Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[reprise85]

Del

[reprise85]

People are more than statistics, though. Yes, it is a more fair law if more people gain insurance than lose it. But it must be hard, working in the social work field, and seeing these people who currently have insurance not only start to not have it, but lose progress they have made in the system. Yes, it's good for the people that get it but they would not be "losing" something that they thought they had.

Ultimately, of course more people having it is better. But statistics really aren't everything when you're faced with people who were fucked now being super duper fucked and losing what they had. I can understand not being sympathetic with the numbers at that point. Assuming this is a reason Starla feels the way she does, since I don't really know.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by reprise85

People are more than statistics, though. Yes, it is a more fair law if more people gain insurance than lose it. But it must be hard, working in the social work field, and seeing these people who currently have insurance not only start to not have it, but lose progress they have made in the system. Yes, it's good for the people that get it but they would not be "losing" something that they thought they had.

Ultimately of course more people having it is better. But statistics really aren't everything when you're faced with people who were fucked now being super duper fucked and losing what they had. I can understand not being sympathetic with the numbers at that point. But since I'm not in that role, I can only suppose this is a reason someone in Starla's position could feel. I want more people to be insured, period.

yeah I'm aware of all that, and like I said I think humanism is a good quality and good outlook on life. Just not always a good way to interpret policies which affect multitudes of people, at least not without balancing it with a lot of cold hard research and quantifiable info. Like you said, more people insured is ultimately better and what starla believes is that more people insured is not better because the pain others will go through is too much. I think? Either that or she really is convinced that the personal accounts she has heard somehow mean that the quantifiable data that more people will be insured is wrong.

[redbreegull]

I honestly don't know, she can't stay on topic and she can't respond to any point I actually bring up without committing straw man.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by reprise85

People are more than statistics, though. Yes, it is a more fair law if more people gain insurance than lose it. But it must be hard, working in the social work field, and seeing these people who currently have insurance not only start to not have it, but lose progress they have made in the system. Yes, it's good for the people that get it but they would not be "losing" something that they thought they had.

Ultimately, of course more people having it is better. But statistics really aren't everything when you're faced with people who were fucked now being super duper fucked and losing what they had. I can understand not being sympathetic with the numbers at that point. Assuming this is a reason Starla feels the way she does, since I don't really know.

I'm seeing more negative outcomes, than positive ones. I really don't know what else to say. I don't see how millions of people losing their insurance is a good thing, especially those who were receiving experimental treatments that were keeping them alive. I could go on about the things I see here at my job, but I'm sure you already have an idea.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

can we get like a 1 sentence version of that

you should vote because voting is important and stuff

[Trotskilicious]

i mean if you guys want to pretend anyone's counting your vote for real you go on ahead

[Future Boy]

seriously

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by reprise85

People are more than statistics, though. Yes, it is a more fair law if more people gain insurance than lose it. But it must be hard, working in the social work field, and seeing these people who currently have insurance not only start to not have it, but lose progress they have made in the system. Yes, it's good for the people that get it but they would not be "losing" something that they thought they had.

Ultimately, of course more people having it is better. But statistics really aren't everything when you're faced with people who were fucked now being super duper fucked and losing what they had. I can understand not being sympathetic with the numbers at that point. Assuming this is a reason Starla feels the way she does, since I don't really know.

truth is though people 'losing' their insurance were paying up to $2000 for a "pray you don't get sick" plan. it's sort of like telling somebody who needs a car that they won't be able to pay $30 grand for a '92 hyundai sonata with 400k miles on it. chances are they'll end up with something much better

conversely obama shouldn't have went around the country telling people they'll be able to keep their plan no matter what. or he could, you know, just tell the truth and/or but a big fat asterisk next to it. so i don't have any sympathy for the political fallout on his end... but even then it's kind of huffing and puffing over semantics

[redbreegull]

well starla is seeing more negative outcomes than positive ones. so you know. even though there's evidence that more people will gain insurance than lose insurance. doesn't matter. she sees the truth.

[Order 66]

if these people's plans are dropped already it can't be because of obamacare because those changes don't go into effect until dec 31st. they may have hit the annual limit on their old plan

[Order 66]

also, cancelled plans =/= "losing insurance"

seems alot of people are missing that distinction

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Order 66

if these people's plans are dropped already it can't be because of obamacare because those changes don't go into effect until dec 31st. they may have hit the annual limit on their old plan

That's not true. People are receiving letters that clearly state they are cancelling or discontinuing their plans because they are not in compliance with the aca. Many are losing their insurance because they cannot afford the aca compliant ones being offered at the beginning of next year, and then there are people such as cancer patients losing plans that were covering experimental treatments that they can't get under the new plan.

[Order 66]

that's what i'm saying.. if they're getting notices it is because of the aca. but any coverage problems other than that is because of something else.

i know people who got notices too and all they had to do is go to the payroll site and choose whatever plan was most similar to theirs. some cost more but it was pretty much in the same ballpark.. admittedly a pain in the ass but i find it hard to believe somebody would lose their insurance out of affordability unless they had one of those cadillac plans for some weird reason. or they had really shitty coverage to begin with. some people really do fall through cracks and it sucks but this demographic is who the law is supposed to help through subsidies

it sucks about expiramental treatments being dropped but insurance plans are always slippery with that because there isn't any way to quantify its value. "experimental" is a wide umbrella, unfortunately

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

well starla is seeing more negative outcomes than positive ones. so you know. even though there's evidence that more people will gain insurance than lose insurance. doesn't matter. she sees the truth.

Is there any point in discussing it anymore? What doesn't affect you does not matter. I have already discussed how this is going to hurt more people than help them. I've provided enough information that shows it in this thread and others, but you have continued to dance around it with the same rhetoric you were using over a year ago. You tried to tell me that personal experiences doesn't matter, only your "facts" that you're pulling off of web sites that are mostly biased. Whatever I have tried to show you in regards to the aca you have done nothing but discredit it without even considering it especially if it's personal experiences describing hardship ie: job losses, hours, insurance plans due to the aca. I don't know if you really believe that this is happening. You seem to think that everyone hated their existing insurance plans and that Obama has swooped in and rescued them.

There can't be any credible evidence at this point showing more people gaining insurance, when we're just dealing with the fall out of people losing their existing plans and what happens with states that won't offer expanded medicaid. I already said we won't be able to really see it more clearly until a lot of time has passed and the program is fully implemented. There is a lot to consider with people losing plans that covered experimental treatments and drugs, some that were keeping them or their children alive, that they won't be getting anymore. People who fall into the gap, who don't qualify for subsidies, or their plans under the aca are too expensive for them to afford.

Our clinic serves not just tribal members, but non natives of the community. I found out last week that in our county, 128 people will be culled from mental health services because we have to make cuts. As I've said before, our program is funded by the govt, and thanks to the aca, we have to cut back some services. I see things happening on a local level, but these personal accounts are the ones you don't want to really consider. And yeah, I do lose sleep wondering where some of these people are going to go, because you can't just forget names and faces.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Order 66

that's what i'm saying.. if they're getting notices it is because of the aca. but any coverage problems other than that is because of something else.

i know people who got notices too and all they had to do is go to the payroll site and choose whatever plan was most similar to theirs. some cost more but it was pretty much in the same ballpark.. admittedly a pain in the ass but i find it hard to believe somebody would lose their insurance out of affordability unless they had one of those cadillac plans for some weird reason. or they had really shitty coverage to begin with. some people really do fall through cracks and it sucks but this demographic is who the law is supposed to help through subsidies

it sucks about expiramental treatments being dropped but insurance plans are always slippery with that because there isn't any way to quantify its value. "experimental" is a wide umbrella, unfortunately

A lot of people are reporting that it's too expensive for them to afford the changes in cost. I'm sure that there are many people who are going to benefit, but so far it seems like the poor, or working poor are going to get screwed. I don't think we're going to see the whole picture for some time to come. I hate the fact that people who lose their experimental treatments could die if they can't find coverage that will continue them. It's just not fair :[

[redbreegull]

[Future Boy]

starla its pointless, they will happy talk this thing til forever and the people will always just be too stupid to see that things really are better for them this way.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

I was responding to eulogy.... and on my kindle at the time which doesn't like me using the quote feature.

so you still totally and completely misunderstood what i said

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Order 66

if these people's plans are dropped already it can't be because of obamacare because those changes don't go into effect until dec 31st. they may have hit the annual limit on their old plan

This puts on display an ignorance towards running a business. Businesses have to plan a yearly budget and when looking at next year they factor in YoMommaCare's effects and make decisions based on that today.


no wonder we're so fucked...

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

well starla is seeing more negative outcomes than positive ones. so you know. even though there's evidence that more people will gain insurance than lose insurance. doesn't matter. she sees the truth.

You have no credibility with me because you prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are incapable of critical thought and analysis. If I felt your political philosophy was based on intuition, I could understand that a bit better, but it would just mean your intuition leaves a lot to be desired for you not to see how Universal HealthCare is a Communist scam.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Starla

The dems are not pro war? How many speeches did kerry give about how we just HAD to attack Syria right away, before allowing the UN to complete investigations? How many dems said they supported it? Pelosi and Boxer were so adamant that bombing Syria was the right thing.

How about Feinstein who is the worst, calling for Obama to release more stats on civilian deaths due to drone strikes yet he resists releasing the info so no one knows the most recent tally.

Yes they are leftist authoritarian war hawks. Lets give them all a nobel peace prize.

The War Machine just uses whatever politicians it can to manufacture consent towards war. This should be the clearest example of how Democrats and Republicans are useful props for the Oligarchs.

Many Conservatives came to understand this during Dubya Bush's terms, and thus started the Tea Party as a result.


Still waiting for Liberals to pull their head out of Obama's ass.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Starla

I protested bush as well. There is no point in debating who is worse anymore when they are all horrible. This dem vs repub is all a waste of time. Bush and obama are both war criminals. Obama should be charged with war crimes for violating international laws. Too bad bush will not be because obama made sure it wouldn't happen.

The most fringe notion I've seen regarding this aspect of our political system, and how to rectify it, comes from a group of folks who would like to declare Al Gore the rightful victor of the 2000 election.

They say they have the proof of election fraud, which btw, Justice Ginsberg essentially admitted to earlier this year.


The idea is to name Al Gore the President (but not put him in office). This would nullify all laws from our government from 2000 onward, but the emphasis would be on the unconstitutional ones (think Patriot Act). There would be some transitional government to hold place until new elections could be had.


Like I said, its fringe. But it does have a certain political sexiness.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

starla its pointless, they will happy talk this thing til forever and the people will always just be too stupid to see that things really are better for them this way.

Pretty much :] Are you saying I should give up? I'm a patient person.... I can go on and on lol.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I know i am wasting my breath because Starla will either ignore the following or purposely interpret it in a reductive way that is very easy for her to dismiss without critical thinking, but for the hundredth time:

The flaw I see in attitudes like hers is not that she thinks both parties are terrible. It's that she believes that she is making some kind of difference by protest voting. It's very self-serving because all you do by protest voting is give yourself a pat on the back. Good job me, I avoided voting for either evil! Beyond that, she has made zero difference to anyone's life or to the government, or to anything. A protest vote is a vote in the trash thanks to the Constitution. So why isn't Starla vehemently advocating electoral reform? She could join a group that wants to amend the Constitution to do away with the EC. Hell, she could at least be arguing here for the needed reform. At least you are exposing people to ideas on the only solution to the two party system. She isn't though, she wants to bitch and moan incessantly about the way things are without taking a single meaningful step to contribute a helping hand or voice to the necessary changes that need to be made to our government to do away with the two party system. I have become convinced that her purpose is completely self-serving even more so by her inability to listen to or comprehend anything anyone else has to say. She isn't here for a discussion, she is here to perform a monologue and pat herself on the back.

STFU you little fucking pussy...

Your last sentence describes YOU. You fucking dumbAss.


You haven't commented on the facts I've provided detailing what's to come from Obamacare. Period.


Or combat the notion of how inept government is to begin with. A Billion dollars to put up a pathetic web-site when 20 jackholes within a 5 mile radius of me right now could build a better one at a fraction of the cost.


The web-site is a clear example of how Government run anything waste money and then doesn't function well.

It should also alarm you that the only way Obamacare can get paid for is by Government force through the I.R.S and the extra 18,000 agents needed for that.


The silver lining here is people who never considered a real tax revolt will be forced to by 2016. "End the Fed" will be a rallying cry that will get louder no matter what the shill mockingbirds in the media will say.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

so you still totally and completely misunderstood what i said

Then what were you trying to say?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

The War Machine just uses whatever politicians it can to manufacture consent towards war.

Still waiting for Liberals to pull their head out of Obama's ass.

I pretty much saw that once Obama became a war president, and there are a lot of libs waking up to the bullshit. Unfortunately it took the aca to do that. The proof will be in the pudding when election season rolls around.

I cleared that up for you

[Starla]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

The most fringe notion I've seen regarding this aspect of our political system, and how to rectify it, comes from a group of folks who would like to declare Al Gore the rightful victor of the 2000 election.

They say they have the proof of election fraud, which btw, Justice Ginsberg essentially admitted to earlier this year.


The idea is to name Al Gore the President (but not put him in office). This would nullify all laws from our government from 2000 onward, but the emphasis would be on the unconstitutional ones (think Patriot Act). There would be some transitional government to hold place until new elections could be had.


Like I said, its fringe. But it does have a certain political sexiness.

lol yeah but I don't like Al Gore either.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Aeris Hilton

I cleared that up for you

Apparently I missed that.