Michael Moore explains why.
What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.
Even still...
And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.
And people wonder why it's tough to be a liberal...
16 comments:
So in other words liberals don't like it because it's not full on socialized and conservatives don't like it because it has socialism. Nobody likes it because a hodge-podge frankenstein system like that isn't going to work right anyway. The left made sure we all had to have it, but if we don't like it they will be sure to blame the original idea of it on a pseudo-conservative but it we do like it they will take all the credit. If it doesn't work it's because of right wing obstruction, if it does work we won't know because there is no real standard of measuring that. Finally we can claim the good deeds of it 'working' by pointing out 'success' stories of people without also pointing out the inherent wealth transfer and increased taxes necessary for that 'success'.
What wealth transfer?
Expansion of Medicaid, paid for by increased taxes. Offering subsidies, paid for by taxes.
Those who receive both Medicaid and subsidies do not pay those taxes. Ergo, wealth is transferred via taxes.
Ah, I see. Why is it that you guys only bitch about wealth transfers that go downwards and not upwards? At present, there are around 4000 people that are very wealthy that do not pay taxes in this country. Further, any rent seeking/receiving wealthy person or corporation is also receiving wealth transfers from me, you and all the rest of the taxpayers of this nation. Our hard earned money is going upward.
Do you get subsidies, GD? If you look closely, everyone really does which means there is a whole lot of transferring of wealth going on. That's what happens when you live in a society of people (see: adults) who are reliant on one another in order to have a stable and thriving culture. Really, this tired myth of poor people robbing the wealth of their "hard earned" money is complete bullshit. It's being perpetuated by people who are lying to you, GD, to serve their own needs.
there are around 4000 people that are very wealthy that do not pay taxes in this country
Awesome! Those supposed 4000 not paying taxes hurts me less than the 4 million doing the same. Numbers matter....
any rent seeking/receiving
And your solution is always to increase the opportunity for people to rent seek. You've learned nothing.
Our hard earned money is going upward
Numbers matter.
there is a whole lot of transferring of wealth going on
Then why the fuck did you even question my assertion that O-care had wealth transfers if you knew it to begin with? Oh, because I said most people weren't being told the truth about what it consisted of. And you dismiss it after you figure you can't deny it? So honest.
this tired myth of poor people robbing the wealth of their "hard earned" money is complete bullshit
Myth? Where is the money coming from and going to IN REGARDS TO OBAMACARE? No myth Mark. That's facts, and you haven't denied up, just tried to obfuscate.
Those who receive both Medicaid and subsidies do not pay those taxes.
And ironically enough who pays into Medicaid and SocSec on every dollar they earn? The working poor!
Myth? Where is the money coming from and going to IN REGARDS TO OBAMACARE? No myth Mark. That's facts, and you haven't denied up, just tried to obfuscate
I didn't address them because this issue has been settled long ago and nothing has changed. It's a deficit neutral law that has been analyzed time and again as being paid for by all the newly insured people, improvements to Medicare (the alleged "cuts" that Mitt Romney whine about) and those who have to pay a penalty for not being insured.
The ACA is going to end up saving us money in the long run compared to the disaster that was waiting for us in terms of health care costs. Of course, this is where your emotions about government come in to play so you aren't capable of being reasonable. You believe nothing they say and everything inside the bubble. When it does save us money, you will just make up some bullshit to suit your rage and ignore reality.
Really, that's fine by me because without any sort of workable solution of your own, it just means more losing elections.
Really, that's fine by me because without any sort of workable solution of your own, it just means more losing elections.
Proving that you are a very low information voter and how easily you are manipulated.
Deficit neutral? That's your response? You are really just flailing around with no understanding of what's being discussed aren't you?
If you disagree, explain why. Let's see your numbers, evidence and reasoning from unbiased sources.
Let's see your numbers, evidence and reasoning from unbiased sources.
Interesting isn't it? How M expects everything (including "reasoning") from "unbiased sources" - when he is more than willing to use highly biased sources himself. Even if the numbers (which are in fact "evidence") are from an unbiased source M can't build his own reasoning without a source.
Rules are for suckers, silly juris. If you care about rules, then you must follow them at all times, especially when confronted by those who are pragmatic, which is to say flexible, in their principles. Neat how that works out, isn't it? Heads they win, tails you lose.
evidence and reasoning from unbiased sources.
LOL! Ok.
GD says O-care will increase taxes
Mark replies that it is deficit neutral
These two words are not the same. Your "argument" doesn't even address what you think it does, let alone what the topic of discussion is.
If you really, really need me to show you an unbiased source, I could perhaps quote from the freaking dictionary....
I think it's only fair to point out that even the worst policies cannot help but to benefit some of those it's intended to help. Witness the history of Communism. Conversely, even the best policies implemented and run in the best possible way, will inevitably hurt some some people.
Any measure of benefit, regardless of how small in comparison to what was promised, of a leftist program will be praised to the heavens as justifying it. On the other hand, any harm caused to anybody by a non-leftist policy, no matter how small in comparison to the benefits, will be shrilly denounced in the most apocalyptic terms possible.
any rent seeking/receiving
So it's fair to say that rent seeking/corporate welfare is something Mark is opposed to? That's good.
Here's an interesting story about the infighting between the "establishment" GOP and the Tea Party. So why are they opposing the Tea Party candidates? It's because the Tea Party opposes rent seeking and corporate welfare.
That means that Mark agrees with the Tea Party!
::: sits back and waits :::
Is it all of the Tea Party or just some of the factions? It's my understanding that guys like Matt Kibbe (a very thoughtful fellow and a great example of who the Tea Party should have out there speaking for them)are in the minority. I hope I'm wrong because this would be an example of where something could be achieved from common ground. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are the wealthy.
Post a Comment