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.

 

The Left's Intimidation of Republicans is Insane and Needs to Stop

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Let the corrupt Democratic party cry about it. I'm tired of paying for it and it's not even worth arguing about. Nobody cared that my healthcare plan and affordability was destroyed when they passed ACA. So why should I care if anyone else's healthcare goes through the ringer when I get what I voted for? At the rate insurance prices are rising, I'll be paying $1000/month next year with $5000-10000 deductibles for 2 healthy non-smoking adults and 2 healthy children. To top it off, it's required by law. I'm so tired of the government reaching in my pockets without my say.


Excellent post! 100% factual and true. Your sentiment is echoed by millions and millions of families all over the country who work hard for a living.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

The Left's Intimidation of Republicans is Insane and Needs to Stop




This martyr complex got old last year.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Xianb

Quite the appeal to emotions. Note that those who demand the government provide healthcare do so because they refused to provide healthcare themselves.


I call massive steaming piles of BS on that one, LM.

No one is "refusing" to provide healthcare for their family member or themselves.

Gah! Do you even know what it takes to go through cancer treatment, or to care for a medically fragile child??

And then, after all that struggle and pain, after all those barely-paid bills and weeks watching yourself or your child hover near death, you watch some entitled bas__**s stomp about preening that what kept your child alive, what gave you the ability to pay for healthcare and provide it, is somehow "DEATH!!!!"

And then they kill it, without a clue what to do next - possibly killing your access to healthcare entirely unless you suddenly become wealthy or magically get a new career with amazing benefits that lets you work from home while caring for your kid or recovering from treatments.

People will suffer that are already suffering from the pain of illness. People on the right and the left and wherever will suffer - that is what is in the magic invisible "healthcare" bill. Politics don't matter to the real Death, or to real Pain.

So here's the deal in the real world, son...

People want the CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THEIR CARE AND FOR THEIR LOVED ONES CARE and not have their health insurance cost more than any non-ultrarich family can afford, not go bankrupt, and not end up on welfare.

But you say these cold, callous things in order to "trigger" and evoke emotional responses that you can then feel oh so superior to, and oh so better than... So fine. Sue me. Call me names or whatever it is you enjoy doing to others. I don't freaking care. Your attempts at "snowflaking" me will be burned off by the fire in my heart and the steel in my eyes. Mama bear ain't playin' no more.

I'm angry. And that makes me way more motivated to rip these bums out of power than your prim eye-rolls and tsk-tsking ever will be.

Enjoy the coming conflagration of the GOP...



Yeah, I could smell this one coming from a mile away. I am sorry you had to go through that.

First, yes I've dealt with cancer in our family. I lost a niece at 21 years old to brain cancer, and her family actually had to live with us for several months afterwards until they got back on their feet. They lost everything. Both of my parents died of cancer.

I, ended up with a heart bypass operation that is costing me $274,000. My employer at the time actually refused my coverage, saying they had not included critical care. My lawyer argued with them until I ran out of money to pay him, he told me that he would be fighting that battle until the day I died and then would still end up losing.

I am still trying to pay that off today, we agreed to a payment plan. I threatened them with me just filing bankruptcy, and they caved. I refused to claim bankruptcy, I will pay my own bills, thank you very much.

Did I expect the government to pay for anything? HELL NO.

It was my bad for joining a company that simply wasn't ethical, and I actually thought that was the case going in.

Your heart is telling you that no one should have to deal with this.

But, all of us deal with things like this daily.

Now, back to the point, I pay my own way. I do not expect anyone else to have to do so. That's what this country was all about when it started. Freedom to do whatever you wished to do.

But, pay for it. Expecting the government to do it, just isn't going to work out well for our country.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wish there was this much concern when 30 million lost their insurance when Obamacare was enacted. But from what I remember, the general response was, "You have to break some eggs to make an omelet".

*shrugs*


Let's see some data to back up that claim, Cowboy...

Oh here...let me help...hmmm...seems you are off a bit there....


It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance.

In most cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether.

Whether offered an alternative or not, individuals could shop for insurance on the federal and state marketplaces, or through a broker or insurance carrier directly. Many were likely eligible for federal subsidies to help pay for insurance, resulting in better coverage and lower rates for some.

But the specific plan they had was indeed discontinued. (More than half of those with canceled policies were likely to be eligible for federal assistance, according to Urban Institute research, and about 80 percent of all those buying plans on the exchanges are expected to qualify for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

How many individual market cancellations were there?

The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million.


Now, the ACA had some very real problems, and it was NOT universally "fair" and needed improvements to become better for everyone. This is all true. I was hoping that it would be fixed for you, me and everyone.

But now the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater and we will get "junk plans" from the GOP that don't even count towards being "insured" when it comes to needing to buy into the actual healthcare for reals market...one of MANY awesome ideas, courtesy of the Republican's effort to give rich people more money and less civic responsibility.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

WOW!!!

If everyone was just like you this world would be great!



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

If the left is making an honest attempt to work together then they are doing a poor job communicating it because all I ever see is them saying dumb things like 'we will work with them if the promise to keep A, B and C'.

You mention being fed up with government playing politics with your kid's life, yet you seem to be advocating the idea of leaving politicians in control.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Sorry for your heart trouble - that is a lot to go through. I think you shouldn't have to go through the BS with the payments either, just like you said I would say. Lol!

Good on you for being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. In our case, I don't have a million dollars, and if I lose health insurance, my son will no longer be able to be on the transplant list. If he's not on the list, when his heart goes, he dies. SO there's that.

Did you think that maybe, with our government's vast purchasing power, if it were to attempt to lower health costs on our behalf, like large insurance companies do, and Medicare and Medicaid already do, that your surgery wouldn't have cost that much to begin with? That the cost itself is outrageous?

I think so. I also think that, as commendable as it is for you to be able to pay for your bills, in a properly run system with shared costs, you would not have to go through that.

You would have a lot more for yourself and your family.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

The problem with your philosophy as presented here, is it is hypocritical. Like, there are no atheists in a foxhole kind of hypocrisy. If you feel people deserve their suffering and financial ruin, why bother to go a doctor at all? Live for what, more financial loss and suffering?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: AboveBoard

If the left is making an honest attempt to work together then they are doing a poor job communicating it because all I ever see is them saying dumb things like 'we will work with them if the promise to keep A, B and C'.

You mention being fed up with government playing politics with your kid's life, yet you seem to be advocating the idea of leaving politicians in control.


It's called "negotiation" and having standards of care. *shrug*

Are you advocating not having any government control then? So you'd rather be at the mercy of corporations??? Agh. No thank you. At least there are some in government that actually care if people live or die and I'm with them... Most corporations, as such, do not. At least not in my experience. They cut services and chip away benefits so that they can make more money for their shareholders, who are usually extremely wealthy.

A cooperative, which is what insurance started out to be, that shares cost is the only way for everyone to be able to receive care when they need it, and a large enough group can dictate more easily what they will spend and thus lower costs...



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xianb
I was watching this live:



And when these idiots yelled they actually hurt my ears. And started laughing at the same time. I find these protesters Hilarious because this is just to debate. This aint even the vote and you guys are acting like this. This aint Liberal College Campuses where you can kick someone off the stage you dont agree with by violently protesting like this. This is the REAL WORLD. You get violent, you get arrested. Or if you're dumb enough to try and assassinate like the Crazy Bernie Campaign worker you get dead. How in the Hell do these paid Soros protesters not understand that this is a vote to debate?

The Left lost all power. So now they have cute chants making Republicans out to be monsters like "Kill the Bill, Don't Kill Us". So much for Free Speech. And Yes. Debates are part of Free Speech. The Left is the true Deplorables after watching this.
Your really out of touch with what's really going on #embarrassing thread.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

No Republican ever voted for Obamacare. Obamacare passed the House with a slim 2 votes margin. The debate was a ruse.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Im advocating for keeping the money with the transactions. As long as people are using other people's money costs will never go down. Why would someone care if one doctor charges $50 for a paper towel and another doesn't.. they only care about what the cost is to them, and to them it's all free after the deductible. Gov could regulate paper towel prices, but what about soap, linen, bed pans, it never ends. We have high deductibles now and I guess one could argue that was done as an attempt to localize this kind of scrutiny, but we also have very few options now and can't shop around even if we wanted.

So yes, I think repealing Obamacare and removing the regulations that were in place to make us think we needed it in the first place (like not allowing markets to sell across state lines or forcing people to buy it through an employer) would do a world of good.

I also think no one should lose the farm to stay alive or to die with dignity, and the government can and should help here. But the overall costs would be much less then if we taxpayers were paying for everyone's routine care as well.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Point is, millions lost their plans and no one gave a single ####.

Millions lost their doctors that they were told they could keep, and no one gave a single ####.

But now?




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960




Because we have WAY more citizens, and WAY more people on social programs already.


"Way more people" - yes we do... and we have STATES which equal about the populations of smaller countries...so that is how we currently manage Medicaid and Medicare.

ANNND with a Medicare for All approach, the other two, Medicaid and Medicare would be folded into the new entity with the exception of continuing the waiver for disability programs, which deals in specific needs outside the norms.

Economically speaking, this kind of single-payer state/federal hybrid, would massively drive down prices for everyone in terms of healthcare, drugs, medical equipment, etc. People who would not be as thrilled are folks whose salaries or shares might lessen, so there's that. The vast majority would benefit, however.

This isn't supposition, this has been tested in other countries. We spend roughly 18% of our GDP on healthcare. Countries with single payer pay 10%. We can still fund universities and provide innovation incentives to keep healthcare technology going strong.



Social programs were ORIGINALLY put in place as a "backup plan" in case you lose a job and need money to fill in while looking for other employment. I've been on unemployment once in my life. I actually only had to cash one check, I was employed the next month.

We have created a new class of citizens.

Permanent Democrat Voters, who don't want to survive on their own.

We simply can not sustain this and it must end soon.


This is an important issue and there is still a "welfare back up plan" and "Medicaid back up plan" that serves the poorest and the disabled - people who are not in a position to help themselves at all ever, or who are merely transient in their poverty or disability. There will always be people who need permanent care, whose family may not be able to do this, no matter how much of the burden they try to shoulder.

Now the unemployment program is still essential, just like temporary disability and temporary welfare - why? Because it helps the larger machine of the economy keep rolling through our "bubble and bust" market economy. The government subsidizes individuals, yes, and those individuals can go shopping and buy groceries and pay their rent for a while before getting another job, assuming the economy allows them to.

See, there are micro systems (personal economy) all the way up to macro systems (the Federal government / US economy). If the MACRO collapses, the micro will too (think Great Depression). If enough MICRO economies collapse (say from medical bankruptcy or other massive losses) then that impacts the engine of the macro. BOTH need to flourish and stabilize.

The government "helps" on the corporate side by subsidizing our gasoline (costs WAY more in other countries that aren't able to do this), our food production system (gotta keep meat on the table and milk in the fridge), as well as many other industries which CAN help us micro economies out some, as well as fatten the pockets of the corporations.

I agree we need good jobs with benefits. I don't think Trump is the person to bring them, though, as he's killing our chances at leading the new energy economy while focussing on "Coal Jobs" - that plays good to the base, I guess, but the market for coal is collapsing and new energy is where it's at. Other countries, like China (and Russia...) will get way ahead of us and become the international leaders...Sad. Trump doesn't seem to really understand much of anything other than reacting to perceived threats. Sorry. I just don't believe in him at all...

Back to healthcare/Medicaid/Welfare:

Bear in mind, for the intractable poor and the permanently disabled, there is no benefit in allowing poverty to go too far into destitution, or to have people dying in the streets. That is a moral issue.

Now this moral issue is before us again: Do we as a society and culture think its ok to let people die from lack of resources that the society itself is able to provide. In this case, lack of healthcare.

The REAL DEBATE is over that key word "ABLE" as in what ARE we "able to provide" as a society and culture. That is the essence of the right-left divide. Right argues "NO! WE CAN'T (unless its a war...or something...you know...important..." and Left argues "YES, WE CAN! Woo Hoo!!! FREE EVERYTHING!!!!!" = and thus here we are. (I'm in the middle of those extremes, btw)

(Sorry if this rambles a bit -- there is more to get to in all of this than can possibly be done with the time I have to give it....)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AboveBoard

Point is, millions lost their plans and no one gave a single ####.

Millions lost their doctors that they were told they could keep, and no one gave a single ####.

But now?





They lost PLANS. They did not lose healthcare, in fact, they got better plans that provided more benefits. They did not lose their insurance totally.

As to not giving a ####, that's your opinion. I did. I absolutely hated that there were gaps in the law that ended up making things unfair for various populations, or that it limited people's choices of providers (i.e. doctors/hospitals) based on what plan they purchased. I wanted that to be fixed. Never got that opportunity though.

Maybe people gave more of a #### than you realized? Maybe people would have been willing to try and fix that if there wasn't the constant drumbeat for REPEALLLLLLL?

I dunno. Now we get "suckocare" from the GOP. I'm guessing that will limit people's perceived "freedom" as well, once they figure out what's in it...




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just for snips and giggles let's slip on some facts:


Goldman Sachs estimates that total coverage under the ACA increased by 13 to 14 million last year and may have increased by another 4 million during the first five months of 2015, for a total coverage increase of 17 to 18 million combined. At a top line, this coincides with the figure from RAND, which estimated that there were 22.8 million newly insured people since the launch of the ACA. At the same time, 5.9 million people lost coverage. This comes out to a net gain of 16.9 million lives.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If they actually read that entire thing before voting I would be impressed, considering that it was mostly a fast track to its passing and was VERY long.


edit on 7 25 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

This is the crap we get into when government gets involved with healthcare.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Most people are idiots over this.

Obamacare is poison, and this is purposeful.


What's proposed in it would only be cost effective in a single payer system. For those not caught up yet, we don't have that, and that's why we struggle to afford it, however, the way our country does insurance instead is equivalent to lighting money on fire anyway. So we could just get rid of Obamacare, or we could actually give a damn about how it's allocated.


The intent of ObamaCare was specifically to be "too expensive" on purpose, to force us to allocate more efficiently with our money, and rise above the problem. Everyone else wants to talk about other stupid buzz words, like "Premium", but this is ultimately diversion. Probably backed by Big Insurance(The most successful industry in the World, with 0 products, their main function is collecting money.) The only point of the conversation is allocation, and Republican's couldn't have their fingers any deeper inside their ears when it comes to addressing this as the core issue.

We couldn't have failed harder in communicating this and acting on it as a society together. You complain everything is taxed, then demand to have non-socialized insurance, and pay more for nothing. All that's changed is who you're giving the Tax to, nothing else, if you're actually in support of the enormous scam that is Private Insurance.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just for snips and giggles let's slip on some facts:


Goldman Sachs estimates that total coverage under the ACA increased by 13 to 14 million last year and may have increased by another 4 million during the first five months of 2015, for a total coverage increase of 17 to 18 million combined. At a top line, this coincides with the figure from RAND, which estimated that there were 22.8 million newly insured people since the launch of the ACA. At the same time, 5.9 million people lost coverage. This comes out to a net gain of 16.9 million lives.



Yeah, people got insurance because they were ordered to by government under penalty if they didn't.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join