive.

You have the right to sell food for a profit. You do not have the right to lock up your store and refuse to sell food to any but the wealthy because they will pay you what you want to get.. and let everyone else starve.

More to the point, you don't have the right to form exclusive buying clubs that only allow a select few in and then leave everyone else out there to buy only the most expensive leavings that the cooperative rejects... and make no mistake, a profitable buying cooperative is much more akin to what insurance companies do than anything really free market.

In other words

[PLAYER57832]

The exception IS the corporate welfare.

The ACA is the corporate welfare. Forcing people to participate in purchasing something where a public option isn't the only choice is a form of corporate welfare.

Agreed with that as well. So the law is corporate welfare to the insurance companies (even while the democrats verbally vilify them) while the exceptions are corporate welfare to Obama's friends.

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Your right to make money ends when it means you get to push anyone really needing insurance onto the taxpayers... and are able to leave millions with no coverage at all because it doesn't suit your profit motive.

You have the right to sell food for a profit. You do not have the right to lock up your store and refuse to sell food to any but the wealthy because they will pay you what you want to get.. and let everyone else starve.

More to the point, you don't have the right to form exclusive buying clubs that only allow a select few in and then leave everyone else out there to buy only the most expensive leavings that the cooperative rejects... and make no mistake, a profitable buying cooperative is much more akin to what insurance companies do than anything really free market.

In other words

If you believe that says rights for individuals over corporations, then sure.

[mpjh]

OH, lookie, they got a second amendment solution also.

[Phatscotty]

OH, lookie, they got a second amendment solution also.

Only in the military

[Phatscotty]

Look at who and how many entities are going to get a free pass. Do healthcare reform supporters still support this. I don't think this is what they had in mind.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3189489

That picture aligns very well with Player's disregard for private property rights.


+1 Phatscotty

[GreecePwns]

Oh yeah, anyone who supports the ACA supports corporate welfare all around. This is exactly what they had in mind.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3189489

That picture aligns very well with Player's disregard for private property rights.


+1 Phatscotty

Really?

So, according to you the idea that workers ought to be able to make enough to eat, put a basic roof over their head and get healthcare means I "don't appreciate private property???"

And here I thought slavery was outlawed years ago!

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3189489

That picture aligns very well with Player's disregard for private property rights.


+1 Phatscotty

Really?

So, according to you the idea that workers ought to be able to make enough to eat, put a basic roof over their head and get healthcare means I "don't appreciate private property???"

And here I thought slavery was outlawed years ago!

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

Your right to make money ends when it means you get to push anyone really needing insurance onto the taxpayers... and are able to leave millions with no coverage at all because it doesn't suit your profit motive.

You have the right to sell food for a profit. You do not have the right to lock up your store and refuse to sell food to any but the wealthy because they will pay you what you want to get.. and let everyone else starve.

More to the point, you don't have the right to form exclusive buying clubs that only allow a select few in and then leave everyone else out there to buy only the most expensive leavings that the cooperative rejects... and make no mistake, a profitable buying cooperative is much more akin to what insurance companies do than anything really free market.

[Metsfanmax]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

[Timminz]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

[Metsfanmax]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Why? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't buy a car. If you don't want to pay health insurance, kill yourself.

[john9blue]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Why? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't buy a car. If you don't want to pay health insurance, kill yourself.

if you don't want to pay struck by a meteorite insurance, then hit yourself on the head with a rock.
if you don't want to pay being set on fire insurance, then light yourself on fire.
if you don't want to pay owing john money insurance, then give me $100 a week.
i like this game

[mpjh]

if the insurance company refuses to treat your disease -- after you purchase it it good faith anticipating approval -- shoot the insurance executive

[Metsfanmax]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Why? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't buy a car. If you don't want to pay health insurance, kill yourself.

if you don't want to pay struck by a meteorite insurance, then hit yourself on the head with a rock.
if you don't want to pay being set on fire insurance, then light yourself on fire.
if you don't want to pay owing john money insurance, then give me $100 a week.
i like this game

Those forms of insurance are fundamentally different from automobile insurance or health insurance, which are fundamentally similar. To understand this, consider that car insurance is not required for car owners because the state wants you to be able to pay for repairs to your car if you damage it; rather, it is required so that if you damage someone else's car while driving, they are not left unable to pay for their car, or left with higher premiums. Similarly, we don't require health insurance so that you can opt to get medical care if you get sick (although it is a fortunate side effect); we require it because those who become sick and are not treated are a financial drag on everyone else (the effects of the uninsured being treated in hospitals and not paying for their treatment have been well documented). Fire insurance, for example, only protects you from damages that can be incurred upon you, and your purchase of fire insurance for your home does not directly protect other people.