GatewayRedbirds.com

pioneer98 wrote:So the alternative to would be to pass something with no Republican buy in, but that would still require technical fixes later? I'm confused about how that would have been tons better.

There were "blue dog" Democrats that held out for a long time and weren't that much different than the moderate Republicans they were courting. I don't think the law would have looked very different if the Democrats had just ignored Republicans and went it alone because they needed every single Democrat vote they could muster to pass it.

Eh? My point is that to functional well, ANY major new initiative like this is going to require Congressional buy in the period when it's being rolled out. A new single payer program would likely have also faced issues requiring Congressional intervention.

Schlich wrote:Aetna to exit nearly 7 in 10 Obamacare plans

We need to nationalize them and all the others. Just say fine oh you want to leave cool you no longer exist. End this [expletive] now. It will never happen in my lifetime though. It's just going to eat up more and more of Americans wages and we'll continue to sink into another piss poor economy. The wealthy will get yet another bail out and we will rinse and repeat..


As for the Blue Dog democrats if Obama wanted a single payer system and had an ounce of balls he would have got on national TV in prime time called them out and said I guess these democrats right here are fine with the blood on their hands from the people dying in this country because they can't afford health care. They will not ever see another ounce of funding from the DNC. BOOM instant votes because while voting for Obama care will cost you Republican votes, having your President call you out on TV and take away your funding will guarantee lose you an election. I will always put health care as a huge black mare on Obama's Presidency. He just didn't have the balls to do it right.

Aetna's stock has only gone up since Obamacare passed. They are whining about "losses" but doing quite well

pioneer98 wrote:Aetna's stock has only gone up since Obamacare passed. They are whining about "losses" but doing quite well

See - this is the thing. Hypercapitalism at its worst. More, more, more and its never enough.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:Aetna's stock has only gone up since Obamacare passed. They are whining about "losses" but doing quite well

See - this is the thing. Hypercapitalism at its worst. More, more, more and its never enough.

++

haltz wrote:Your wife is supporting a full-time hobby. I wouldn't really count that as being poor.

Don't consider it a hobby [expletive] you.

Schlich wrote:This:

Diddy wrote:So are people moving up or are we creating a class that relies on assistance because they don't know anything different.

The best thing for all Americans is for everyone to be employeed and contributing.

Is pretty damn condescending.

How so?

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:Aetna's stock has only gone up since Obamacare passed. They are whining about "losses" but doing quite well

See - this is the thing. Hypercapitalism at its worst. More, more, more and its never enough.

It's not "hypercapitalism." It's just capitalism.

Diddy wrote:

Schlich wrote:This:

Diddy wrote:So are people moving up or are we creating a class that relies on assistance because they don't know anything different.

The best thing for all Americans is for everyone to be employeed and contributing.

Is pretty damn condescending.

How so?

Preface: someone PM'ed me and said that the tone of my post came off a little combatitive, and I apologize for that if so.

But anyways, I know you didn't exactly say it this way, but the implication of your comments, from my end, is clearly part of an overarching narrative that "poor people are just lazy and if they work harder they'd be fine". The condescension comes in because while there may be a negligible amount of people "gaming the system" so to speak, there are immeasurably more people who are working 60, 70 hours a week and still struggling to pay their bills. To suggest that providing these people with public health care would cause them to be even lazier does not give those kinds of people with dignity they deserve.

Arthur Dent wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:So the alternative to would be to pass something with no Republican buy in, but that would still require technical fixes later? I'm confused about how that would have been tons better.

There were "blue dog" Democrats that held out for a long time and weren't that much different than the moderate Republicans they were courting. I don't think the law would have looked very different if the Democrats had just ignored Republicans and went it alone because they needed every single Democrat vote they could muster to pass it.

Eh? My point is that to functional well, ANY major new initiative like this is going to require Congressional buy in the period when it's being rolled out. A new single payer program would likely have also faced issues requiring Congressional intervention.

I agree with that. I was talking about your comment that it was a big mistake to try to get Republican buy-in. Maybe I misunderstood your point/comment.