USA Elections, whaddya think?

[bulldog]

Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.

Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.

It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.

My point being that Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky who's wife was uninsured and just got diagnosed with cancer is likely
to be screwed and yet's he's wholesale voted for it. I seriously don't get it.

Yea but Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky isnt bulldog, so in his opinion he can get freaked 'cause this is America and we look out for ourselves before anyone else or something like that.  Anyway, back to printing since I'm done with my morning emails and artwork...

Yeah, sorry that bulldog has his own family to worry about and can't let his heart bleed for 350 million other people.

Charity should be a choice. There are so many kickstarter like programs, or organizations, that help people in need. If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.

I am personally a fairly charitable person. But don't FORCE it upon me. You can think I'm a terrible person, you can look down at me. I DON'T CARE. Get out of my wallet.

[mk162]

Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay.  Just sayin'

[ebscreen]

If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.

This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.

The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.

[royster13]

Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay.  Just sayin'

But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....

[GraphicDisorder]

You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.

Not in the slightest. But anything that makes insurance company ceo's pissy is a step in the right direction.
Becoming a billionaire at the detriment of your fellow man's health is disgusting in my opinion.
They are now wet in the britches at the promises of the orange one.

I, for one, have no problem paying more if it means that we do better by the health of the whole.

And FWIW, I've never had health care that I would consider even decent. My plan is almost $400 now.
I had BCBS, it sucked. Switched to Kaiser, it sucks. Overall health care in this country seems like
effing mattress salesmen or something.

I don't mind paying more IF it's solving our problems. It's not though. I know countless people that can't either afford it or what they can afford is total horse shat. We can do better.

$400 a month to me is nothing and that's what its roughly costing me. Ill pay it all day if my dryer guy could stand a fair plan for $100 a month. But its not working like that. Its still broke.

[bulldog]

If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.

This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.

The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is, why do you think you can take as much of my money as you want that you did not work at all for to make that happen?

If I reach into your wallet and see you have $200 and I take $60 or maybe $80 or maybe $100 because I want to go do something good with it but I'm not going to tell you exactly what, you're cool with that?

Or is that stealing?

I'm a little confused. Where is the line?

[mimosatexas]

Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay.  Just sayin'

But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....

Which many studies have pointed to as one of the main reasons our healthcare costs per capita are twice the next most expensive country.

[bulldog]

Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay.  Just sayin'

But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....

Which many studies have pointed to as one of the main reasons our healthcare costs per capita are twice the next most expensive country.

Dude it costs like $50 to go see a doctor if you don't have insurance. Usually $25 if you do. If that was truly the case, the money you spent on insurance could just go to doctor visits to stop the problems before they get to the point of no return. Poor exercise and diet are the reason for most of the health problems in this country.

[mimosatexas]

If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.

This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.

The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is, why do you think you can take as much of my money as you want that you did not work at all for to make that happen?

If I reach into your wallet and see you have $200 and I take $60 or maybe $80 or maybe $100 because I want to go do something good with it but I'm not going to tell you exactly what, you're cool with that?

Or is that stealing?

I'm a little confused. Where is the line?

This is the fundamental issue honestly.  My view of it (which is of course biased by which side of "the line" I fall on) is people either believe that collectively we are better off when everyone contributes to the greater good, or they believe that we should look out for our own self-interests at the expense of the greater good as long as it benefits us more than our neighbors.  Essentially you either believe we can all benefit together albeit maybe with a little less individual benefit when compared to everyone else, or we can have some who benefit at the expense of some who don't but those who do benefit will benefit a lot more.  I don't really see why insurance executives and shareholders making record profits is better for me or you or anyone else than modestly well paid bureaucrats doing the same work.

[Crazy Mike]

We need Dr. Ben Carson to come to our rescue!

[mk162]

What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet.  At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation.  I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.

[bulldog]

This is the fundamental issue honestly.  My view of it (which is of course biased by which side of "the line" I fall on) is people either believe that collectively we are better off when everyone contributes to the greater good, or they believe that we should look out for our own self-interests at the expense of the greater good as long as it benefits us more than our neighbors.  Essentially you either believe we can all benefit together albeit maybe with a little less individual benefit when compared to everyone else, or we can have some who benefit at the expense of some who don't but those who do benefit will benefit a lot more.  I don't really see why insurance executives and shareholders making record profits is better for me or you or anyone else than modestly well paid bureaucrats doing the same work.

I see this as dangerous, especially the last part. Number one, you have no idea how to run an insurance company. Number two, neither does the government. Number three, how much someone else makes should be none of your concern. Perhaps it is too much government regulation (which of what you want more of) that drives up prices.

For example. You sell shirts.

Let's say you sell them for $20 each (retail) and the government stops by and says, "Hey kid, you're no longer in the shirt business, we feel you've been charging too much, so we're gonna have the government start producing shirts from now on."

Or let's say you sell them for $15 each (retail) and you decide that you want to sell them for $20. The government swoops in and says NOPE, $15 is the cap because we've decided you're making too much money. But, but, but, I'm working 80 hours a week and have rent, utilities, advertising, etc you say. DOESN'T MATTER, $15 is it, we can't be having people going around making too much money.

Now extrapolate that to any other business. Might seem like a silly argument, but that's how I feel when you try to argue for the government getting more involved in our lives. Silly.

The only one that should determine how much you make or do not make is YOU. That's what makes this the land of opportunity.

[bulldog]

What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet.  At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation.  I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.

You are 100% right. It's the fear factory.

[mimosatexas]

Except whether or not someone buys a custom shirt is a choice with little or no consequences on anyone else in our society.  Getting sick or injured typically isn't a choice, and can and does effect the rest of us.  I'm not advocating government to get into the shirt printing business...

[trebor]

"Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA"  yes this is true  BUT  BUT  BUT..........

I will say it again.  the ONLY way to repeal ACA is through congress (house and senate).   the senate has enough democrats to filibuster,  so if ACA is repealed that means some democrats voted to repeal.  But as you have said ONLY TRUMP and REPUBLICANS want to repeal so with the filibuster the senate has a REPEAL will not happen.

oh and this is a FACT  not imagined

BCBS of Florida  non ACA plan and I pay $500 month  has gone up $100 for the last 2 years.

Well they can defund it in the House of Reps which holds the purse strings.