Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Why not let th 20 million folks who have insurance because of the AHCA VOTE on whether or not they want it taken away? What could it hurt?
@Randy D -- Once again repeating the RAWF "crammed down the collective American throat" language. By that standard, ANY legislation that didn't enjoy bipartisan support was "crammed down America's throat". When will I hear you complain about those bills?
As for your assertions:
--For the vast majority of Americans, they were able to keep their doctors. Since they had either employer-based health insurance or were on a government program (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.), they kept their doctors. Was that 100% true? No, but any legislation so complex will have outliers and exceptions.
--Illegal immigrants are NOT elegible for government benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies in the exchanges, and so forth. Did some receive benefits anyway? I'm sure some did. But if your standard of success for a law is 100% compliance then we should eliminate ALL laws because people murder, steal, and commit fraud despite copious laws against such things.
--Are rates exorbatant? By what standard? Did some people's rates go up? I'm sure they did. Did ***everyone's*** rates go up? No, they didn't. I personally went from being unable to get coverage from ANY insurer at ANY price to receiving Medicaid, which came in awfully handy when I had kidney stone issues this year.
In short, your argument is, "OBAMACARE SUX 'CAUSE OBAMACARE SUX!"
It would be nice if you had something more sophisticated to present.
This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at January 4, 2017 4:16 PM MST
You misstate my assertion: I did not express any point of view about Barack Hussein Obama. Your assertion is what you have posted here. If you're going to rebut, please do not resort to lies in order to do it.
In the state of California, legislation has already been introduced that calls for extended the pool of eligible recipients to those people who are in the US illegally. This is not an issue of a few people who slip through cracks.
If and when you believe in and support an issue, you have the right to do so. I also have the right to not believe in it or support it.
@Randy D -- Re: "In the state of California, legislation has already been introduced that calls for extended the pool of eligible recipients to those people who are in the US illegally."
Yes, PROPOSED LEGISLATION. In one state. That doesn't make it reality or mean that it was part of the original Obamacare package. Some of the problems with Obamacare have been because the SCOTUS ruled that states were allowed some leeway in how they applied it.
For example, multiple states (almost universally with GOP-run state governments) have rejected Medicaid expansion, thereby foregoing billions in federal funds to finance health care for poor residents.
Gosh, you'd almost think GOPers hate poor people (that or they hate money. But how likely is that?)
Of course, when those people without Medicaid show up for super-expensive emergency care, guess who has to pay the cross-subsidy to cover their care? Yep, those with the "skyrocketing" insurance premiums....;-D...
Yes, you have a right to "believe and support an issue" or not. But if that belief/support is based upon the Moon being made of Green Cheese or when it involves SCHUCKING SCMYPOCRISY (e.g. the "rammed down our throat" repetition), I also have a right to criticize your lack of reasonableness. I note that you provided NO evidence or argument (other than the California proposal which is unlikely to pass) to rebut my criticisms.
Why do you assume that in a liberal state such as California, a state with one of the highest populations of illegal aliens than any other US state, a state wherein the majority of liberal legislative measures pass , that this particular measure is unlikely to pass? You state its unlikelihood as if it's a shoo-in.
Listen, you obviously need a lesson on personal perspectives. Just because someone doesn't think the way you do doesn't mean that the green cheese analogy is accurate. You're an intelligent person, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything you think is correct or that opposing opinions are unintelligent. Your quips about how my reasoning is flawed is based more on you making connections to perceived stupidity rather than an acceptance of viewpoints that differ from yours. The second part of the lesson is that I am not attempting to convince you that I am right, nor am I trying to change your mind. You're obviously just as steadfast in your stance as I am in mine. There is nothing I can say that will make you jump the fence to my side, and I understand that from the beginning. By the same token, there is nothing you can say on this issue that will convince me that you are right, nor will you be able to change my mind. You give the impression that by your insistence on posting more and more of your argument that I will "see the light", and if I do not, it's because I'm not smart enough to do so.
You may continue to plug away at it as much as you like, but you may notice that it's ineffective. By saying that, I am NOT telling you to see things my way, and I am NOT accusing you of a lack of intelligence. (The latter being more your tactic.) ~
my2cents 