|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 13, 2015 9:34:17 GMT -8
I give credit to collectivists and Leftists for wanting to make things better for all Americans. But should we not agree that government programs, once they are in place, should be carefully evaluated to make sure that they are achieving the goals for which they were designed? And should we not also agree that any program, if found to be ineffective, overly costly, or both, should be radically modified or simply cancelled? One would hope so. Okay, I'll make a bet with you. Can you name any government program (I'm limiting this to federal programs for this discussion) that was ever cancelled once it got started? Can you think of any at all? Well, I can think one example; the U.S. Postal Savings System. It was created in 1911 and allowed people to deposit money into accounts run by the post office. Due to declining patronage, the system was cancelled in 1966. So there you have it, one govt. program that was found wanting and was ended. One govt. program. One ONE! ! ! ! ! In almost all cases, once a program is established and has created a powerful constituency intent on keeping it going regardless of effectiveness or cost, it is virtually impossible . . . politically . . . to put it out of its, and the taxpayers', misery. ObamaCare, despite what the administration and its allies say, is NOT a good deal. Helping people who do not have health insurance (which is NOT the same thing as health care) get insurance is a noble idea. This program, however, is not going to cover everybody (even the govt. has admitted that there will be millions uncovered years into the future), is very, very costly, and will not improve health care. Well, for the very rich, this will be no problem, of course. They will always be able to pay for the best care. Most of us, not so much. Here is one physician's explanation of why ObamaCare was bad from the start and will not get better. nypost.com/2015/03/09/obamacare-stinks-even-with-subsidies/AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 13, 2015 10:43:09 GMT -8
Medicare for all would solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 13, 2015 13:09:39 GMT -8
Medicare for all would solve the problem. Great! Then the federal government would control every aspect of the U.S. health system instead of just most aspects as is now the case with ObamaCare. No thanks. (Oh, yes, I forgot. The very wealthy will NEVER have to rely on government health care. They will always be able to get the best treatment for themselves and their families, even if that means flying to other countries. Then we will have the kind of haves-verus=have-nots health duopoly that the Left supposedly is against. And that reminds me of the special treatment government employees, at least those at the top, got as a part of the ObamaCare deal.) Question: did you read the linked article? If not, read it and then, should you disagree with the author, list your disagreements and why you think the doctor is wrong. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 13, 2015 14:47:50 GMT -8
Medicare for all would solve the problem. Great! Then the federal government would control every aspect of the U.S. health system instead of just most aspects as is now the case with ObamaCare. No thanks. (Oh, yes, I forgot. The very wealthy will NEVER have to rely on government health care. They will always be able to get the best treatment for themselves and their families, even if that means flying to other countries. Then we will have the kind of haves-verus=have-nots health duopoly that the Left supposedly is against. And that reminds me of the special treatment government employees, at least those at the top, got as a part of the ObamaCare deal.) Question: did you read the linked article? If not, read it and then, should you disagree with the author, list your disagreements and why you think the doctor is wrong. AzWm How's your Medicare working out?
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Mar 13, 2015 16:13:16 GMT -8
I have one doctor who won't accept Medicare patients anymore. And I have another who is going private patients only. Obamacare is the poster child for government run screwups. Five years and what, two billion dollars for a website that still doesn't work? I just can't wait for Medicare to have me sitting God knows how many hours to see a doctor because of the severe shortage we will have. This thing is a scam and ego booster for you know who. It was never thought out properly, and of course, never read. Government has no business being in business.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 17, 2015 8:13:58 GMT -8
I have one doctor who won't accept Medicare patients anymore. And I have another who is going private patients only. Obamacare is the poster child for government run screwups. Five years and what, two billion dollars for a website that still doesn't work? I just can't wait for Medicare to have me sitting God knows how many hours to see a doctor because of the severe shortage we will have. This thing is a scam and ego booster for you know who. It was never thought out properly, and of course, never read. Government has no business being in business. It is really too bad that you have such a hard time with other people receiving healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Mar 19, 2015 15:13:05 GMT -8
I have one doctor who won't accept Medicare patients anymore. And I have another who is going private patients only. Obamacare is the poster child for government run screwups. Five years and what, two billion dollars for a website that still doesn't work? I just can't wait for Medicare to have me sitting God knows how many hours to see a doctor because of the severe shortage we will have. This thing is a scam and ego booster for you know who. It was never thought out properly, and of course, never read. Government has no business being in business. It is really too bad that you have such a hard time with other people receiving healthcare. [/quot Not saying that. What I am saying is this thing was so poorly thought out that it failed at its inception. Everyone may have insurance, but not everyone will be able to see a doctor in a timely manner because of the severe shortage. Good doctors didn't sign up to work in or for the government.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 19, 2015 15:47:16 GMT -8
Medicare for all would solve the problem. Baloney! Medicare for all who should be here might be made to work on some level but Medicare for all just will never pencil out.
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Mar 26, 2015 7:39:52 GMT -8
Let's see:
In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.
Next, we require the newly uninsured to re-insure.
To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
The extra charges are required so that the original insured who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.
Yep. Such a deal.........
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 26, 2015 9:37:28 GMT -8
The preceding two comments show just how uncaring for their fellow man Cons are. The United States is the only first world country that doesn't provide universal health care to its citizens. >> Link <<It also has the most expensive healthcare in the world. >> Link <<
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 29, 2015 10:11:16 GMT -8
The preceding two comments show just how uncaring for their fellow man Cons are. The United States is the only first world country that doesn't provide universal health care to its citizens. >> Link <<It also has the most expensive healthcare in the world. >> Link <<Your pot shots at fellow posters are unwarranted. To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic. It's like saying that any negative comment aimed at a female candidate is sexist. Or that any negative comment aimed at a (Sub-Saharan) African American is racist. As for universal health care, let's put that in perspective. If you had to go without one, which would it be: food or health care? Of course it's a hypothetical question, but it can be answered easily. You would choose to go without health care. As much you or I would not want to face the uncertainties of life without being able to see a doctor, that would be a better bet than going without food. How long can you live without food? Not long. Since food is actually more critical than health care (though both are vital to our well-being), to make sure that not just the 1% eat three squares a day, why not have the federal government take over the food production and distribution systems? And, while we are at it, you don't want all those poor people to go naked, do you? Hey, let the government take over the clothing industry. Let's not forget that the poor need housing; a federal take over of the housing industry would seem to be a logical next move for progressives. Let's see, what other aspect of life is critical? Well, it's pretty hard to get to work and to the market and to the doctor in most places without a car. Shouldn't the feds take over the auto industry, including retail dealerships? We could call all those new federal programs ObamaGrub, ObamaRags, ObamaShacks, and ObamaWagons! Hey, that last one has an historical precedent. . . . People's Car (i.e., Volkswagen!) ObamaCare is NOT a good deal. It will cost billions more than predicted, stifle medical innovation, make health care worse for scores of millions of Americans, and ultimately leave 20 or 30 million citizens without health insurance. And you think that those of us who oppose the ACA are "uncaring"! AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 1, 2015 9:19:01 GMT -8
The preceding two comments show just how uncaring for their fellow man Cons are. The United States is the only first world country that doesn't provide universal health care to its citizens. >> Link <<It also has the most expensive healthcare in the world. >> Link <<Your pot shots at fellow posters are unwarranted. To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic. It's like saying that any negative comment aimed at a female candidate is sexist. Or that any negative comment aimed at a (Sub-Saharan) African American is racist. As for universal health care, let's put that in perspective. If you had to go without one, which would it be: food or health care? Of course it's a hypothetical question, but it can be answered easily. You would choose to go without health care. As much you or I would not want to face the uncertainties of life without being able to see a doctor, that would be a better bet than going without food. How long can you live without food? Not long. Since food is actually more critical than health care (though both are vital to our well-being), to make sure that not just the 1% eat three squares a day, why not have the federal government take over the food production and distribution systems? And, while we are at it, you don't want all those poor people to go naked, do you? Hey, let the government take over the clothing industry. Let's not forget that the poor need housing; a federal take over of the housing industry would seem to be a logical next move for progressives. Let's see, what other aspect of life is critical? Well, it's pretty hard to get to work and to the market and to the doctor in most places without a car. Shouldn't the feds take over the auto industry, including retail dealerships? We could call all those new federal programs ObamaGrub, ObamaRags, ObamaShacks, and ObamaWagons! Hey, that last one has an historical precedent. . . . People's Car (i.e., Volkswagen!) ObamaCare is NOT a good deal. It will cost billions more than predicted, stifle medical innovation, make health care worse for scores of millions of Americans, and ultimately leave 20 or 30 million citizens without health insurance. And you think that those of us who oppose the ACA are "uncaring"! AzWm AW, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you regarding 'pot shots'. However, your comment; "To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic." is just BS. I have stated on many occasions that the ACA DOES have problems and that the best solution is to replace it with a very successful program, Medicare. I stand by my opinion (which I am entitled to). The FACT is that the U.S. is the only first world country without some form of universal health care. And the FACT that cons have fought every proposal for universal health care since Roosevelt. That brings me to the conclusion that cons are uncaring regarding those who either cannot afford or obtain insurance.
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Apr 1, 2015 10:13:44 GMT -8
AW, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you regarding 'pot shots'. nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/im-a-partyist-and-yes-i-judge-your-politics.html"Indeed, in keeping with our culture’s addiction to grievance, they have taken up a new term to express their disapproval of my preferences: “partyism.” This new term of art transforms the act of judging a person’s political beliefs into a kind of prejudice, and therefore to render it disreputable. [But] It’s okay to judge people’s political values. It’s not like the sports team you root for or even (exactly) like a religion, where you are mostly born into your loyalty. Politics expresses moral values. There are millions of Americans who think it’s okay to deny legal citizens their voting rights or force them to go without health insurance. Those people live in a different moral universe than I do. They’re not necessarily bad people. But, yes, I believe their political views reflect something unflattering about their character."
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Apr 16, 2015 10:12:22 GMT -8
I am trying to really understand why I had to pay an additional $3,900.00 taxes to the IRS this last year when everything else remained the same. If I have to start cutting back, Aztec donations will be at the top of the list. This is bull$#!+.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 16, 2015 10:49:34 GMT -8
I am trying to really understand why I had to pay an additional $3,900.00 taxes to the IRS this last year when everything else remained the same. If I have to start cutting back, Aztec donations will be at the top of the list. This is bull$#!+. Maybe you need a new tax person. You should know EXACTLY why things changed.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Apr 16, 2015 12:31:14 GMT -8
I am trying to really understand why I had to pay an additional $3,900.00 taxes to the IRS this last year when everything else remained the same. If I have to start cutting back, Aztec donations will be at the top of the list. This is bull$#!+. Maybe you need a new tax person. You should know EXACTLY why things changed. Meh, easier to blame it on Obama...
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Apr 18, 2015 14:59:48 GMT -8
Maybe you need a new tax person. You should know EXACTLY why things changed. Meh, easier to blame it on Obama... I don't blame Obama. I blame the WASTE and NON-ACCOUNTABILITY of all our politicians and their spending of our tax. Dollars. Obamacare is just another fiscal clusterf**k among many.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2015 16:02:43 GMT -8
Your pot shots at fellow posters are unwarranted. To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic. It's like saying that any negative comment aimed at a female candidate is sexist. Or that any negative comment aimed at a (Sub-Saharan) African American is racist. As for universal health care, let's put that in perspective. If you had to go without one, which would it be: food or health care? Of course it's a hypothetical question, but it can be answered easily. You would choose to go without health care. As much you or I would not want to face the uncertainties of life without being able to see a doctor, that would be a better bet than going without food. How long can you live without food? Not long. Since food is actually more critical than health care (though both are vital to our well-being), to make sure that not just the 1% eat three squares a day, why not have the federal government take over the food production and distribution systems? And, while we are at it, you don't want all those poor people to go naked, do you? Hey, let the government take over the clothing industry. Let's not forget that the poor need housing; a federal take over of the housing industry would seem to be a logical next move for progressives. Let's see, what other aspect of life is critical? Well, it's pretty hard to get to work and to the market and to the doctor in most places without a car. Shouldn't the feds take over the auto industry, including retail dealerships? We could call all those new federal programs ObamaGrub, ObamaRags, ObamaShacks, and ObamaWagons! Hey, that last one has an historical precedent. . . . People's Car (i.e., Volkswagen!) ObamaCare is NOT a good deal. It will cost billions more than predicted, stifle medical innovation, make health care worse for scores of millions of Americans, and ultimately leave 20 or 30 million citizens without health insurance. And you think that those of us who oppose the ACA are "uncaring"! AzWm AW, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you regarding 'pot shots'. However, your comment; "To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic." is just BS. I have stated on many occasions that the ACA DOES have problems and that the best solution is to replace it with a very successful program, Medicare. I stand by my opinion (which I am entitled to). The FACT is that the U.S. is the only first world country without some form of universal health care. And the FACT that cons have fought every proposal for universal health care since Roosevelt. That brings me to the conclusion that cons are uncaring regarding those who either cannot afford or obtain insurance. You in turn ignore the idea that "universal" include millions who are not here legally and contribute nothing. It would be just one more program that would fall under it's own weight. A much better idea would be a program like Samaritans. tinyurl.com/l8kwwo5
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 20, 2015 8:24:03 GMT -8
AW, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you regarding 'pot shots'. However, your comment; "To suggest that anyone who opposes your idea of good government health policy is "uncaring" is demagogic." is just BS. I have stated on many occasions that the ACA DOES have problems and that the best solution is to replace it with a very successful program, Medicare. I stand by my opinion (which I am entitled to). The FACT is that the U.S. is the only first world country without some form of universal health care. And the FACT that cons have fought every proposal for universal health care since Roosevelt. That brings me to the conclusion that cons are uncaring regarding those who either cannot afford or obtain insurance. You in turn ignore the idea that "universal" include millions who are not here legally and contribute nothing. It would be just one more program that would fall under it's own weight. A much better idea would be a program like Samaritans. tinyurl.com/l8kwwo5The millions that are here illegally already get free healthcare. It is called the emergency room.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 20, 2015 8:45:27 GMT -8
You in turn ignore the idea that "universal" include millions who are not here legally and contribute nothing. It would be just one more program that would fall under it's own weight. A much better idea would be a program like Samaritans. tinyurl.com/l8kwwo5The millions that are here illegally already get free healthcare. It is called the emergency room. There may be a glimmer of hope for you. You are starting to see the problem.
|
|