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.
Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?
Originally posted by michael1983l
How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?
Just saying.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's true. People don't like change. But I suspect that if it were "McCainCare" or "BushCare" or even "RomneyCare", the same people protesting it so strongly now would be the ones who would support it 100%...
Originally posted by Maxatoria
The traditional american system is either you can afford it or its tough, if you cant afford healthcare then its tough you'll die unless someone feels generous (chairity)
Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?
How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?
Just saying.
Originally posted by Phantom28804
I would vote that the majority of people that are against Obamacare is fear of Socialism. Even though there is already a lot of Socialism in America already I think people feel this would be kind of a nail in the Democratic coffin so to speak, or at least something that couldn't be so much denied. I personally am not all against the concept as Socialized Medicine as it does have a good basis for working.
What scares me about it the most is not so much the Socialized part of it as the government controlled part. For example. Let's say that you are 40+ years of age or older and you come down with a rare disease that is only treatable with a specific and expensive treatment plan. So with the new mandated insurance coverage comes mandated procedures. So let's say they don't feel there is a good reason to waste that kind of money on someone who is already over the age of 40. Not going to be able to work all that much longer, and we should use this money to treat people that are younger and can work longer etc.
I know it's not a nice thought to think about but it is a viable reality.
Proponents responded by arguing that NBC's tinkering with the language of the question (which it had also done in its July survey) had contributed to the drop in favorability for a public plan.
SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.
Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Romneycare, Obamacare - the only problem those two have is in the name.
Just because you sipped the kool-aid and found it to your liking doesn't mean the rest of us have.
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?
Originally posted by MidnightTide
Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?
I must say, how many pages are in that bill? Over 2000? Some impressive reading skills that person has.
Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?
Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?
How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?
Just saying.