It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



There can be no critique of your solution, because it is different than any other solution proposed.


I am all for a critiquing, but that is not what you have done. You have deflected and projected.



I can't use the critique of Bernie universal health care, because somehow your plan is different. It does all of the good things of Bernies plan, but with none of the bad.


I've made no claims about Bernie's plan and I have not said any such thing.



You can't let anyone know the details of your plan though. We just have to trust you that its great.


I don't care if you trust me or not and I'm not asking you to think it's great. I'm only giving you my opinion that much of the problems we face would be gone if we went to a UHC system. How it is designed to work is up for serious debate, but the goal should be to have everyone covered and take the insurance companies out of the equation.

Can you at least start by agreeing with those two simple premises?



This is childish, and proof that you are not interested in a serious discussion.


I'm glad you are willing to admit your childishness. We cannot have a serious discussion if you cannot get past the deflections, projections and logical fallacies.


The goal should be to allow the free market to ensure competitiveness to lower prices and increase quality of care. removing insurance companies would probably help with this. Guaranteeing everyone coverage is not the goal.

Should a heroin junkie that frivolously spends all of his money and even money from the government be guaranteed constant coverage that he can not pay for? No.

You mention deflections and fallacies and such, the nerve of you!

You literally are saying your plan is the best, would save tons of money, but anytime anyone makes criticism of other attempts at government run healthcare you deflect and say that your plan is different, but you can't discuss the details of it.

Will you at least admit that the only universal health care plan that can be investigated looking at this thread is Bernies, and its a disaster?




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

I didn't mention the bankruptcy.


That happened too.


And yet here you are, doing fine.

I have tens of thousands in student loans. Oh, and I can't declare bankruptcy to get out of them.

Why should I have to pay to help your medical bills that you have dealt with, when I have debts of my own to pay?

Are you willing to cut me a check to pay for my debts that I can't declare bankruptcy on?

Again, you focus only on your hardship, which is fine. But to demand policy be written to tailor to your exact situation is not a feasible argument.


Am I doing fine? You are psychic and know my financial situation? You want to pretend to know my life??

And were we discussing my opinion on student debt?!? Is that what this thread is about??? How do you know what I want for you in that regard?

Stop projecting onto me your idea of "selfish person" and stop trying to minimize my family's situation, which you obviously have zero experience with. How many weeks of your life have you spent in a PICU watching your child suffer?

I had cancer and was not eligible for insurance for ten years. Explain how you know what that's like?

People are naive if they think the pre-ACA days were great. If they do, it means they never faced a certain kind of hardship and therefore do not understand it. I don't call them selfish or bad, I just think they don't have the experience to know what could happen.

I don't pretend to know your circumstances or to project onto you opinions of how you are doing just fine, or make moral effing judgements about your character, calling you "selfish."

I'm not doing that, but you are doing that to me. Why? Is that your only argument? People who want to have a Wal-Mart philosophy of mass purchasing power up against big pharma and the health care industry are "selfish?" Those who think a small amount from each of us supports all of us when we need it?

And for your reference, I am sorry you are struggling with student loans. We had to pay the equivalent back in the day ourselves. Education has become out of control cost-wise. You should be able to apply for some kind of relief if you need it. As a society, if we want educated people, we need to have a discussion about making higher education affordable and not just for elites or people willing to shoulder massive debt in the hope of future work.

It is a strong parallel to healthcare, though it lacks the immediacy of life and death, it can mean the difference between poverty or lower class living and middle / upper middle class living, or even wealth. It can also determine if you can afford healthcare under the new legislation or not.

So why should we pay for others to be educated, or for others to have healthcare?

Because as a society we can choose to value those things as much as we value our military, and we can learn that we have a better, happier, more secure and stable country with less crime, more opportunity, and more creative and intelligent solutions to our problems.

Or we can value what he rich want us to, which is "everyone for themselves" where they have all the advantages and the playing field is tipped drastically in their favor... which is more selfish?

edit on 27-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

And yet here you ars making assumptions about my life. You assume I do not know what its like to watch a child with a serious condition. In this thread I already said my sister had to receive 11 years of care at a Shriners hospital, that was all charity. But I guess only your situation gives you the authority to talk.

The fact is as much of an inconenoene as it was to you, your child lived and the system took care of him. Apparently, you were able to deal with your debts, even if it was through bankruptcy.

Laws like the ACA ghave bankrupted small business owners, but I guess only your finances matter, right?

You keep conflating arguments. On one hand, you appeal to morality, saying your child was in danger and its ridiculous to not provide care for that child.

But your child did recieve care, and so you are forced to fall back on a second argument, that it costs you a lot of money.

Ok, the we will focus on the finacial argument. In that world, you don't get to rely o emotional appeals of your child being sick.

Your child got care. The question is, who should pay for it? You think other people should pay for it.

This is the same mentality thaat most people take. I owe student loans, yet I understand that it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay my debts. Other people shouldn't have to provide me relief. I did this, and I should get out.

Now the truth is if I fall so far that I am in danger of starving, people will help me. But why should others pay when I am doing ok. I have a computer, I have time to post on ATS. Why should someone busting their hump 12 to 14 hours a day to earn for themselves have to pay for me?

And why should they have to pay for you?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

I didn't mention the bankruptcy.


That happened too.


And yet here you are, doing fine.

I have tens of thousands in student loans. Oh, and I can't declare bankruptcy to get out of them.

Why should I have to pay to help your medical bills that you have dealt with, when I have debts of my own to pay?

Are you willing to cut me a check to pay for my debts that I can't declare bankruptcy on?

Again, you focus only on your hardship, which is fine. But to demand policy be written to tailor to your exact situation is not a feasible argument.


Someone that gets colon CANCER and someone that WILLINGLY, knowingly, and voluntarily take out student LOANS aren't the same THING bro.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

I didn't mention the bankruptcy.


That happened too.


And yet here you are, doing fine.

I have tens of thousands in student loans. Oh, and I can't declare bankruptcy to get out of them.

Why should I have to pay to help your medical bills that you have dealt with, when I have debts of my own to pay?

Are you willing to cut me a check to pay for my debts that I can't declare bankruptcy on?

Again, you focus only on your hardship, which is fine. But to demand policy be written to tailor to your exact situation is not a feasible argument.


Someone that gets colon CANCER and someone that WILLINGLY, knowingly, and voluntarily take out student LOANS aren't the same THING bro.


Who said anything of the sort.

If the person that got colon cancer received the care to cure it, and then declared bankruptcy to wipe the debt clean, why do they get to complain how the system failed them because there credit sucks?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Annnd. This is why I don't like to answer before I get to read the whole thread.


You assume I do not know what its like to watch a child with a serious condition. In this thread I already said my sister had to receive 11 years of care at a Shriners hospital, that was all charity. But I guess only your situation gives you the authority to talk.


I'm so sorry about your sister. My mistake. You have seen suffering then. I'm glad your family was able to
Receive care for her. What would have happened if the charity hadn't come through?

I apologize.

I'm not speaking to you further in this thread. I'm angry and my fight or flight has kicked in regarding my children and what this legislation will do to them and our family.

I don't agree with your name calling and projection onto me of selfishness. You don't know me and I will leave it at that.

The ACA has problems that I am well aware of and that could be fixed for the sake of fairness and economic stability. Our family pays taxes. We are one disaster away from poverty but we do our share.
I don't mind my taxes going to stabilize the well being of my fellow citizens. I wouldn't mind even if I had healthy kids.

The GOP legislation has tons wrong with it. It is a bad bill. I have one word for the GOP on this:

No.





posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Annnd. This is why I don't like to answer before I get to read the whole thread.


You assume I do not know what its like to watch a child with a serious condition. In this thread I already said my sister had to receive 11 years of care at a Shriners hospital, that was all charity. But I guess only your situation gives you the authority to talk.


I'm so sorry about your sister. My mistake. You have seen suffering then. I'm glad your family was able to
Receive care for her. What would have happened if the charity hadn't come through?

I apologize.

I'm not speaking to you further in this thread. I'm angry and my fight or flight has kicked in regarding my children and what this legislation will do to them and our family.

I don't agree with your name calling and projection onto me of selfishness. You don't know me and I will leave it at that.

The ACA has problems that I am well aware of and that could be fixed for the sake of fairness and economic stability. Our family pays taxes. We are one disaster away from poverty but we do our share.
I don't mind my taxes going to stabilize the well being of my fellow citizens. I wouldn't mind even if I had healthy kids.

The GOP legislation has tons wrong with it. It is a bad bill. I have one word for the GOP on this:

No.




I am not in any way intending to name call.

In fact, I tried to say that it is perfectly natural to want policies that benefit yourself. There is no shame in that whatsoever.

I am merely making the point that its not a moral argument, its a financial one.

Most of the people against universal health care or the ACA and other plans are against it not because they want people to suffer, but because they think it will be worse for them. This is also perfectly acceptable.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Do you know how hard it is to rent with bad credit?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Annnd. This is why I don't like to answer before I get to read the whole thread.


You assume I do not know what its like to watch a child with a serious condition. In this thread I already said my sister had to receive 11 years of care at a Shriners hospital, that was all charity. But I guess only your situation gives you the authority to talk.


I'm so sorry about your sister. My mistake. You have seen suffering then. I'm glad your family was able to
Receive care for her. What would have happened if the charity hadn't come through?

I apologize.

I'm not speaking to you further in this thread. I'm angry and my fight or flight has kicked in regarding my children and what this legislation will do to them and our family.

I don't agree with your name calling and projection onto me of selfishness. You don't know me and I will leave it at that.

The ACA has problems that I am well aware of and that could be fixed for the sake of fairness and economic stability. Our family pays taxes. We are one disaster away from poverty but we do our share.
I don't mind my taxes going to stabilize the well being of my fellow citizens. I wouldn't mind even if I had healthy kids.

The GOP legislation has tons wrong with it. It is a bad bill. I have one word for the GOP on this:

No.




I am not in any way intending to name call.

In fact, I tried to say that it is perfectly natural to want policies that benefit yourself. There is no shame in that whatsoever.

I am merely making the point that its not a moral argument, its a financial one.

Most of the people against universal health care or the ACA and other plans are against it not because they want people to suffer, but because they think it will be worse for them. This is also perfectly acceptable.



We spend 18% GDP on healthcare. Countries with "socialized medicine" pay 10%. 'But they are so much smaller" - yes, the equivalent of one or two of our states. Which is how we do Medicare and Medicaid already - they are divided into state programs.


*shrug*

PS. It is a "values" question as much as a financial one. The GOP doesn't care about deficits when they want to spend money.
edit on 27-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Grambler

Do you know how hard it is to rent with bad credit?


Yep! I live it everyday.

So should you have to give me money?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Annnd. This is why I don't like to answer before I get to read the whole thread.


You assume I do not know what its like to watch a child with a serious condition. In this thread I already said my sister had to receive 11 years of care at a Shriners hospital, that was all charity. But I guess only your situation gives you the authority to talk.


I'm so sorry about your sister. My mistake. You have seen suffering then. I'm glad your family was able to
Receive care for her. What would have happened if the charity hadn't come through?

I apologize.

I'm not speaking to you further in this thread. I'm angry and my fight or flight has kicked in regarding my children and what this legislation will do to them and our family.

I don't agree with your name calling and projection onto me of selfishness. You don't know me and I will leave it at that.

The ACA has problems that I am well aware of and that could be fixed for the sake of fairness and economic stability. Our family pays taxes. We are one disaster away from poverty but we do our share.
I don't mind my taxes going to stabilize the well being of my fellow citizens. I wouldn't mind even if I had healthy kids.

The GOP legislation has tons wrong with it. It is a bad bill. I have one word for the GOP on this:

No.




I am not in any way intending to name call.

In fact, I tried to say that it is perfectly natural to want policies that benefit yourself. There is no shame in that whatsoever.

I am merely making the point that its not a moral argument, its a financial one.

Most of the people against universal health care or the ACA and other plans are against it not because they want people to suffer, but because they think it will be worse for them. This is also perfectly acceptable.



We spend 18% GDP on healthcare. Countries with "socialized medicine" pay 10%. 'But they are so much smaller" - yes, the equivalent of one or two of our states. Which is how we do Medicare and Medicaid already - they are divided into state programs.


*shrug*

PS. It is a "values" question as much as a financial one. The GOP doesn't care about deficits when they want to spend money.


Right, as if the democrats do care. They both suck.

But I am all for arguing the actual finances of the issue.

I will point you back to my post on howw out of control Bernies plan would have been, and how much it would have cost.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

How is that? This plan gives rich people money.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
It's going to take the next generation to get to Universal health in the U.S. It took a special generation to when it came to mixed marriages, and it has taken a special generation to fight towards gay rights. It will take the next generation to kill the cancer of for profit health insurance.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Grambler

How is that? This plan gives rich people money.


Must have missed where I am against this plan.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. Good to know which side of the divide you are on. I'm for Medicare for all, debt and deficits are a state of mind, raise taxes on the rich during war times. I am against this plan that helps no one. Trump lied.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Dbl
edit on 27-6-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. Good to know which side of the divide you are on. I'm for Medicare for all, debt and deficits are a state of mind, raise taxes on the rich during war times. I am against this plan that helps no one. Trump lied.


I agree. Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, not slightly tweek it.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
In reality, universal healthcare would cost trillions more to the already 40 trillion of debt that we have left for our children in the name of providing health care, and would make that care far less effective.


It would save trillions and make care more effective.

I grew up in "socialized health care" (the Army) where you went to a doc whenever you felt unwell and you had regular checkups that caught problems (like diabetes) in the early stages. Dollars spent on preventive care and easy palliative care means that issues (like cancers) are caught early and when they can be managed by less expensive methods (like diabetes and diet) and that other issues do get treated (like sleep apnea which can result in daytime sleepiness that is so dangerous people fall asleep driving.... or wrecks their health in other ways.)

Think about any older relative you have (I assume you have some) and what the difference for them would be between being able to see the doc when they felt there was a problem and waiting till things got so bad they could only go to the Emergency Room and then they couldn't even pay for that.

Think about people your age - know anyone with diabetes or fibro or a chronic disease? Imagine how their life would change if they could get in to see a doc on the day they felt really unwell and didn't have to wait till they had money or time off to go. If they could afford a surgery the week of the diagnosis instead of waiting or not having it.

Preventive care and affordable care actually means fewer days lost to illness and injury (or staying home to take care of sick kids.) That saves jobs and increases productivity and decreases the number of people who need public assistance because their condition was caught early and put under management.

...none of which happens regularly here in the US. You can further see the impact by looking at maternal mortality rates here in the US versus those in Canada.

and...by the way... it would be quite fair (if they decide to not fund maternal care) that they also separate out male genitourinary problems so that viagra, prostate care, and testicular cancers are not covered...but you could buy a "premium" addon to cover any male problems.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
It's going to take the next generation to get to Universal health in the U.S. It took a special generation to when it came to mixed marriages, and it has taken a special generation to fight towards gay rights. It will take the next generation to kill the cancer of for profit health insurance.


I think that's more likely. A shame that we have to fight for it, though.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler
In reality, universal healthcare would cost trillions more to the already 40 trillion of debt that we have left for our children in the name of providing health care, and would make that care far less effective.


It would save trillions and make care more effective.

I grew up in "socialized health care" (the Army) where you went to a doc whenever you felt unwell and you had regular checkups that caught problems (like diabetes) in the early stages. Dollars spent on preventive care and easy palliative care means that issues (like cancers) are caught early and when they can be managed by less expensive methods (like diabetes and diet) and that other issues do get treated (like sleep apnea which can result in daytime sleepiness that is so dangerous people fall asleep driving.... or wrecks their health in other ways.)

Think about any older relative you have (I assume you have some) and what the difference for them would be between being able to see the doc when they felt there was a problem and waiting till things got so bad they could only go to the Emergency Room and then they couldn't even pay for that.

Think about people your age - know anyone with diabetes or fibro or a chronic disease? Imagine how their life would change if they could get in to see a doc on the day they felt really unwell and didn't have to wait till they had money or time off to go. If they could afford a surgery the week of the diagnosis instead of waiting or not having it.

Preventive care and affordable care actually means fewer days lost to illness and injury (or staying home to take care of sick kids.) That saves jobs and increases productivity and decreases the number of people who need public assistance because their condition was caught early and put under management.

...none of which happens regularly here in the US. You can further see the impact by looking at maternal mortality rates here in the US versus those in Canada.

and...by the way... it would be quite fair (if they decide to not fund maternal care) that they also separate out male genitourinary problems so that viagra, prostate care, and testicular cancers are not covered...but you could buy a "premium" addon to cover any male problems.


Well the experts disagee with you.

See the link I posted ear;ier.

Everyone said Medicare would do a great deal of good, but it is 40 TRILLION (yes trillion with a "t") and costs have gone up substantially since it was implemented.

Bernies own estimates say it would cost 13.8 trillion dollars over a decade, which is a 30% increase in federal spending.


And this doesn’t count the likely impact of all this taxing and spending on the economy. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation, for instance, estimates that Bernie’s plan would reduce GDP by 9.5 percent over the long term, and reduce after-tax income for all Americans by an average of 12.8 percent.


nypost.com...

12.8 percent less money in every single persons pocket. As the article says, a few people will win, most will lose.

And this doesn't even factor in quality of care, where there will now be far more people using there "free " care, making it more difficult to get care for serious measures.







 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join