Random Politics & Religion #00

And there are even some liberals that think they're conservatives.

...

*cough*

They got the next best thing. Forcing people to pay for a service where they may not want it. Instead of letting inefficient governments dictate who they can or cannot see, the law is forcing insurance companies to dictate who they can or cannot see.

And if you get a good insurance policy? Guess what, you get penalized for it.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering...

I retired in 04, so I actually was wondering.

I've been in consistently conservative on fiscal matters and bordering on libertarian on social. Don't redefine ideologies then try to pull a no real Scotsmen on me. Hence why I call you pseudo-conservative.

That would rely on you accepting evidence for the first time ever.

Um... isn't ACA literally a copy-paste of Romneycare? And basically the same plan that Republicans had been suggesting since the mid-90s at least? The only time the RNC finally backed away from it was when someone with (D) after his name raised his hand and said, "Can we do this?"

Democrats and liberals only accepted ACA as the wedge to open the door. And, despite alarmist predictions and dire warnings, it's been a net positive. It's not nearly good enough (it's frankly disgusting), but it was the first step.

The first step in what? Adding massive taxes to healthcare plans? So much for "affordable".

Show evidence then.

What sort of metrics are you using to determine that this is a net positive?

Alarming number of doctors not accepting Medicaid/Medicare.
Alarming number of doctors who are not accepting insurance as payment.
Less practices than ever before.
No influx of new doctors to take over the older ones.
Wait time on actual procedures increased, in some cases threefold.
Medical premiums went up for most people (except those who didn't have to pay in the first place).
Overall care deteriorating.

Yeah, where's the net positive in all that again?

If you multiply the right number of negatives, you get a positive.

lrn2math

Pretty sure all of your examples are a result of a rising trend and not the fault of ACA exclusively. But, it sure is convenient that legislation goes out to deal with this problem and all of a sudden the problem is because of the legislation and not because our third party based medical system is ultimately a for-profit company instead of a needed service. ACA pretty much makes insurance providers a *** of money anyway since they were allowed to loophole away a bunch of grandfathered accounts and then reselling those accounts back to those same people through the government. The only true standard of care that it changed is the fact that we now require one instead of using ER rooms as PCPs. Ultimately, like Medicaid/care this particular system will level out and then be replaced by a better system. Republicans are just mad that the antichrist actually proposed the bill and got it passed a multitude of decades after they came up with the idea and now they want to sabotage the entire system to make it seem as if they were right.

If you need an actual example of this, look at Jindal who from day 1 began cuts on the overall budget of Louisiana's Healthcare system. Then, he goes on to refuse to open an exchange and expand medicaid/care but continues to further cuts. Now with the president offering up the idea of free community college, Jindal is on a rampage to cut Education every year while requiring that tuition go up to support the state.

I'm still trying to figure out why something that a Massachusetts governor did for his particular state is suddenly something that Republicans as a whole came up with. Regardless, it was never designed to be national, and the abomination that it has become is evidence of that.

So, is that why polls show around 40% of the nation approves of it? If liberals in large hate it as much as you say they do, they sure aren't showing it.

Are you saying that 40% of the US are liberals? Do you also not understand the difference between liberal ideology and the vast majority being moderate? Also, that statistic is incredibly variable, when people are polled on individual parts of ACA, as much as 80% are in favor, when polled using the word "Obamacare" in the exact same question, it's more like 45%. So, almost half the people polled are in favor of ACA and against Obamacare... Are they conservatives or idiots?

So the liberals hate it (according to you) but the moderates are the ones saying it's good? Maybe if your blanket statements weren't all anecdotal, I might have a clue what you're talking about. Also, nice job on spinning that 80% in there. Here are the "parts" in question:


Of course you're going to get higher numbers on individual parts of the law (that actually make sense) as opposed to the entire law, regardless of what you call it. Your statement was misleading.

You're making 2 incredible leaps in logic...

1. A large or even quantifiable number Americans are actually liberals.

2. That people polled have a clue what parts of the law are bad when their opinion is swayed simply by mentioning Obamacare.

If someone thinks ACA is sufficient, they aren't a liberal, period.

That's what you're choosing to argue me on? Weren't you just accusing me of a "No True Scotsman" on this very page?


24% of Americans self-identify as liberal according to Gallup. Are they all idiots too?

Then how are those numbers remotely incompatible?

I'm choosing to point out your continual misuse of liberal and conservative as if they are synonyms for Democrat and Republican. Moreover, people approving of ACA in a poll is only an indicator that they view it as a step in the right direction, not necessarily that it is the benchmark for radical liberalism, because it just plainly isn't.

Edit: small aside - Almost 50% of Americans identify themselves as middle class, while only about 20% actually fall in the median income range. Does it not seem odd that so many people are so wrong about who they are?

I never said it was a benchmark for radical liberalism. I'm saying it sucks. You're the one saying liberals don't like it, but you'd rather play a Jet when challenged on it as if your definition of liberal is the only one that's valid.

Why don't we just take your example and make up our own definitions of everything? From here on out, liberal means peanut butter and banana sandwich.

ACA does suck, it doesn't go far enough to be effective. It's just a bloated pile of paper that achieves a handful of useful things that could have been a much smaller bill or completely unnecessary if they'd just gone the single payer route from day one.

There are things that absolutely should not be for-profit. Access to healthcare, education, and informational broadcasting to name a few.

Well, it makes about as much sense as calling yourself a conservative* when you're for a single payer system run by a government known for its inefficiency. Hefty taxes for all! That's the "true" conservative* way! It's for your own good*!

*Definition may or may not come from Jassikipedia.

You're forgetting that if you can't make a profit doing something, it's not worth doing.

Just as things should not be for profit, people should not be forced into anything against their will.

Having free health care does not mandate your use of it.

I wasn't aware that paying taxes out the rear end for something makes it free.

Welcome to life, where the only things guaranteed are death and taxes. Should I be able to withhold my tax money if I don't agree with a war effort? No. How is this any different?

I said it was what liberals want, since you seem unsure what a liberal idea actually is. There are organizations that are private entities that aren't allowed to make a profit...




Agreed, unless you're trying to make the argument that being required to have health insurance is being forced into something against your will, because you have it even if you don't pay for it, it's a tax levied against everyone who does have it to compensate providers when you inevitably get hurt and go to the ER and can't pay. It's the billions lost every year do to medical bankruptcy, a concept literally no other country in the world can even wrap their head around.

FYI, those terrible socialist countries that have truly socialized medicine spend about half as much per capita on healthcare as we do and get better health outcomes. That's the relative cost difference between preventative care and emergency care.

I don't see why you're against war then. Death is guaranteed, and it's just funded by taxes, so it's free! You're not being forced to use it.

You're going to have to make a better strawman than that. You're obfuscating the issue by intentionally using secondary definitions on well-known concepts. If that's the capacity of your intellectual integrity, you're not worth my time.

It's just a dozen different ways to say "the social contract". If you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and move to Somalia.

You made a dumb argument and I was making a snarky comment about it. Because taxes are inevitable, I should be okay with them taxing me for anything they feel like? I already disagree with a lot of crap that my taxes go to, so preventing more of my money from coming out of my pocket for things I don't think our government can properly handle only makes sense.

You ***the bed, it's my fault. Okay.