Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
They are two completely different programs established under the Act:
DUH? REALLY? CUZ I TUNKED THEY'Z ONLY WONNN!
Fucktard.
They are two completely different programs established under the Act:
DUH? REALLY? CUZ I TUNKED THEY'Z ONLY WONNN!
Fucktard.
I doubt you'll find any Swedes, Norweigians, or Danes in the trailer park.
They aren't failing? Well, then why do we need to revamp our entire health care system because the government-run health care we have in place is "not enough" according to libs? Seems like, if these programs to fund health clinics and free health care to poor people, were successful, we wouldn't be having a discussion about implementing a massive new program to do the same thing.
The reason is the Repubs interfered with implementing a proper program in the beginning. Just like they did with ObamaCare. Obama's greatest mistake was trying to get the Repubs involved. ObamaCare would be better than it is now if he hadn't tried to compromise with the Repubs. When he finally kicked the Repubs out of the discussions things like a public option had already been rejected. In any case, when Obama starts his second term he'll address the problems without the Repubs.
[h=2]Be as smart as a Liberal... It's EASY![/h]
I'll say it is.....just schedule a lobotomy....look what its done for Apple and the Troll....
I think you need to go back and re-study history. The Republicans were instrumental in passing the Social Security Act, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, and it couldn't have passed without their support. You want to know why? You want to know what party was "standing in the schoolhouse door" at the time? Hmmm?
But still... We already have these programs, they are already being funded with our tax dollars, and they already pay for health care for poor and elderly people. You've not rationalized why we needed to completely re-vamp our health care system. We already had a program, you want to say Republicans messed it up, and we need another duplicate of the one we have, but there isn't anything that prevents Republicans from messing it up, is there? So what's the point? To keep inventing new programs that do the same thing, and keep watching Republicans mess them up? How many trillions are you going to spend doing this, before you discover it ain't working?
I don't think they had lobotomies, I think they were born that way!!
Excellent point. The average figures you posted are a tad low, no doubt due to the low quality HMOs, and low budget/high deductible policies.ObamaCare is not a duplicate. Yes, there are programs to look after the poor. The problem is who is considered poor? (Excerpt)American officials have deemed the current poverty line to be at around $22,000 for a family of four...(End.) (http://rt.com/usa/news/half-poor-america-poverty-909/) Do you think a family earning $23,000/yr is not poor?
(Excerpt) November 2, 2011 – According to the ‘Cost & Benefits of Individual and Family Health Insurance Plans’ report, released today by eHealth, Inc., the average premium paid for individual health insurance coverage in the United States in 2011 was $2,196 per year ($183 per month); families paid an average annual premium of $4,968 ($414 per month). The report also found that the average deductible for individually-purchased health insurance plans in 2011 was $2,935 for individuals and $3,879 for families.(End) (http://news.ehealthinsurance.com/pr/ehi/how-much-does-health-insurance-218305.aspx) Take $5,000 ($4,968) off $23,000 and we're left with $18,000. With four people trying to live on $18,000 do you think they have $4,000 ($3,879) to spare for a deductible?
So to say the poor are being looked after is simply nonsense. I put the following questions to you. Do you think a family of 4 whose total income is 23,000/yr or $25,000/yr is poor? Do you think they should be helped?
While one can take into consideration what a party did in the past the primary concern is what they intend to do in the future.
ObamaCare is not a duplicate. Yes, there are programs to look after the poor. The problem is who is considered poor?
So to say the poor are being looked after is simply nonsense.
Do you think a family of 4 whose total income is 23,000/yr or $25,000/yr is poor? Do you think they should be helped?
You're right. Most people are born that way. Studies have shown small babies have empathy for other small babies by offering their toys to a child that has none. It's the folks who have been brainwashed and/or acquired society's ruthlessness from the deviants and rather than object they adapt the same principals.
A family plan that's worth having, will cost at least $1000/month. That's more than half of the annual salary of those making 23k/year. Most people who spew the nonsense that we see in this thread, get the bulk of their premiums paid by their employer. Why would they want to change anything?
A good many of us didn't want to change anything... that may come as a shocker to you, I know you thought we all LOVED the idea of Obamacare like you did, but it's not so. Most of us felt like there were some things that we needed to address, like TORT reform, and interstate commerce, ironically enough... but Democrats pressed ahead with this massive entitlement program, that isn't going to fly, and will be repealed in the next Congress.
You will be LUCKY to see a premium at $1k a month! Expect that to rise dramatically, as the demand for health care is realized in the field. This is ALWAYS the flaw to Liberal thinking... you don't consider the consequences of your actions, then when they happen, you act totally surprised by it! Simple logic should tell you, if we add tens of millions of new 'consumers' to the health care system, and we don't add any new doctors, nurses, hospitals and staff... what is going to happen? The demand will cause the price to necessarily increase, as is always the case. What's going to be the brilliant Liberal idea to deal with that, when it happens?
Not to mention, you've now made it law of the land that the Federal government can "TAX" you for not buying an insurance plan you can't afford.
Fucking geniuses, I tell ya!
Good lord you are ignorant. Those presently uninsured are being served...in emergency rooms instead of clinics and at quadrupple the cost. Tell us Dixtard, who pays the bill at the emergency room when the indigent consumer can't? Why must you be so short-sighted all the time?
The hospital eats it, mostly. Now, they do raise their rates to help offset some of the cost, and they beg and plead at city council meetings and county commission meetings, to get some sort of handout from them to help, but the hospitals are the ones who cover this, as mandated by law.
Why aren't these people who are going to the emergency room, using the health clinics we're paying for? Anywhere there is a hospital, there is probably a public health clinic, why can't they go there? What was our purpose all these years, of funding these places with our tax money? I always thought, it was so poor people could have access to health care! Was there some other reason we spent trillions of dollars for this?
Save us all a bunch of time and change your name to moron will you?
Where does the hospital get the money to pay the deadbeat's bills, idiot? Taxpayers. You are paying either way. Wouldn't it be better if they could be served by cheap clinics (NOT MANDATED TO SERVE THE POOR FOR FREE, WHICH IS WHY THE POOR DON'T GO THERE, IDIOT) than at expensive hospitals? The state pays any bills unpaid by indigents after two years. How can you argue about something you have no knowledge of?
Yes, cuz clinics fix broken limbs. Or stitch open wounds.Well we're finding out in our little economics lesson with retards, that "taxpayers" pretty much fund every goddamn thing, because "taxpayers" are the ONLY people who have money!!!! Everyone who is not a taxpayer, is mooching off the taxpayer.
It would be BETTER if they used the cheaper clinics we've already paid for, and you haven't told me WHY they can't use?
Yes, cuz clinics fix broken limbs. Or stitch open wounds.