And I think you are missing the point of the ACA. We, the tax payers, are paying for those who don't have the money, but do use the service, such as emergency rooms. So who is the leach (your term).
It is mandated so the youth will pay into a system (ponzi scheme) to pay for the services of the old. Would it not be better to have everyone set up a health savings account that they can gain interest on, use, and will to their family when they die?
Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"
I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!
That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.
Um, sales tax is a State tax and some States don't have it. Those not owning homes, probably don't pay property tax huh? So, more police are called to rich neighborhoods that poor ones? The military is used the same, how could one use it more than the other? Courts? Do you think there are more poor people in courts using free public defenders or rich people hiring their own lawyers? Do you think poor people use more public education than the rich who send their kids to private school, yet pay school tax all the same? You really think rich people use roads more than the poor who use subsidies public transportation that the rich don't?
Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"
I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!
LMAO, please, please show me these facts of yours.
You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship.
In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.
The difference here is, the government already has a standing military and collects taxes for it as per the constitution. If you don't like the war in [enter arena] then you can vote for someone who does not like war. Like when you voted for Obama, and oops, he went to war anyway. It is not as if Obama was creating a new tax to fund wars for other countries who did not want to pay for their own wars.
Its not if Obama through the IRS is saying, hey, did you donate to the war effort, no, then you get penalized!
It's no different at all. Everyone I know was born and will die in a hospital. Many of them require emergency care at some point in their lives. I guess if one can prove that one has millions of dollars in case of an auto accident or medical calamity, then it would make sense to not "force" them to buy insurance. For everyone else who couldn't afford cancer treatment or killing another motorist, insurance should be required.
Moreover, if you are really "pro life" and "Christian", you would be pro-universal health care. Children shouldn't die just be because their parents are poor, lazy, etc. Heck, Christ himself would never have turned anyone away because of an inability to pay.
The GOP loves the fetus but hates the child.
Then you know a lot of very sick people. Most of the people I know, died at home.
Your auto rhetoric does not work. Rich will pay for auto insurance anyway to protect them from other people. You don't buy healthcare to protect yourself from others. And if they require emergency care, they should pay for it or have insurance. But if I can pay for it out of pocket, why then should I have insurance? What am I insuring myself against?
Children don't have to die, they can go to the emergency care as ALL are excepted by LAW! Again, your analogy is not based in reality. I don't know any Christian, or GOPer, that hates the child, not one!
I think everyone should have access to competitive healthcare insurance, which is why I fight for allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. Then, you will see on TV them competing like that auto insurance companies do (and life, home, etc.).
LMAO, please, please show me these facts of yours.
The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.
Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.
I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.
The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.
Look it up, troll boy. The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.
Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.
I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.
The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.
A) look up what a troll is
If the US healthcare is so bad, why do people fly here from all over the world to see out doctors, including those from Canada?
Yes, our cost our out of control, but that is due to government intervention and stopping the free market as I have pointed out many times already.
Social security is billions of dollars in debt as with the medicare, hardly a success!
Now you are down to name calling? And bringing in all sorts of crazy stuff.
Then you know a lot of very sick people. Most of the people I know, died at home.
Your auto rhetoric does not work. Rich will pay for auto insurance anyway to protect them from other people. You don't buy healthcare to protect yourself from others. And if they require emergency care, they should pay for it or have insurance. But if I can pay for it out of pocket, why then should I have insurance? What am I insuring myself against?
Children don't have to die, they can go to the emergency care as ALL are excepted by LAW! Again, your analogy is not based in reality. I don't know any Christian, or GOPer, that hates the child, not one!
I think everyone should have access to competitive healthcare insurance, which is why I fight for allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. Then, you will see on TV them competing like that auto insurance companies do (and life, home, etc.).
Really? They die at home and are buried in the backyard without going to the hospital mortuary? Where do you live?
The emergency room does not provide preventative care. Nor do they clean teeth, AFAIK. In what state do you reside that people get these preventative services in the emergency room? And . . . Spoiler alert. . . We ALL pay for uninsured people who visit the ER, just like we ALL pay for those who get in accidents without auto insurance.
You really think that the ER provides pre-natal care? Immunizations for kids? Check ups?
If the US healthcare is so bad, why do people fly here from all over the world to see out doctors, including those from Canada?
Yes, our cost our out of control, but that is due to government intervention and stopping the free market as I have pointed out many times already.
Social security is billions of dollars in debt as with the medicare, hardly a success!
Now you are down to name calling? And bringing in all sorts of crazy stuff.
Thank you for the debate, all the best to you.
PLUNK!
The facts are the facts. The US is #37 in outcome and quality of care. Yes, RICH people seek out the best treatments wherever they can- Israel, Switzerland, and the US. They are not typical patients, though.
I'm sick of right wing tactics. They lost 2 elections in a landslide, the law was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It was also upheld by SCOTUS. None of this matters to the GOP, they are behaving in an anti-democratic and ultimately, anti-American way to EVERY issue.
Speaking of dumb, so what specifically is it about the Affordable Healthcare Act that you don't like?
Remember, you are calling something, most of which goes into effect today, a failure.
Before answering, keep in mind the following:
1. Polls show that people, on average, favor The Affordable Care Act, but oppose Obamacare - even though they're the same thing. Much (perhaps most) of the opposition is politically motivated.
2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.
3. In 1992, Hillary proposed a single payer health insurance plan which was basically DOA (and for good reason, IMHO). The Republicans proposed an alternative - which is essentially the same as the ACA. Why was it a good plan when the GOP proposed it, but suddenly became a terrible plan today?
4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?
It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.
Oh, and btw, I just got my new policy. The old one was $660 for my family with horrible coverage (high deductible plan with lifetime caps). The new one is $436 for far better coverage. So much for the "it's going to bankrupt American workers" argument.
Except that no one forces you to buy and iPad or iPhone or Mac. You have no choice with obamacare you will own it or be insured or be fined on your income taxes.
Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
As to complaining that they are "for profit" you don't seem to be aware of the reality.
The "reality" consists of what the legislators, led by Obama, chose to promote and that which they chose to suppress.
Healthcare premiums began skyrocketing several years ago, long before Obamacare was written (let alone enacted), because the government allowed premiums to be raised so much. Most of the high prices we face today have nothing to do with the Obamacare legislation.
You can bet the government will amend the ACA legislation if it looks like too many insurers are going to fail, so don't waste your time crying for alligators. They will be assured a handsome profit from here on out.
You neglected to mention insurers make a ton of money from people dropping off the books--the people who lost the gamble.
Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.
What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.
Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.
Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.
Except that no one forces you to buy and iPad or iPhone or Mac. You have no choice with obamacare you will own it or be insured or be fined on your income taxes.
Don't some states "force" all drivers to carry auto insurance?
Don't some states "force" all drivers to carry auto insurance?
Most states do.
You are also forced to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.
You are forced to pay taxes.
You are forced to obey posted speed limits.
You are forced to pay tolls on toll roads.
You are forced to do a lot of things. The argument that this is somehow a unique extension of government powers is a losing argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's Constitutional. If you don't like it, blame Congress - they're the ones who passed the law.
You are also forced to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.
You are forced to pay taxes.
You are forced to obey posted speed limits.
You are forced to pay tolls on toll roads.
You are forced to do a lot of things. The argument that this is somehow a unique extension of government powers is a losing argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's Constitutional. If you don't like it, blame Congress - they're the ones who passed the law.
I'm pro-ACA and pro-auto insurance. It's the only way to bring down costs and to make sure that folks are gaming the system and sticking taxpayers with their medical and/or auto accident bills.
Ironic that the while idea of the ACA was from the Heritage Society and was based on "Romneycare". I guess the right wing no longer believes in personal responsibility.
Speaking of dumb, so what specifically is it about the Affordable Healthcare Act that you don't like?
Remember, you are calling something, most of which goes into effect today, a failure.
Before answering, keep in mind the following:
1. Polls show that people, on average, favor The Affordable Care Act, but oppose Obamacare - even though they're the same thing. Much (perhaps most) of the opposition is politically motivated.
2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.
3. In 1992, Hillary proposed a single payer health insurance plan which was basically DOA (and for good reason, IMHO). The Republicans proposed an alternative - which is essentially the same as the ACA. Why was it a good plan when the GOP proposed it, but suddenly became a terrible plan today?
4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?
It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.
Oh, and btw, I just got my new policy. The old one was $660 for my family with horrible coverage (high deductible plan with lifetime caps). The new one is $436 for far better coverage. So much for the "it's going to bankrupt American workers" argument.
Spot on.
But I think that trying to convince a bunch of ill-informed wingnuts with actual facts is a somewhat pointless exercise.
Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.
What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.
Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.
Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.
Obama's comparison is a bit like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. iOS 7 has a few glitches that'll quickly be fixed. Several of the mandated deadlines for Obamacare have already been put off for a year and much of the software is likely to be buggy for many years, that is if it ever works. And with all the various governmental databases not talking to one another, its going to be riddled with fraud.
What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.
Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.
Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.
Let me get this straight. Since police unions are exempt from laws restricting usage of cell phone while driving, I guess they realize that anti-texting laws are "awful"? Since Congress is exempt from breathalyzer laws, I guess they think drunk driving laws are "awful", too? Since military personel can use fully automatic weapons and anti-aircraft weapons. . . And even nuclear weapons. . . I guess the prohibition of these items being bought by the general public is also "awful"? Congress doesn't have to take random drug tests or even pre-employment drug tests. They are therefore acknowledging that these are also "awful" laws, I guess?
Comments
Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"
I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!
That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.
Um, sales tax is a State tax and some States don't have it. Those not owning homes, probably don't pay property tax huh? So, more police are called to rich neighborhoods that poor ones? The military is used the same, how could one use it more than the other? Courts? Do you think there are more poor people in courts using free public defenders or rich people hiring their own lawyers? Do you think poor people use more public education than the rich who send their kids to private school, yet pay school tax all the same? You really think rich people use roads more than the poor who use subsidies public transportation that the rich don't?
Sounds like you're calling all insurance a "Ponzi scheme"
I agree. Lets enact single payer, like the Pope has suggested and every other first world nation has! They pay less than half of what we pay, and they have far better outcomes, based on actual FACTS!
LMAO, please, please show me these facts of yours.
You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship.
In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.
The difference here is, the government already has a standing military and collects taxes for it as per the constitution. If you don't like the war in [enter arena] then you can vote for someone who does not like war. Like when you voted for Obama, and oops, he went to war anyway. It is not as if Obama was creating a new tax to fund wars for other countries who did not want to pay for their own wars.
Its not if Obama through the IRS is saying, hey, did you donate to the war effort, no, then you get penalized!
FWIW, I wouldn't even attempt to do what the President or any member of Congress haven't done: Read the law!
Reading the bill? What an outrageous idea!
Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
I guess that people are finally finding out what's in it, and I'm sure that there are plenty of more "surprises" to come.
It's no different at all. Everyone I know was born and will die in a hospital. Many of them require emergency care at some point in their lives. I guess if one can prove that one has millions of dollars in case of an auto accident or medical calamity, then it would make sense to not "force" them to buy insurance. For everyone else who couldn't afford cancer treatment or killing another motorist, insurance should be required.
Moreover, if you are really "pro life" and "Christian", you would be pro-universal health care. Children shouldn't die just be because their parents are poor, lazy, etc. Heck, Christ himself would never have turned anyone away because of an inability to pay.
The GOP loves the fetus but hates the child.
Then you know a lot of very sick people. Most of the people I know, died at home.
Your auto rhetoric does not work. Rich will pay for auto insurance anyway to protect them from other people. You don't buy healthcare to protect yourself from others. And if they require emergency care, they should pay for it or have insurance. But if I can pay for it out of pocket, why then should I have insurance? What am I insuring myself against?
Children don't have to die, they can go to the emergency care as ALL are excepted by LAW! Again, your analogy is not based in reality. I don't know any Christian, or GOPer, that hates the child, not one!
I think everyone should have access to competitive healthcare insurance, which is why I fight for allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. Then, you will see on TV them competing like that auto insurance companies do (and life, home, etc.).
The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.
Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.
I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.
The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.
Look it up, troll boy. The WHO rates US health care as #37 in quality of care and outcomes. Meanwhile, in terms of costs, we are #1.
Right wingers used to be frightening, but the sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic party is in serious decline. It's funny how the "red states" are the real leeches in that they take more in tax money from the Feds than they pay, but the Blue states pay more in taxes than they take back.
I smell the fear of Obamacare being successful, like Social Security and Medicare. Why else are the asinine Republicans engaging in unconstitutional methods to try to defund it? If its implemented and fails, then people will soon vote in politicians who want to repeal it.
The GOP is in a death spiral. And they are a bunch of fucking idiots. Racist, sexist, hypocritical, homophobic fucking idiots. The John Birch society has overtaken the GOP.
A) look up what a troll is
Yes, our cost our out of control, but that is due to government intervention and stopping the free market as I have pointed out many times already.
Social security is billions of dollars in debt as with the medicare, hardly a success!
Now you are down to name calling? And bringing in all sorts of crazy stuff.
Thank you for the debate, all the best to you.
PLUNK!
Really? They die at home and are buried in the backyard without going to the hospital mortuary? Where do you live?
The emergency room does not provide preventative care. Nor do they clean teeth, AFAIK. In what state do you reside that people get these preventative services in the emergency room? And . . . Spoiler alert. . . We ALL pay for uninsured people who visit the ER, just like we ALL pay for those who get in accidents without auto insurance.
You really think that the ER provides pre-natal care? Immunizations for kids? Check ups?
The facts are the facts. The US is #37 in outcome and quality of care. Yes, RICH people seek out the best treatments wherever they can- Israel, Switzerland, and the US. They are not typical patients, though.
I'm sick of right wing tactics. They lost 2 elections in a landslide, the law was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It was also upheld by SCOTUS. None of this matters to the GOP, they are behaving in an anti-democratic and ultimately, anti-American way to EVERY issue.
Before answering, keep in mind the following:
1. Polls show that people, on average, favor The Affordable Care Act, but oppose Obamacare - even though they're the same thing. Much (perhaps most) of the opposition is politically motivated.
2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.
3. In 1992, Hillary proposed a single payer health insurance plan which was basically DOA (and for good reason, IMHO). The Republicans proposed an alternative - which is essentially the same as the ACA. Why was it a good plan when the GOP proposed it, but suddenly became a terrible plan today?
4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?
It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.
For a summary:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-shreds-gop-over-obamacare-utter-insanity-its-a-fcking-law/
Oh, and btw, I just got my new policy. The old one was $660 for my family with horrible coverage (high deductible plan with lifetime caps). The new one is $436 for far better coverage. So much for the "it's going to bankrupt American workers" argument.
Except that no one forces you to buy and iPad or iPhone or Mac. You have no choice with obamacare you will own it or be insured or be fined on your income taxes.
Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
As to complaining that they are "for profit" you don't seem to be aware of the reality.
The "reality" consists of what the legislators, led by Obama, chose to promote and that which they chose to suppress.
Healthcare premiums began skyrocketing several years ago, long before Obamacare was written (let alone enacted), because the government allowed premiums to be raised so much. Most of the high prices we face today have nothing to do with the Obamacare legislation.
You can bet the government will amend the ACA legislation if it looks like too many insurers are going to fail, so don't waste your time crying for alligators. They will be assured a handsome profit from here on out.
You neglected to mention insurers make a ton of money from people dropping off the books--the people who lost the gamble.
What should have been done was what was done with welfare reform. Allow states to test various schemes, comparing them to one another, and then adopt what actually works. Instead, we got a scheme that various powerful special interest groups would sign off on, but that screws those without well-connected lobbyists: small businesses, young adults, and the like.
Even the unions aren't happy about it. The unions got shortchanged in the original plan to make the finances look good, with amendments that would favor them put off until later. Now, those amendments may never come.
Even more telling is all the squirming and wiggling Congress in engaging in to escape from being a part of it. That's a near-perfect illustration that those who gave us Obamacare know its awful.
Don't some states "force" all drivers to carry auto insurance?
Most states do.
You are also forced to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.
You are forced to pay taxes.
You are forced to obey posted speed limits.
You are forced to pay tolls on toll roads.
You are forced to do a lot of things. The argument that this is somehow a unique extension of government powers is a losing argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's Constitutional. If you don't like it, blame Congress - they're the ones who passed the law.
I'm pro-ACA and pro-auto insurance. It's the only way to bring down costs and to make sure that folks are gaming the system and sticking taxpayers with their medical and/or auto accident bills.
Ironic that the while idea of the ACA was from the Heritage Society and was based on "Romneycare". I guess the right wing no longer believes in personal responsibility.
Spot on.
But I think that trying to convince a bunch of ill-informed wingnuts with actual facts is a somewhat pointless exercise.
So, I assume you're pro-union?
/s
Let me get this straight. Since police unions are exempt from laws restricting usage of cell phone while driving, I guess they realize that anti-texting laws are "awful"? Since Congress is exempt from breathalyzer laws, I guess they think drunk driving laws are "awful", too? Since military personel can use fully automatic weapons and anti-aircraft weapons. . . And even nuclear weapons. . . I guess the prohibition of these items being bought by the general public is also "awful"? Congress doesn't have to take random drug tests or even pre-employment drug tests. They are therefore acknowledging that these are also "awful" laws, I guess?
Interesting logic.