4 ms·

> Yes, that was the point. No, the point was to use healthcare to buy votes. > People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it. Nobody I know ha

> Yes, that was the point. No, the point was to use healthcare to buy votes. > People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it. Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured. We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists. A QUADRUPLING of health insurance costs is theft. It isn't equitable by any stretch of the imagination. And then there's the fact that the US President and everyone from his party who supported this told us, promised us, families would save $2,500 per year. Instead of that, we were forced --FORCED-- by law to buy a product that today costs four times what we used to pay for a better product. We have a situation where the US government is forcing us to pay an exorbitant amount of money for a substandard product. Forced. So much for the land of the free. > Hence people who can afford to pay for others to get healthcare, have to pay for others to get healthcare. What's next? Pay for those who can't afford to buy a house? By that logic one can justify just-about anything. Sorry, that's not justification for any government to force people to buy a bad product that financially brutalizes them. Yes, we need solutions for healthcare. Obamacare isn't even close to a solution. It's a travesty. In the long term it has actually degraded our healthcare system. The problem is it will take years for the less informed and easily impressed among us to understand this.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
>Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured. Apparently you do, if the help costs more than $100 per month. >We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists. Uninsured and underinsured auto insurance does not help anyone else, it only helps the premium payer. >what we used to pay for a better product. I do not see how this can be true when there were benefit maximums, as opposed to out of pocket maximums, and pre existing health condition exclusions existed. >What's next? Pay for those who can't afford to buy a house? By that logic one can justify just-about anything. Yes, that is the crux of politics today. How much wealth redistribution should the government perform? Previously, a few tribes in society had it made in the shade. Old people, government employees, employees of large businesses, especially white collar or ones with large union presence. Then sufficient amount of Americans no longer belonged to those tribes, hence the political will to pass reform. Which I guess you characterize as “buying votes”. >Sorry, that's not justification for any government to force people to buy a bad product that financially brutalizes them. You are not buying a bad product, you are paying a tax since your premiums explicitly subsidize others, just not paid directly to the government. Also, there is no penalty for not purchasing health insurance since 2018, so the government has not been forcing anyone to pay the “tax”.
- robomartin 4y ago
  You are misrepresenting what I am saying as well as the reality of the matter. Calling it a tax is an indication of having bought into a false political narrative. I don't really have much more to say to you. Perhaps one day you might understand just how much damage these people have done to this nation. BTW, and because the accusation is always made, implicitly or explicitly: I am not a right-winger/conservative. Not even close. I am driven by data and facts, not fantasies. Pure and simple. If I had to classify myself politically I would be a classical liberal. In other words, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That, I believe, is, for the most part, the balanced formula that lifts all boats, not the madness both political parties force upon us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Live long and prosper.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured. Apparently you do, if the help costs more than $100 per month. >We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists. Uninsured and underinsured auto insurance does not help anyone else, it only helps the premium payer. >what we used to pay for a better product. I do not see how this can be true when there were benefit maximums, as opposed to out of pocket maximums, and pre existing health condition exclusions existed. >What's next? Pay for those who can't afford to buy a house? By that logic one can justify just-about anything. Yes, that is the crux of politics today. How much wealth redistribution should the government perform? Previously, a few tribes in society had it made in the shade. Old people, government employees, employees of large businesses, especially white collar or ones with large union presence. Then sufficient amount of Americans no longer belonged to those tribes, hence the political will to pass reform. Which I guess you characterize as “buying votes”. >Sorry, that's not justification for any government to force people to buy a bad product that financially brutalizes them. You are not buying a bad product, you are paying a tax since your premiums explicitly subsidize others, just not paid directly to the government. Also, there is no penalty for not purchasing health insurance since 2018, so the government has not been forcing anyone to pay the “tax”.

robomartin 4y ago
You are misrepresenting what I am saying as well as the reality of the matter. Calling it a tax is an indication of having bought into a false political narrative. I don't really have much more to say to you. Perhaps one day you might understand just how much damage these people have done to this nation. BTW, and because the accusation is always made, implicitly or explicitly: I am not a right-winger/conservative. Not even close. I am driven by data and facts, not fantasies. Pure and simple. If I had to classify myself politically I would be a classical liberal. In other words, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That, I believe, is, for the most part, the balanced formula that lifts all boats, not the madness both political parties force upon us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Live long and prosper.