# Lyft and Uber Drivers Will Suffer When ObamaCare is Repealed.



## AllenChicago

According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.

*Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*

How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?

Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?

Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.

-Allen in Chicagoland


----------



## Nalnip

I have personal insurance, and it goes up every single year. Honestly I am conflicted on what needs to be done. Having some basic national plan would be great. Basically, every year everyone gets a free physical. Which that could help stem off some of the big expensive stuff or at least lessen the impact a little.

So who knows.


----------



## tohunt4me

Nalnip said:


> I have personal insurance, and it goes up every single year. Honestly I am conflicted on what needs to be done. Having some basic national plan would be great. Basically, every year everyone gets a free physical. Which that could help stem off some of the big expensive stuff or at least lessen the impact a little.
> 
> So who knows.


The medical system rapes the govt. Which we pay for. Medicare,Medicaid,some institutions will run $48,000.00 worth of tests on a comatose corpse for profit.
Corruption must be brought under control before bills or insurance will ever become reasonable.


----------



## tohunt4me

I personally know some people who will run up a $5,000.00 ambulance bill for the govt. Because they do not have transportation to a Dr. Or Hospital.
Some will call an ambulance just so as not to have to wait in the waiting room before being seen.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

AllenChicago said:


> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?


"Obamacare" is a misnomer. Recall that when he was campaigning for his party's nomination, Obama came out against certain provisions of it, especially the personal mandate. He called it "fining people for being poor". I wonder why the flip-flop, although I have a pretty good idea why. In reality, it should be called Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care, but I expect that it would be too long and stilted to say that.

In answer to your first quoted question, I purchased a policy when it went into effect, but it was not at an "affordable price", even though the authors of this legislation told me that the price was affordable. It has not been "affordable" at any time that I have had it.

I do not have a direct answer to your second quoted question. I would like to see it reformed and made truly "affordable". I can not afford the fines. I can not afford the premiums. The deductibles are so ridiculously high, and have gone up every year, that I can not afford to use this "insurance" that never pays out anything. What this has given me is the dubious privilege of being my own primary insurer and the opportunity to pay for this "privilege".

What has happened is that the Government has told me that I can afford something that I can not afford, has compelled me to purchase it with money that I do not have and once purchased, I can not afford to use it.


----------



## AllenChicago

Another Uber Driver, your experience and feelings are the same as everyone who makes too much money for the hefty ObamaCare subsidies, but not so much money that $700-$1000 a month is "chump change". In other words, you are in the income range for those who are getting shafted mightily by ObamaScrew.

Most people in the country don't have any idea how bad the Affordable Care Act is, because it doesn't affect them. Only 8% of Americans are paying for an ObamaCare health insurance plan. If it were 20 or 30%, the ACA would have been repealed a long time ago. Thanks for relating your experience!


----------



## phillipzx3

Fortunately our local VA hospital is pretty good. I've had the same primary care doc for the last 10 years. 

On the downside..it's too bad the policies are such there isn't much oversight on waste and abuse.


----------



## phillipzx3

Another Uber Driver said:


> "Obamacare" is a misnomer. In reality, it should be called Romney/Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care, but I expect that it would be too long.


Let's not forget to give proper credit to the main culprit, Mr. Romney.


----------



## phillipzx3

tohunt4me said:


> Corruption must be brought under control before bills or insurance will ever become reasonable.


Yup! As long as the PRIVATE SECTOR is allowed to act criminal by overcharging/padding government programs, prices will never come down. The private sectors game plan (when it comes to billing the government) is how much can they make, not how much they can save.


----------



## DollarStoreChauffeur

Obamacare was the biggest scam, especially for people like rideshare drivers who are living on a tight budget. So you're barely able to pay your bills with this scummy gig, but now you're faced with either being forced to pay for insurance premiums each month or a penalty at the end of the year?


----------



## Do tell

Is it so bad that we just can't have an open market.Just let the health care providers charge whatever they want like restaurants.Let the market determine who succeeds and who doesn't.Don't force me to pay a fine or health care that's unaffordable.

Thank God Donald Trump is going to change all this.Doesn't mean it'll be better,but at least it's something.

Socialism is a disease that must be treated.LOL


----------



## Another Uber Driver

phillipzx3 said:


> Let's not forget to give proper credit to the main culprit, Mr. Romney.


..............yes, as the Originator of this "Bright Idea"................................

Many people blame the Democrats for this Nanny State policy as well as for another Nanny State policy: seat belt laws.

While it was Pell (D-Rhode Island) who invented the idea of Federal Arm Twisting over the drinking age, it was on Elizabeth Hanford Dole's (R) watch as Secretary of Transportation that the Feds began to twist the states' collective arm over Nanny-_*ER*_-uh-*SEAT* Belt Laws.

While many do call Democrats "nanny staters", they do forget that two of the worst nanny state horrors that have befallen this country had Republican backgrounds.


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> ..............yes, as the Originator of this "Bright Idea"................................
> 
> Many people blame the Democrats for this Nanny State policy as well as for another Nanny State policy: seat belt laws.
> 
> While it was Pell (D-Rhode Island) who invented the idea of Federal Arm Twisting over the drinking age, it was on Elizabeth Hanford Dole's (R) watch as Secretary of Transportation that the Feds began to twist the states' collective arm over Nanny-_*ER*_-uh-*SEAT* Belt Laws.
> 
> While many do call Democrats "nanny staters", they do forget that two of the worst nanny state horrors that have befallen this country had Republican backgrounds.


It's crazy about the seatbelt law.Here in Connecticut,I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet,but I have to wear my seatbelt.How's that for backwards thinking.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Do tell said:


> Here in Connecticut,I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet,but I have to wear my seatbelt.


I was not aware of that. Is Connecticut a primary or secondary state?


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> I was not aware of that. Is Connecticut a primary or secondary state?


 I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.Is this what you mean?
*CONNECTICUT COURT ORDERS MAJOR OVERHAUL OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION POLICIES*
By John Munich

On September 7, 2016, a Connecticut trial court in _Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell,_ ordered the state to implement major reforms to its education policies. More than a decade ago, a coalition of cities, local school boards, parents and children filed a lawsuit alleging that Connecticut was violating the state constitution by underfunding the public schools. Although the court rejected the argument that the schools were constitutionally underfunded, it found that policies regarding distribution of education funds, graduation standards, evaluation and compensation of education professionals and special education were constitutionally infirm. The court ordered the state to create a plan to remediate the numerous issues it identified within 180 days.

*Prior Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling*

In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an opinion in the _Rell_ litigation, holding that Article 8, § 1 of the Connecticut constitution entitles public school students to a minimally adequate education, including minimally adequate

(1) Physical facilities

(2) Instruments (such as desks, chairs, pencils, and textbooks)

(3) Teaching of basic curricula (with sufficient personnel trained in the subject areas)

Justice Palmer, who formed the necessary fourth vote for the Court's decision, agreed with this holding. But he determined that it was the duty of the executive and legislative branches to determine, within reasonable limits, what level of resources or measures are necessary to meet the standard. For that reason, Justice Palmer stated that the plaintiffs would not be able to succeed on their claims unless they could prove that the state's actions were "so lacking as to be unreasonable by any fair or objective standard."

*Trial Court Ruling*

Six years after the Supreme Court's opinion, the lower court held a five-month trial on plaintiffs' claims. The court issued its opinion a month later.

The court first addressed the core issue of whether Connecticut constitutionally underfunded its schools, finding that there was no violation. According to the court, "Connecticut schools ( . . . ) go far beyond the ( . . . ) minimum" required by the Connecticut Supreme Court's opinion. Although the court pointed to some anecdotal evidence of deficiencies, it determined that plaintiffs had not proved that there was a statewide failure to provide adequate facilities, instruments or teaching.

Next, the court held that plaintiffs' equal protection claim also failed. The court explained that an equal protection claim based on spending disparities can only succeed if the claimant can show that the disparities jeopardize the fundamental right to education. Because Connecticut provided more money to impoverished districts than to wealthy ones, the court found that state did not engage in an equal protection violation.

*Court Ordered Overhaul*

Despite these findings, the court ordered a major overhaul of Connecticut's education policies. Looking to Justice Palmer's concurring opinion, the court determined that four different areas of Connecticut education policy were constitutionally deficient because they were not "rationally, substantially, or verifiably connected to creating educational opportunities for children."

The first policy the court took on was Connecticut's distribution of education funds. Connecticut, like most states, has a statutory formula for distributing state dollars to schools. The court noted that since as recently as 2014, however, the legislature had not followed the funding formula, and instead adopted set dollar amounts to be given to each district. According to the court, this resulted in cuts to some poor school districts, and protections for spending in some wealthier school districts. The court also took exception to the fact that the state spent $1 billion on school construction every year while spending $2 billion on other educational needs. Ultimately, the court determined that Connecticut lacked a "rational, substantial, and verifiable plan to distribute money for education" and therefore ordered the state to draft a mandatory spending formula.

The second policy the court addressed was graduation standards. The court recognized that a Connecticut statute sets the credit requirements for graduation from high school. But according to the court, this requirement is illusory because large numbers of impoverished schools are graduating students that do not have basic skills. The court also found that elementary schools in impoverished districts were passing students who did not have grade-appropriate skills. Therefore, the court ordered the state to create an objective, mandatory, statewide graduation standard for both primary and secondary schools.

Next, the court addressed teacher and administrator evaluations and compensation. The court determined that the current teacher evaluation system was insufficiently connected to student learning, meaning that bad teachers could not be rehabilitated or removed. It also highlighted the "political chaos that often overwhelms the business of paying and reviewing superintendents." The court thus ordered the state to submit new plans for hiring, evaluating, promoting, terminating and compensating all education professionals.

Finally, the court addressed Connecticut's expenditures on special education. The court recognized that spending on special education is largely dictated by federal law, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Nonetheless, the court determined that special-education spending resulted in a constitutional violation due to the state's lack of standards to (1) identify disabled children who would benefit from education and (2) identify specific disabilities and methods for dealing with them. Accordingly, the court ordered the state to create such standards.

The state was given only 180 days to present the court with plans to address each of the four issues it identified. In addition, the court noted that in many of these areas, the relationship between the state and local entities-towns, school districts, and school boards-could be contributing to the constitutional violations the court found. It therefore ordered the state to include recommendations for changing the relationship between state and local government in the plans it submits to the court.


----------



## AllenChicago

phillipzx3 said:


> Yup! As long as the PRIVATE SECTOR is allowed to act criminal by overcharging/padding government programs, prices will never come down. The private sectors game plan (when it comes to billing the government) is how much can they make, not how much they can save.


CENTENE corp. and United Healthcare broke all records for revenue and profit in 2016, thanks to the MEDICAID expansion of ObamaCare. People who earn less than $17,000 a year in Illinois were made eligible for ObamaCare Medicaid in 2013. Over 2 million new enrollees as a result.

Centene and UHC administer the program and charge the government BILLIONS of dollars for simply taking the money from Uncle Sam...and transferring it to Doctors, Hospitals, Drug Makers, etc...


----------



## Trump Economics

Uber and Lyft drivers are already suffering -- let's be real.


----------



## jonnyplastic

*Obamacare is Wack! I guess I'll suffer with or without it.*


----------



## Oscar Levant

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


When I signed up for the ACA, I first selected bronze plans, which were cheap, but had horrific deductibles. I switched to Silver plan ( health net ) which was $130 per month, with $500 deductible. Also, I had several doctor visits, and over 2 years, not once did they charge me the deductible, and my copays were like $10 or so. ACA worked beautifully for me, and now that i'm over 65, Im' on medicare, it's even better. I got an $9000 operation, my contribution was only $300.

Thing is I hear of all these nightmares over the deductibles, but what I don't understand is, aren't they looking at the silver plans? I mean, no one is mentioning this. Another thing, if your state opted out, then I understand that the federal exchange is not as robust as, say, the California exchange, and they also opted in for medicare expansion. A lot depends, I think, on if your stated opt ed in or out. It's not Obama's fault if your state opted out, it's your governor's fault.

Also, they plan on "delaying" the effect of a repeal, until they have a replacement, but they never will have a replacement, unless the bill satisfies Democrats in Senate ( replacement bill requires 60 votes ). Dems have repubs over a barrel on ACA repeal and replace.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> "Obamacare" is a misnomer. Recall that when he was campaigning for his party's nomination, Obama came out against certain provisions of it, especially the personal mandate. He called it "fining people for being poor". I wonder why the flip-flop, although I have a pretty good idea why. In reality, it should be called Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care, but I expect that it would be too long and stilted to say that.
> 
> In answer to your first quoted question, I purchased a policy when it went into effect, but it was not at an "affordable price", even though the authors of this legislation told me that the price was affordable. It has not been "affordable" at any time that I have had it.
> 
> I do not have a direct answer to your second quoted question. I would like to see it reformed and made truly "affordable". I can not afford the fines. I can not afford the premiums. The deductibles are so ridiculously high, and have gone up every year, that I can not afford to use this "insurance" that never pays out anything. What this has given me is the dubious privilege of being my own primary insurer and the opportunity to pay for this "privilege".
> 
> What has happened is that the Government has told me that I can afford something that I can not afford, has compelled me to purchase it with money that I do not have and once purchased, I can not afford to use it.


IF you are an Uber driver, your tax bracket should be low enough to make ACA affordable. For me, its $132 per month. I recieve a $600 per month subsidy.
But, I'm in California, which has a robust state exchange, and CA opted in for medicare expansion.

for people who earn more, the cost goes up, but this could be fixed with a tax on the super-rich, but no republican will go along with that idea.

At the beginning of the ACA, Obama needed a fund to help insurers, who would feel a pinch during the first couple of years of the aCA, when it would experience a disproportional number of elderly and sick and not enough young and healthy people signing up, thus making it not profitable for insurers. But, as time passes, due to the fines for not signing up, more and more young and health will be signing up, and they have and ACA will pay for itself. Okay, to get this "fund" Obama got it from pharma, the paid some $80 billion to this fund, but Obama and to strike a devil's bargain to get it, which was that pharma demanded that there be a provision in the ACA which disallows goverment to bargain for drug prices. Guess what happened? Rubio got the ACA law changed to disallow insurers to take advantage of this fund, and the result was higher prices for insurance.
why did he do this? He did this because he did not want ACA to succeed, because if ACA succeeds, he is not as likely, nor any republican be as likely, to be reelected. If insurers cannot take advantage of this fund, then the provision which disallows government to negotiate for drug prices sould be reversed, but, of course, republicans are trying to sabatoge the ACA, and will not do anything to improve it, and much can be done to improve it. The supreme irony of this is that subsidized care employing a mandate was a republican idea in the first place, but, because Obama created it, they don't want it to succeed.

But, now they are in control, it is they who have to govern. But, they are lousy at it, so the joke is on them. They will have to find a replacement for ACA that is better than the ACA without throwing 30 million peole off health care, and, although it takes only 51 votes to repeal ACA, it will take 60 votes to replace it (requiring therefore democrats to be on board) and there are only two ways to keep 30 million from losing their health care. 1. A mandate with subsidies for poor people (which is the ACA, in essence ). 2. Universal Health Care ( single payer, which is medicare for everyone, Sander's solution. In other words, without a replacement bill that will keep dems happy, no replacement bill was pass ). How is this true ( that there are only 2 ways ) ? Because free market solutions leave millions of poor people out in the cold as they cannot afford it. Voucher's will be a terrible idea. When you are old, you dont want a frickin' voucher, you want a network, a well thought out and robust system, and an insurance card, that you can use wherever it is needed. I gaurantee these "vouchers" will be cheap skate, they won't work for referrals and all sorts of complicated ramifications that republicans are not able to foresee ( the whole reason the ACA was 2000 pages deep ) such that only ghetto located clinics will be the only ones who take them, etc. because they wont be robust, many will find themselves going to emergency rooms, so we are back to health care as it existed before ACA, insurance being denied for pre-existing conditions, insurance claims denied because someone forgot to fill out the form wrong, years ago, when they signed up, etc.

Moreover, not once, since this nation began, have republicans offered any real type of health care ( okay, I think Nixon did, but Nixon, by today's standards, was a liberal --- he subscribed to keynesian economic theory, which no conservative today does ) so what makes me think they will any time soon? Repubs wouldn't even be talking about health care solutions were it not for Obamacare, they never, in their entire history, believed health care was a right, only a privilege, and therein lies the essence of the problem.


----------



## grams777

I receive an almost $20k per year obamacare subsidy (wife and I). Insurance rates in TN are insanely high now. $1k per month for each person age 50. We pay zero monthly.

This is a silver plan with a further subsidized zero deductible, 50% copay up to the first $800 per year max out of pocket.

Because of this, it doesn't pay at all to make any more money than the minimum to live off. Any money I make over about $25k a year as a couple would go almost entirely to increased premiums and the loss of the very low deductible.

This is mostly why I drive because of the windfall of the tax deduction for miles when operating a vehicle at a substantially lower cost. 

It's really a backwards system in my opinion that severely punishes anyone earning more than poverty level wages that needs to purchase health insurance. But, for the time being, I just adapt to it like any other tax strategy.


----------



## Do tell

grams777 said:


> I receive an almost $20k per year obamacare subsidy (wife and I). Insurance rates in TN are insanely high now. $1k per month for each person age 50. We pay zero monthly.
> 
> This is a silver plan with a further subsidized zero deductible, 50% copay up to the first $800 per year max out of pocket.
> 
> Because of this, it doesn't pay at all to make any more money than the minimum to live off. Any money I make over about $25k a year as a couple would go almost entirely to increased premiums and the loss of the very low deductible.
> 
> This is mostly why I drive because of the windfall of the tax deduction for miles when operating a vehicle at a substantially lower cost.
> 
> It's really a backwards system in my opinion that severely punishes anyone earning more than poverty level wages that needs to purchase health insurance. But, for the time being, I just adapt to it like any other tax strategy.


That was the plan by design.The ones that are cheerleaders for Obamacare are the ones that aren't paying much for it,or nothing at all.Ask the millions of Americans who can't afford it.Because deductibles are too high and they make too much money.But they still can't afford healthcare.

I'm not sorry about it.Healthcare is a privilege,not a right.Who said life was fair?They were lying.

Ask most uber drivers is it fair what they're getting paid from uber.Most will say it's not fair.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *IF you are an Uber driver, your tax bracket *should* be low enough to make ACA affordable.
> 
> *2. *for people who earn more, the cost goes up, but this could be fixed with a tax on the super-rich, but no republican will go along with that idea.
> 
> *3. *At the beginning of the ACA, it would experience a disproportional number of elderly and sick and not enough young and healthy people signing up, thus making it not profitable for insurers.
> 
> *4. *But, as time passes, due to the fines for not signing up, more and more young and health will be signing up, and they have and ACA will pay for itself.
> 
> *5. *Because free market solutions leave millions of poor people out in the cold as they cannot afford it.


 (any emphasis in this quote is mine)

1. I am an Uber driver, my tax bracket is not low, thus the so-called "Affordable Care Act" _*ain't*_ affordable for me. Some people seem to confuse "should" and "is". Without going into a discussion of semantics, syntax and grammar, let me state simply that the former indicates "potential" while the latter indicates "real". This confusion is something that the Left does frequently. "It should be" is not the same as "It is". While the concept of the We Are Telling You That You Can Afford This "Health Care" Act originated on the Right (Romney in Massachusetts), it is the Left that has embraced it on the Federal Level. I will make every effort to leave out both parties' throwing Wall Street a bone as well as the Nanny State for which the Democrats are so tirelessly labouring from this discussion.

2. I do hope that you are not implying that I blindly support Republicans. This is a trap into which the Left falls frequently. They put anyone who disagrees with them on even the smallest point into automatic lockstep with the Extreme Right. Much of this is due to the lockstep/beehive mentality of the Left. Further, please do understand that my remarks about the Left do not necessarily associate you with it. Marry, they are directed more at those who support this so-called "ACA" as well as those who put it into effect.

In fact, one of the reasons that I liked Obama when he was campaigning in 2008, was that he spoke strongly against the compulsionist "individual mandate". He characterised it as "fining people for being poor" or words similar.

3. If everyone was supposed to be signing up for this, and, according to the compulsionist provision commonly called the "Individual Mandate", they were; this would mean that you would have both young and less likely to be ill signing up as well as the older and more likely to be ill.

4. If these young and less likely to be ill people have been signing up as time passes, the effect has not been what you describe. I have received increases every year in both premiums and deductibles. This year, both were double digit increases. In the past, only the deductibles showed double digit increases, which meant that instead of getting reamed twice, I got reamed only once. This year, I received a double digit increase in both premiums and deductibles, which means that I can afford this even less and have to find money that I do not have to be able to afford even to use this thing that the government compelled me to purchase with money that I do not have.

5. The current "solution" has compelled me to purchase something that I can not afford to use or purchase. While I am aware that the poor and the formerly uninsurable now can receive coverage, and, I do agree that this is wonderful for them. Still, I need to worry about my own problems before I can worry about anyone else's. I can not afford the fines. I can not afford the premiums. I can not afford to see the physician too many times because of the ridiculously high deductibles. Effectively, I can not afford to use this thing enough to get my money's worth out of it because I can not afford to pay the doctor's fees until I reach the deductible threshold. Essentially, the government is threatening to fine me a ridiculous amount of money if I do not become my own primary insurer and pay some insurance company for the "privilege".



Do tell said:


> That was the plan by design.The ones that are cheerleaders for Obamacare are the ones that aren't paying much for it,or nothing at all.Ask the millions of Americans who can't afford it.Because deductibles are too high and they make too much money.But they still can't afford healthcare.


Far too often, the designed performance and empirical performance of something differ wildly. Seat belt laws are another example (something for which the insurance companies pushed). If compulsory use of seat belts is supposed to reduce injuries and fatalities, that would mean that the insurance companies are paying out less money. If the insurance companies are paying out less money, then there should be a rate war going on among the insurance companies. The only "rate war" that has happened anywhere is in states where the legislatures removed the prohibition on insurance companies' selling direct. Other than that, premiums keep going higher. Further, if there are supposed to be fewer injuries and fatalities, there would be fewer of these ambulance chasing television lawyers. There are more and more of them every day and the established ambulance chasing firms are doing better than ever they have. How many injuries and fatalities are these seat belt laws really preventing?

Indeed, those who love Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care are those who receive it for little or nothing or those who could pay for "insurance" but could not get it because the companies deemed them "uninsurable". Many of these people could not get even the poor "insurance" that his so-called "Affordable" Care Act provides and they could not get it at ANY price. Those people love it. There are many, however, especially in the middle class, who can not afford to buy it, can not afford to pay the consequences of not buying it and can not afford to use it.

Goody for those who like it and benefit from it. Just as they must worry about their problems before they can worry about mine, I must worry about mine before I can worry about theirs. I am tired of being compelled to pay to solve other people's problems with the result that I can not pay to solve my own.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

If Obama care is repealed, there's always UberCare or TrumpCare.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ChortlingCrison said:


> If Obama care is repealed, there's always UberCare .


Will lower premiums and lower deductibles mean higher earnings for Uber?

Rii-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ighttttttt


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Another Uber Driver said:


> Will lower premiums and lower deductibles mean higher earnings for Uber?
> 
> Rii-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ighttttttt


Which = more $$ for driver. You are so right!! hahahahaha.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> (any emphasis in this quote is mine)
> 
> 1. I am an Uber driver, my tax bracket is not low, thus the so-called "Affordable Care Act" _*ain't*_ affordable for me. Some people seem to confuse "should" and "is". Without going into a discussion of semantics, syntax and grammar, let me state simply that the former indicates "potential" while the latter indicates "real". This confusion is something that the Left does frequently. "It should be" is not the same as "It is".  While the concept of the We Are Telling You That You Can Afford This "Health Care" Act originated on the Right (Romney in Massachusetts), it is the Left that has embraced it on the Federal Level. I will make every effort to leave out both parties' throwing Wall Street a bone as well as the Nanny State for which the Democrats are so tirelessly labouring from this discussion.
> 
> 2. I do hope that you are not implying that I blindly support Republicans. This is a trap into which the Left falls frequently. They put anyone who disagrees with them on even the smallest point into automatic lockstep with the Extreme Right. Much of this is due to the lockstep/beehive mentality of the Left. Further, please do understand that my remarks about the Left do not necessarily associate you with it. Marry, they are directed more at those who support this so-called "ACA" as well as those who put it into effect.
> 
> In fact, one of the reasons that I liked Obama when he was campaigning in 2008, was that he spoke strongly against the compulsionist "individual mandate". He characterised it as "fining people for being poor" or words similar.
> 
> 3. If everyone was supposed to be signing up for this, and, according to the compulsionist provision commonly called the "Individual Mandate", they were; this would mean that you would have both young and less likely to be ill signing up as well as the older and more likely to be ill.
> 
> 4. If these young and less likely to be ill people have been signing up as time passes, the effect has not been what you describe. I have received increases every year in both premiums and deductibles. This year, both were double digit increases. In the past, only the deductibles showed double digit increases, which meant that instead of getting reamed twice, I got reamed only once. This year, I received a double digit increase in both premiums and deductibles, which means that I can afford this even less and have to find money that I do not have to be able to afford even to use this thing that the government compelled me to purchase with money that I do not have.
> 
> 5. The current "solution" has compelled me to purchase something that I can not afford to use or purchase. While I am aware that the poor and the formerly uninsurable now can receive coverage, and, I do agree that this is wonderful for them. Still, I need to worry about my own problems before I can worry about anyone else's. I can not afford the fines. I can not afford the premiums. I can not afford to see the physician too many times because of the ridiculously high deductibles. Effectively, I can not afford to use this thing enough to get my money's worth out of it because I can not afford to pay the doctor's fees until I reach the deductible threshold. Essentially, the government is threatening to fine me a ridiculous amount of money if I do not become my own primary insurer and pay some insurance company for the "privilege".
> 
> Far too often, the designed performance and empirical performance of something differ wildly. Seat belt laws are another example (something for which the insurance companies pushed). If compulsory use of seat belts is supposed to reduce injuries and fatalities, that would mean that the insurance companies are paying out less money. If the insurance companies are paying out less money, then there should be a rate war going on among the insurance companies. The only "rate war" that has happened anywhere is in states where the legislatures removed the prohibition on insurance companies' selling direct. Other than that, premiums keep going higher. Further, if there are supposed to be fewer injuries and fatalities, there would be fewer of these ambulance chasing television lawyers. There are more and more of them every day and the established ambulance chasing firms are doing better than ever they have. How many injuries and fatalities are these seat belt laws really preventing?
> 
> Indeed, those who love Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care are those who receive it for little or nothing or those who could pay for "insurance" but could not get it because the companies deemed them "uninsurable". Many of these people could not get even the poor "insurance" that his so-called "Affordable" Care Act provides and they could not get it at ANY price. Those people love it. There are many, however, especially in the middle class, who can not afford to buy it, can not afford to pay the consequences of not buying it and can not afford to use it.
> 
> Goody for those who like it and benefit from it. Just as they must worry about their problems before they can worry about mine, I must worry about mine before I can worry about theirs. I am tired of being compelled to pay to solve other people's problems with the result that I can not pay to solve my own.


Guess what, the rate of increase during Bush years were a lot higher than under Obama. Take away the ACA, and I gaurantee rates will continue to increase, and if history is any indication, they will increase at a faster pace.

Unless they can tax the super rich, or take money from defense spending, to make it affordable for those in the middle who are squeezed by ACA, the ACA will be problematic for that group. Since the republicans are unwilling to do this, then I fault the republicans because that is the solution . The only other solution is UHC ( medicare for all ).

Thing is, without the ACA, if you still want "not being turned down with pre-existing conditions, and kids on parents health care until they are 26", and the positive aspects of the ACA, health care will still be more more expensive that it was prior to ACA because of these added values. Many cheap insurance policies prior to ACA were pure junk, i mean, you coudl be paying for 20 years, and get a catastrophic illness, and the insurance company would figure out some way to deny your claim, it happened with a significant number of claims. There was a whole 60 minutes episode on this very subject. Without these things, we are back to the dog eat dog world of insurers having whole floors in their buildlings with hundreds of claims people whose sole purpose is to figure out ways to deny claims. Do you want to return to that world, where the poor's only option is to go to emergency rooms, that are crowded, with over worked interns, a world where, if you apply for insurance, and have a pre-existing condition they wont' insure you? I was in that world, and compared to ACA, well, there is no comparison. If your sole income is Uber, and you take the 57 cents per mile deduction, your income should be low, legally, to qualify for a big subsidy the ACA. I do, so why dont you?

That being said, I, as many progressives believe, the real solution is Univeral Health Care ( medicare for all citizens ). and for those anti-socialists who can't stand the idea, then why not let both UHC and private doctors and clinics ( who don't take subsidies ) co-exist? If you don't want medicare, then refuse it and go buy it wherever you want to. What the heck is wrong with that idea? Most western countries have UHC, so you mean to tell me the most powerful nation in the world, the richest nation in the world, where the top 1/10 of one percent own half the nations wealth, cannot? You'll never convince me of that, never ( not saying you, but many on the right make this argument ).

I keep hearing the argument from the right that, well, "canadians come to america 'cause the dont' like waiting in line in Canada". I think this is misleading. yeah, a few, very few, actually do, but they come hear because of advances in health care are superior and unavailable in a lot of countries, not so much because of "waiting lines'. That being said, every time I get a canadian, a swede, a dane, etc, in my car, I ask them this question " would you replace your health care system for that which exists here in the USA". The answer is a unanimous NO. That should tell you something.


----------



## Oscar Levant

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


First off, there are t0o many republican senators ( about six, so far ) who are cold to the idea of repealing ACA without a replacement.

The good news is, that although they require 51 votes ( the repubs have it ) to repeal, they will need 60 votes to replace ( they will need about 8 dems on board ). No dem is going to vote for a replace that isn't better than the ACA ( in their view, which means subsidies for poor, and NO VOUCHERS ).

So, they dont' have 51 votes to repeal without an immediate replace, and they dont' have a replace without dems approval.

The long and short of it is, THEY CAN'T REPEAL IT.

Obamacare is here to stay, so the big question is, will the repubs have the cajones to fix it? ( lowering costs for those in the middle who got squeezed).


----------



## elelegido

This is the most advanced nation in the world. Why can't it take care of its people's medical needs? Even lowly third world Cuba can do this, with limited resources, and still be recognised by the World Health Organisation for providing excellent standards in health care. It's quite embarrassing, really.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *Guess what, the rate of increase during Bush years were a lot higher than under Obama. Take away the ACA, and I gaurantee rates will continue to increase, and if history is any indication, they will increase at a faster pace.
> 
> *2. *Unless they can tax the super rich, or take money from defense spending, to make it affordable for those in the middle who are squeezed by ACA, the ACA will be problematic for that group. Since the republicans are unwilling to do this, then I fault the republicans because that is the solution . The only other solution is UHC ( medicare for all ).
> 
> *3*. Thing is, without the ACA, if you still want "not being turned down with pre-existing conditions, and kids on parents health care until they are 26", and the positive aspects of the ACA, health care will still be more more expensive that it was prior to ACA because of these added values.
> 
> *4. *Many cheap insurance policies prior to ACA were pure junk, i mean, you coudl be paying for 20 years, and get a catastrophic illness, and the insurance company would figure out some way to deny your claim, it happened with a significant number of claims. There was a whole 60 minutes episode on this very subject. Without these things, we are back to the dog eat dog world of insurers having whole floors in their buildlings with hundreds of claims people whose sole purpose is to figure out ways to deny claims.
> 
> *5. *Do you want to return to that world, where the poor's only option is to go to emergency rooms, that are crowded, with over worked interns, a world where, if you apply for insurance, and have a pre-existing condition they wont' insure you?
> 
> *6. *If your sole income is Uber, and you take the 57 cents per mile deduction, your income should be low, legally, to qualify for a big subsidy the ACA. I do, so why dont you?
> 
> *7.* That being said, I, as many progressives believe, the real solution is Univeral Health Care ( medicare for all citizens ). and for those anti-socialists who can't stand the idea, then why not let both UHC and private doctors and clinics ( who don't take subsidies ) co-exist? If you don't want medicare, then refuse it and go buy it wherever you want to. What the heck is wrong with that idea?


1. This statement does nothing to address my predicament. I could not afford it then, I can not afford it now, and, if your statements are correct, I will not be able to afford it at that point, either.

2. Everyone knows what happens when you try to tax the super rich. The super rich can fight back and do so effectively. The poor have nothing to take. This is why both the Left and the Right go after the middle class. They have something to take but can not afford to fight back against the thieves. The Right picks on us because once they steal what we have, we find ways to recover so that they can steal from us, again. The Left seeks to impoverish us so that we must depend on it for handouts thus must support it. Both sides try to call us the "backbone" of this country, but have no qualms about squeezing us and compelling us to give away everything for which we have worked. We are the "backbone", allright, because we pay for every damned thing at the expense of ignoring our needs. We are tired of it.

3. I need to worry about my own problems before I can worry about anyone else's. The way that this thing is set up, I can not afford it. Until something arrives that addresses my problems, I will support none of it. This nanny state horror scam places intolerable burdens on the middle class. Even that liar Clinton had to admit that "We realise that this will be a heavy lift for the middle class". She was in the Senate when this thing passed Congress. "Heavy lift"? Try "Direct Assault". The Fourth Estate, as usual, is misinforming the public when it publishes these articles about Americans not wanting the so-called ACA repealed. They do want to be able to purchase _*affordable*_ health insurance, something that the so called ACA is not offering them. They do not like it the way that it is. If the press were to tell the truth, it would state that Americans want it replaced with something that actually is affordable to all, including the middle class. Currently, the middle class can not afford it.

4. This is not untrue. There was one Life and Health insurance company in New Orleans that had a job description for entry-level Claims Adjuster that read, in short, "Your cubicle will be provided with a red ink stamp pad, a stamper, a copier and Company envelopes. Mail room personnel will make daily deliveries of claims. You will open the claim, copy it. You then will take the stamp that reads *DENIED* and stamp it across both original and copy of claim form. You will then put the copy in its designated place, put the original into the company provided envelope, address said envelope to the claimant and put it into its designated place. If you exhaust the claims assigned to you, you will inform your Supervisor who will take appropriate action. Every evening mail room employees will collect completed claims." It took you three and four submissions of the claim to get it past the entry-level Adjuster. It then took four more submissions where you had to submit copies in the policy where it specifically stated that this WAS COVERED. I never used a cheap insurance company. I always used reputable ones. In fact, I have obtained the best results from Kaiser.

5. I do not want to pay for those people while I can not pay for my own health care. As this thing is, I am subsidising those people but I can not use what I have been compelled to buy to help myself. Until the day comes that I can afford to buy this "insurance" , I am not going to worry about those who have problems. Worrying about others problems while neglecting my own makes my problems only worse.

6. I never stated that Uber is my sole income, nor is it. I do drive Uber. I have other sources of income. I am middle class, but thanks to 
the Oppress-ER-uh-*PROGRESS*ives and their Bright Idea Programmes, I am being driven into poverty. The We Are Telling You That You Can Afford This "Health Care" Act is a major contributor to the construction of my path to poverty. If I work enough to pay my bills, I am ineligible for subsidies. If I do not work enough to pay my bills, I will be thrown out into the street. If I work enough to pay my bills, still I can afford neither the premiums nor the fines. Regarding the fines, why should I give my money to the government and receive nothing in return for it? I do that for two governments every 15 April as it is. All that I get for it is subsidising the lifestyles of irresponsible people; stupid wars fought with aeroplanes that will not fly, warships that sink and tanks that burn more fuel than can be kept to fuel them; subsidising the room service in five star hotels for junketing legislators and re-imbursing fatcats who steal from me and waste the money that they do steal. I tend to be harder on the Left than I am on the Right only because the Left screams louder about how it is on the side of little guys like me then proceeds to demonstrate that it is on any side but mine. Further, I resent having my private life micromanaged, something that the Left does more than the Right. In truth, I have more than a little contempt for both.

7. I am not opposed to the idea of parallel systems. Canada and Great Britain allow it. What would interest me is to know if this has created any competition among insurers and forced them to offer more reasonable policies with reasonable premiums and deductibles.



Oscar Levant said:


> will the repubs have the cajones to fix it? ( *lowering costs for those in the middle who got squeezed*).


 (emphasis mine)

^^^^^This^^^^^, but I doubt it. The Right makes no bones about its not being for the middle class. The middle class is useful to the Right only as a source of funding. Remember, the most successful thieves are not those who make the one time Big Score. Marry, the most successful crook is he who steals a little bit from a large number of people over a long period of time. The Right excels at that.

On the other hand, the Left tells me that it is for me, then stabs me not in the back , but in the gut and then slits my throat. What is worse is that the Left expects me not just to thank it for doing that; it expects me to applaud.


----------



## LAuberX

Suffer? no Rejoice!

Everybody has a different situation, I land solidly in the zone of I can't afford it and will pay a penalty for not having it. It is based on "family" income, and my wife has a real job.

The "subsidy" does drop the monthly premium for me down to a still not affordable $360.00/month, $4,320.00/year for a lousy Bronze plan.

For me the worst aspect is the Deductible! Not even xrays are covered until the Deductible is paid for each and every year... how much is the Deductible you ask? $6,000.00!!

So in any year I actually need some medical care I would have to come up with $10,320.00 before the "health care" kicks in... plus co pays for doctor visits and prescriptions.

The way I look at it the $10,320.00 is a tax. No other way to look at it. Instead we will pay a nearly $2,000.00 penalty for my NOT having ANY health care. Can you say re distribution of wealth?

Obama, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

LAuberX said:


> The way I look at it the $10,320.00 is a tax. No other way to look at it. Instead I will pay a nearly $2,000.00 penalty for NOT having ANY health care.


What this has done to me, and, it appears has done to you, is that it makes you pay for the dubious and ecstatic "privilege" of being your own primary insurer. Why do you need to pay ten or even two thousand bananas every year to do that? You could do that before this so-called ACA went into effect without the added expense.

I thank God every day for my health. I do not remember the last time that my health care costs were more than two thousand dollars annually, and then, it was for dentists (and the dental "insurance" that these plans "provide" is piss poor and few dentists accept them). Add to that I am a guy who is old and in poor shape.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Guess what, the rate of increase during Bush years were a lot higher than under Obama. Take away the ACA, and I gaurantee rates will continue to increase, and if history is any indication, they will increase at a faster pace.
> 
> Unless they can tax the super rich, or take money from defense spending, to make it affordable for those in the middle who are squeezed by ACA, the ACA will be problematic for that group. Since the republicans are unwilling to do this, then I fault the republicans because that is the solution . The only other solution is UHC ( medicare for all ).
> 
> Thing is, without the ACA, if you still want "not being turned down with pre-existing conditions, and kids on parents health care until they are 26", and the positive aspects of the ACA, health care will still be more more expensive that it was prior to ACA because of these added values. Many cheap insurance policies prior to ACA were pure junk, i mean, you coudl be paying for 20 years, and get a catastrophic illness, and the insurance company would figure out some way to deny your claim, it happened with a significant number of claims. There was a whole 60 minutes episode on this very subject. Without these things, we are back to the dog eat dog world of insurers having whole floors in their buildlings with hundreds of claims people whose sole purpose is to figure out ways to deny claims. Do you want to return to that world, where the poor's only option is to go to emergency rooms, that are crowded, with over worked interns, a world where, if you apply for insurance, and have a pre-existing condition they wont' insure you? I was in that world, and compared to ACA, well, there is no comparison. If your sole income is Uber, and you take the 57 cents per mile deduction, your income should be low, legally, to qualify for a big subsidy the ACA. I do, so why dont you?
> 
> That being said, I, as many progressives believe, the real solution is Univeral Health Care ( medicare for all citizens ). and for those anti-socialists who can't stand the idea, then why not let both UHC and private doctors and clinics ( who don't take subsidies ) co-exist? If you don't want medicare, then refuse it and go buy it wherever you want to. What the heck is wrong with that idea? Most western countries have UHC, so you mean to tell me the most powerful nation in the world, the richest nation in the world, where the top 1/10 of one percent own half the nations wealth, cannot? You'll never convince me of that, never ( not saying you, but many on the right make this argument ).
> 
> I keep hearing the argument from the right that, well, "canadians come to america 'cause the dont' like waiting in line in Canada". I think this is misleading. yeah, a few, very few, actually do, but they come hear because of advances in health care are superior and unavailable in a lot of countries, not so much because of "waiting lines'. That being said, every time I get a canadian, a swede, a dane, etc, in my car, I ask them this question " would you replace your health care system for that which exists here in the USA". The answer is a unanimous NO. That should tell you something.


I'm an anti-socialist,because I'm an American.I'm not going to keep beating on a dead horse.For those who think we should pay for everyone because we are America.They should move to a socialist country and let them take care of you.




Socialism is a mental disorder that must be cured.I look forward to eight years of greatness after living eight years of sadness.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> I'm an anti-socialist,because I'm an American.I'm not going to keep beating on a dead horse.For those who think we should pay for everyone because we are America.They should move to a socialist country and let them take care of you.


Cool, then the next time your house or apartment is on fire, you call the fire department and you can pay for it, because I'm tired of paying for it for you.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Cool, then the next time your house or apartment is on fire, you call the fire department and you can pay for it, because I'm tired of paying for it for you.


Took a little offense there did you.None intended,my apologies.Thank goodness I have a volunteer fire department a quarter mile from my house.You don't have to pay for any of it.

Socialism is a mental disorder that must be cured.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> That was the plan by design.The ones that are cheerleaders for Obamacare are the ones that aren't paying much for it,or nothing at all.Ask the millions of Americans who can't afford it.Because deductibles are too high and they make too much money.But they still can't afford healthcare.
> 
> I'm not sorry about it.Healthcare is a privilege,not a right.Who said life was fair?They were lying.
> 
> Ask most uber drivers is it fair what they're getting paid from uber.Most will say it's not fair.


These are defects in the ACA, if the right would cooperate, could easily be fixed. Health care should be a right. Whether or not it is or isn't, will be decided by voters. Trump won because.....


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> Cool, then the next time your house or apartment is on fire, you call the fire department and you can pay for it, because I'm tired of paying for it for you.


He does pay for the Fire Department. Please do not tell me that "progressives" have forgotten all about something called "taxes", you know, the "progressives' " universal solution to all problems: taxes, Taxes, TAXES, *TAXES* and *MORE TAXES*


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> These are defects in the ACA, if the right would cooperate, could easily be fixed. Health care should be a right. Whether or not it is or isn't, will be decided by voters. Trump won because.....


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Took a little offense there did you.None intended,my apologies.Thank goodness I have a volunteer fire department a quarter mile from my house.You don't have to pay for any of it.
> 
> Socialism is a mental disorder that must be cured.


Well, if you do move somewhere where there is not a volunteer fire department, I'll expect you to pay for it should
you need their services, and any other service provided by the government.

Agreed?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> He does pay for the Fire Department. Please do not tell me that "progressives" have forgotten all about something called "taxes", you know, the "progressives' " universal solution to all problems: taxes, Taxes, TAXES, *TAXES* and *MORE TAXES*


No, that's not quite right.

You've been watching and listening to too many right wing radio shows, fox news, etc. if I believed half of the things republicans sayabout democrats, I would be a republican.

No, progressives want middle class and poor to pay less or no taxes. Progressives want the rich to pay them, for one simple reason, they can afford it. We say if someone makes one billion per year, he can probably manage to squeak by on a million per day, ya think?


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, if you do move somewhere where there is not a volunteer fire department, I'll expect you to pay for it should
> you need their services, and any other service provided by the government.
> 
> Agreed?


I do live in Connecticut.I pay some of the highest taxes in the country.Here is a video from 1978,very informative.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


>


Bush & Co. took down Hussein, and tried "libertarianism", it was to be the grand experience to prove, once and for all, the superiority of that system i.e, got rid of Husseins' social programs, fired the military, and tried to rebuild Iraq on libertarian principles of democracy and the free market as the panacea for most of any society's ills. .

What actually happened?

Chaos, and then ISIS.

Sorry, some degree of socialism is necessary in a vast, complex society as America is, quite unlike the simpler worlds of Pluto, Socrates etc., who loved to philosophize and relish in their treatises. No one on the left is trying to make everyone totally equal, just cure the extreme disparities, such as a CEO making 30 million, where the people at the bottom can't make a livable wage -- no one on the left is saying they should both be paid equal. So, the right always makes a strawman out of much of what the left wants. for example, the right says ' Soviet Union failed, so I'm against socialism". Thats' a strawman, because no one on the left is advocating totalitarian/authorian 100% state ownership of all tools of production, which existed in the USSR, which is the true definition of socialism.

Libertarianism is essentially a state where the rich and powerful can exploit the middle and lower classes with impunity.

Libertarianism is a mental disorder which must be cured. The better system is right in the center, The center is where the pendulum can rest without wanting to swing in the other direction, which is what always happens when the pendulum is too far to the left, or right.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> Repealing it led the way for Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and right wing dominance of AM radio to spew their right wing philosohy without rebuttal, thus influencing impressionable minds. Rush never interviews anyone, or allows anyone to refute him. If you are not smarter than him, you'll believe him, and this has led to the tea party, and ultimately the do nothing congress, for the polarization that now exists, which is the ultimate fruit of Reagan's 'deregulating' the airwaves.


MSNBC and its Left wing "philosophy"? MSNBC also has Warpedtongue, who spews nothing but hate. Then there are the _*New York Times*_ and the _*Washington Post*_ which were the Official Propaganda Organs for Ready for Hillary.

Who is worse, or the worst? Insanity, Flush Lamebrain or Warpedtongue?

My vote goes to Warpedtongue with Lamebrain a close second and Insanity simply designated as a "jack[donkey]".


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Bush & Co. took down Hussein, and tried "libertarianism", it was to be the grand experience to prove, once and for all, the superiority of that system i.e, got rid of Husseins' social programs, fired the military, and tried to rebuild Iraq on libertarian principles of democracy and the free market as the panacea for most of any society's ills. .
> 
> What actually happened?
> 
> Chaos, and then ISIS.
> 
> Sorry, some degree of socialism is necessary in a vast, complex society as America is, quite unlike the simpler worlds of Pluto, Socrates etc., who loved to philosophize and relish in their treatises. No one on the left is trying to make everyone totally equal, just cure the extreme disparities, such as a CEO making 30 million, where the people at the bottom can't make a livable wage -- no one on the left is saying they should both be paid equal. So, the right always makes a strawman out of much of what the left wants. for example, the right says ' Soviet Union failed, so I'm against socialism". Thats' a strawman, because no one on the left is advocating totalitarian/authorian 100% state ownership of all tools of production, which existed in the USSR, which is the true definition of socialism.
> 
> Libertarianism is essentially a state where the rich and powerful can exploit the middle and lower classes with impunity.
> 
> Libertarianism is a mental disorder which must be cured. The better system is right in the center, The center is where the pendulum can rest without wanting to swing in the other direction, which is what always happens when the pendulum is too far to the left, or right.


What actually happened against advice from military advisers.Obama pulled out of Iraq and left a vortex of violence.Your analogies does not help your stance.

Being wimps in the world and giving everybody medals for coming in last is why we are the way we are today.Thanks for nothing President Obama.The worst president next to Jimmy Carter.


----------



## ubershiza

Do tell said:


> I don't know what happened in your life experiences,but you sure are brainwashed.LOL


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> I don't know what happened in your life experiences,but you sure are brainwashed.LOL


Brainwashed people always stoop to ad homenims


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Brainwashed people always stoop to ad homenims


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


Cool, you know what ad hominem means. Thank you.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> I do live in Connecticut.I pay some of the highest taxes in the country.Here is a video from 1978,very informative.


I've been observing politics for 45 years, and when it comes to conservative and libertarian rhetoric, it's always "we are against big government". Yeah, I admit, what they say makes sense, that's because they give to you in a bright and shiny hard to resist package, but it's just a verbal sleight of hand, because how does this translate to policy? Well, it translates, ALWAYS only this way:less for poor and middle class and much much more for the rich which never results in jobs, it just results is more for the rich.
History proves that trickle down theory doesn't work, it is a de facto rich trickle on you ( as in piss ) theory. Reagan once said "a rising tide lifts all boats". Hey Prez Reagan, not every one has a frickin' boat.

Right now, as I type this, republicans are about to take away health care from millions, an give tax cuts for the richest 400 families. We've been down this path, so many times in the past, and the result is always soaring deficits, poor and middle class get screwed, jobs go down because the engine of jobs is middle class spending, and if they have less disposible income, jobs decrease, they never increase. Soaring deficits means inflation, and since the rich can hedge, the middle class and poor cannot, it's another tax on the poor and middle class. This is the flaw in Milton Friedman free market bullcrap. yeah, of course, no one is saying get rid of the free market, libs are saying let's regulate it so that the poor and middle class are not exploited, that's all. Yet, if you ask a republican, they will tell you we are goose stepping comrads that want to take away your freedom. It's all a verbal trick to brainwash you into giving more power to the rich, and less for you, because if they do that, your vote means less and less, which is PRECISELY what is going on today. The right controls you, brainwashes you by filling your brain with thought terminating cliche's. This is the class propaganda technique of dictators, authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, it's the technique of demogogues, it's also the same technique used by Trump.

Those who lose their health care, some will die for lack of access, so it's no exaggeration if I say republicans kill people.

Any vote for anyone other than Hillary is a vote for Trump, and the above. Yeah, I've heard the argument, people die for her policies in middle east, but guess what, there only been bad news in the middle east for how long? 2000 years, that's how long. So that argument is a red herring. Let's talk about what is happening here in the USA, that is what matters.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> What actually happened against advice from military advisers.Obama pulled out of Iraq and left a vortex of violence.Your analogies does not help your stance.
> 
> Being wimps in the world and giving everybody medals for coming in last is why we are the way we are today.Thanks for nothing President Obama.The worst president next to Jimmy Carter.


Specious argument. We could pull out from the middle east 100 years from now, and the situation will still be leaving a vortex in the region. So, is it better to pull out later or now? It won't make any difference if we pull out later, the result will still be a vortex. Remember, there hasn't been any good news in the middle east in 2000 years, and you think it's going to happen a few years from now, if only we just let our soldiers continue to die there for a few more years hoping those frothing at the mouth crazies somehow, magically become civilized?

No my friend, that epic BLUNDER by REPUBLICANS by invading Iraq have put us in an IMPOSSIBLE situation. It took tremendous courage to pull out ( because Obama new what the right were going going to put forth this specious argument, and bellyache to kingdom come for perpetuating the war to infinity, McCain even said so. ).

Strength isn't always about force, strength is about wisdom.


----------



## Do tell

Your argument is flawed and your rhetoric is misguided.Peace be with you.God bless

Oscar Levant says:Specious argument. We could pull out from the middle east 100 years from now, and the situation will still be leaving a vortex in the region. So, is it better to pull out later or now? It won't make any difference if we pull out later, the result will still be a vortex. Remember, there hasn't been any good news in the middle east in 2000 years, and you think it's going to happen a few years from now, if only we just let our soldiers continue to die there for a few more years hoping those frothing at the mouth crazies somehow, magically become civilized?

No my friend, that epic BLUNDER by REPUBLICANS by invading Iraq have put us in an IMPOSSIBLEsituation. It took tremendous courage to pull out ( because Obama new what the right were going going to put forth this specious argument, andbellyache to kingdom come for perpetuating the war to infinity, McCain even said so. ).

Strength isn't always about force, strength is about wisdom.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Strength isn't always about force, strength is about wisdom.


And Obama has no wisdom.




Watch this video and don't tell me there's wisdom.Just someone who wants to be a celebrity.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Cool, you know what ad hominem means. Thank you.


Insert sarcasm here.I like being obtuse.LOL




Honestly no offense to your belief system.Me personally,I like to be educated from all sides of the story.Left,Right,Center.Being informed and making one's own opinion is better than being brainwashed.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> And Obama has no wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video and don't tell me there's wisdom.Just someone who wants to be a celebrity.


What is the point of this? You are making no sense.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Insert sarcasm here.I like being obtuse.LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly no offense to your belief system.Me personally,I like to be educated from all sides of the story.Left,Right,Center.Being informed and making one's own opinion is better than being brainwashed.


You haven't expressed anything to me in anyway demonstrative of "being educated left, right, center and being informed and making one's own opinion". I see no evidence you can even properly frame & and articulate and argument, and stay on point. I do see ad hominems and assumptions, which suggests the opposite of your claim.

For example, you say: "Your argument is flawed and your rhetoric is misguided.Peace be with you.God bless" All you do is make a declaration. Okay, how so? You've offered nothing to articulate it, no evidence to support that you are correct, for just blurting something out doesn't make it so.


----------



## Polomarko

Kaiser Permanente CEO $8.500.000,00 salary.


----------



## Cocobird

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


My insurance isn't affordable, Thanks Obama, and thanks to all the people that supported him.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Do tell said:


> That was the plan by design.The ones that are cheerleaders for Obamacare are the ones that aren't paying much for it,or nothing at all.Ask the millions of Americans who can't afford it.Because deductibles are too high and they make too much money.But they still can't afford healthcare.
> 
> I'm not sorry about it.Healthcare is a privilege,not a right.Who said life was fair?They were lying.
> 
> Ask most uber drivers is it fair what they're getting paid from uber.Most will say it's not fair.


Healthcare should be a right in a "civilized" country. The alternative is to have only the rich be able to afford to get cancer. The problem now is that it's a system based on profit. Run it to break even and get rid of insurance companies and it would be cheaper.

Why is every other non third world country (and many of them, too) able to do this, but not the US?

If you want healthcare to be a privilege then why not education? Especially for those who need help. Why subsidize education for the blind, the deaf, anyone needing any kind of special education because of their disabilities? Heck, why have wheelchair ramps? Let the parents of the disabled child pay for one at their school. Why should I?

Actually, why should I pay any school taxes? I have no kids. Shouldn't everyone just pay for their own kids' education?

We pay for education because it's good for society to have an educated populace. I think having them be healthy is good for society also.

Or do you really think anyone who can't afford chemotherapy (pretty much most folk) should just get no treatment and die? And without painkillers or care? Because those cost too.

Your attitude is basically "I'm ok, so the heck with everyone else." Great until YOU are sick and can't afford care.

We shouldn't NEED health INSURANCE at all. We can pay taxes spread across society for roads, but not healthcare? Makes no sense.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Do tell said:


> I'm an anti-socialist,because I'm an American.I'm not going to keep beating on a dead horse.For those who think we should pay for everyone because we are America.They should move to a socialist country and let them take care of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is a mental disorder that must be cured.I look forward to eight years of greatness after living eight years of sadness.


But as a % of GDP healthcare costs are twice what they are in say Britain for example. You're still paying. But you're paying for the person with a very severe ear infection who goes to the county hospital ER and sits there for 8 hours to be seen, meanwhile not working, instead of going to a GP. I did that, many years ago. My parents were getting divorced, I was thrown out, and I had a minimum wage job and no health insurance. I have NEVER paid that bill, except in taxes since.

It's getting paid for somehow. Either now, or added to the national debt. Unless you simply deny care to those who can't afford it the costs are still there. But I'd guess you'd prefer an 18 year old thrown into sad circumstances suffer and end up with damaged hearing, rather than be treated.

I don't mind paying (in part) for my neighbor's cancer treatment or his fall off a ladder so long as I know if I fall off a ladder I'll be treated too.

The argument that there are people who pay nothing assumes that you'll never be one of those people. I'm not, now. But I have been, and believe me, they like it a lot less than you do.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> You haven't expressed anything to me in anyway demonstrative of "being educated left, right, center and being informed and making one's own opinion". I see no evidence you can even properly frame & and articulate and argument, and stay on point. I do see ad hominems and assumptions, which suggests the opposite of your claim.
> 
> For example, you say: "Your argument is flawed and your rhetoric is misguided.Peace be with you.God bless" All you do is make a declaration. Okay, how so? You've offered nothing to articulate it, no evidence to support that you are correct, for just blurting something out doesn't make it so.


I guess I'm just beating a dead horse because you don't get it.LOL


----------



## Do tell

Polomarko said:


> Kaiser Permanente CEO $8.500.000,00 salary.


He's smarter than me and you.Good for him,he should be paid double that.LOL


----------



## Do tell

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Healthcare should be a right in a "civilized" country. The alternative is to have only the rich be able to afford to get cancer. The problem now is that it's a system based on profit. Run it to break even and get rid of insurance companies and it would be cheaper.
> 
> Why is every other non third world country (and many of them, too) able to do this, but not the US?
> 
> If you want healthcare to be a privilege then why not education? Especially for those who need help. Why subsidize education for the blind, the deaf, anyone needing any kind of special education because of their disabilities? Heck, why have wheelchair ramps? Let the parents of the disabled child pay for one at their school. Why should I?
> 
> Actually, why should I pay any school taxes? I have no kids. Shouldn't everyone just pay for their own kids' education?
> 
> We pay for education because it's good for society to have an educated populace. I think having them be healthy is good for society also.
> 
> Or do you really think anyone who can't afford chemotherapy (pretty much most folk) should just get no treatment and die? And without painkillers or care? Because those cost too.
> 
> Your attitude is basically "I'm ok, so the heck with everyone else." Great until YOU are sick and can't afford care.
> 
> We shouldn't NEED health INSURANCE at all. We can pay taxes spread across society for roads, but not healthcare? Makes no sense.


Did somebody"Promised You a Rose Garden".Last I checked,life ain't fair.Anybody who thinks Healthcare is a right and not a privilege should move to Cuba,Venezuela or any other socialist country you choose.Or maybe you want to go live with Eric Snowden in Russia.lol


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Do tell said:


> Did somebody"Promised You a Rose Garden".Last I checked,life ain't fair.Anybody who thinks Healthcare is a right and not a privilege should move to Cuba,Venezuela or any other socialist country you choose.Or maybe you want to go live with Eric Snowden in Russia.lol


So by saying "life isn't fair" are you saying you shouldn't have to pay for anything unless it's for YOU? Or just healthcare?


----------



## Do tell

Fuzzyelvis said:


> We pay for education because it's good for society to have an educated populace. I think having them be healthy is good for society also.


 If it's good for society.How come there so many dumb people in this country? I'll give you my answer.It's because everyone has their hands out.I want I want I want.If you want better education.If you want better health care.Make more money and pay for it.Stop blaming the rich for ones woes.

Last time I looked.I have to live my own life and you have to live your own life.Stop having your hands out like a bum.Not you personally.But I think you get the point.


----------



## Cole Hann

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


Bwahahahah, Uber Corp & Lyft Inc will Not suffer because u have no health insurance. They don't care about your Health and if u get sick there are thousands of other drivers to replace u.


----------



## Do tell

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So by saying "life isn't fair" are you saying you shouldn't have to pay for anything unless it's for YOU? Or just healthcare?


What I'm saying is,life ain't fair.Pretty simple isn't it?
You don't see me spelling out my personal woes on this website.We all have our woes.Big ones small ones insignificant ones.
Life isn't fair and it's too short to continue this conversation anymore.I think you know where I stand on healthcare.I shouldn't have to pay a tax or deductible that's unaffordable because of socialized medicine.
Let Freedom Ring


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

You're going to need health cover, Uber driving is terrible for your health. Uber needs to cur their commision so their drivers can afford to eat properly.


----------



## Do tell

I would definitely have a beer with this guy.And have a much better conversation than you guys.LOL


----------



## Trebor

Nalnip said:


> I have personal insurance, and it goes up every single year. Honestly I am conflicted on what needs to be done. Having some basic national plan would be great. Basically, every year everyone gets a free physical. Which that could help stem off some of the big expensive stuff or at least lessen the impact a little.
> 
> So who knows.


A lot of third world countries have a national plan. How could bad could it be? Iraq had free medical care under Saddam...

Do you really want the government running the health system? If doctor's are not paid well, do you think it will attract top talent?


----------



## Trafficat

I prefer not being forced to have a lot more coverage than I need or get shafted by an Obamacare penalty.

I'm not really sure how it helps me as a driver to force me to pay a large penalty or to buy a bunch of insurance that I don't need. Maybe it helps drivers who want to buy expensive plans anyway who now get a subsidy, but certainly not drivers across the board.

I like catastrophic coverage just so I don't become a liability to other people. I'm okay with a $20,000 deductible. But I don't need annual checkups or scripts or any of that crap. The only regular visits to doctors I make is for dental or optical. I visit the dentist every 6-12 months for a cleaning and the eye doctor every 3-6 years to get new lens prescriptions. Not too hard to pay out of pocket for that.

Last year I get penalty, this year I am paying for a bronze plan that still does not cover dental/optical crap so basically it's just burning my cash.


----------



## ZREXMike

Healthcare is a for-profit business. When the gov starts messing with free enterprise, it's called socialism. Which leads to communism. I don't wanna be a communist, myself.


----------



## Wardell Curry

It's kind of funny how many people blindly hate Obamacare when it has helped millions of Americans who were previously uninsured get health insurance. Primarily some of the same unemployed millenials aged 21-25 who are against it. Lol. There are many issues with it but let's not act like it is Obama's original healthcare bill. The original plan was adjusted many times with new revisions placed into it before it became to be as it now because the republicans flat out refused many of the original elements of the plan. Now these same politicians are claiming how bad it is. The same people responsible for those revisions which have caused an increase in insurance premiums. What a joke.


----------



## senorCRV

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


Don't buy into the political hype. I was an independent contractor years and years before Obamacare and would LOVE for those rates to come back. Obamacare doubled my premiums and tripled my deductible. So now I pay twice as much for insurance I pretty much can't use.

The replacement plan they are talking about actually appears to be pretty good... which is a shock considering it's coming from politicians. Being able to buy across state lines and create your own pools to create buying power that only large corporations have right now? Shockingly market aware thinking for politicians of any party.

Remember: Obamacare (Yes, Obama turns out is a politician) is like any other political solution... a targeted vote buy. In this case working for a living instead of watching Judge Judy and waiting for a gov't subsidy mean you're not the targeted audience.


----------



## UberChicago80

I have been eating subway to stay healthy


----------



## senorCRV

UberChicago80 said:


> I have been eating subway to stay healthy


This is probably more cost effective than an Obamacare health insurance policy.


----------



## Karen Stein

That article isn't news, it's a simple editorial advocating the religious views of the author.

"Obama Care" is more accurately described as the UN-affordable care act. The very folks the act purports to help now have a choice: pay the fine, or bankrupt yourself buying insurance with a deductible so high you can never use it.

To steal a phrase from Hilary, the Supre me Court got it wrong. This country, our society was founded on the exact opposite concept, one of severely limited government.

"Our way" tamed a continent and advanced us from colonial backwater to world power in record time. It's time to return to our roots.


----------



## UberChicago80

Karen Stein said:


> That article isn't news, it's a simple editorial advocating the religious views of the author.
> 
> "Obama Care" is more accurately described as the UN-affordable care act. The very folks the act purports to help now have a choice: pay the fine, or bankrupt yourself buying insurance with a deductible so high you can never use it.
> 
> To steal a phrase from Hilary, the Supre me Court got it wrong. This country, our society was founded on the exact opposite concept, one of severely limited government.
> 
> "Our way" tamed a continent and advanced us from colonial backwater to world power in record time. It's time to return to our roots.


Yes, and homemade brownies


----------



## Dutch-Ub

Interesting topic. Healthcare (insurance) is a big topic in my country (Netherlands) aswell. We have mandatory insurance (costs around 1300 euro's a year, not dependable of income) no option to pay a fine. And a portion of our paycheck (7%!) is for a healthcare fund of the gouvernement to cover some riskcomponent of the healthcare insurers.

Anyhow, Healthcare is shifting towards prevention. Preventive healthcare prevents huge costs, and, not unimportant, really rises the standard of living. The main way to provide preventive healthcare to your citizens is through the mandatory healthcare insurance. Preventive healthcare is available and costs nearly nothing extra. So people do not make a dodgy discision saving a couple of bucks today tot end up beeing a burden on society with an illness or condition that could have been prevented. This benefits all, rich or poor.


----------



## senorCRV

Dutch-Ub said:


> Interesting topic. Healthcare (insurance) is a big topic in my country (Netherlands) aswell. We have mandatory insurance (costs around 1300 euro's a year, not dependable of income) no option to pay a fine. And a portion of our paycheck (7%!) is for a healthcare fund of the gouvernement to cover some riskcomponent of the healthcare insurers.
> 
> Anyhow, Healthcare is shifting towards prevention. Preventive healthcare prevents huge costs, and, not unimportant, really rises the standard of living. The main way to provide preventive healthcare to your citizens is through the mandatory healthcare insurance. Preventive healthcare is available and costs nearly nothing extra. So people do not make a dodgy discision saving a couple of bucks today tot end up beeing a burden on society with an illness or condition that could have been prevented. This benefits all, rich or poor.


The government pays for the biggest cause of American health costs. Corn subsidies.

Your government isn't force feeding you corn. We literally replace sugar with corn made to taste like sugar. We force feed animals corn who don't eat corn. We replace 10% of our gasoline with moonshine made from corn (ethanol).

Seriously, for a few farmers we are killing our country.


----------



## senorCRV

Example: look at that steak, nothing like a nice chunk of corn fed Iowa beef.

Corn fed.... except that cows doesn't actually eat corn unless it's their only option. My uncle-in-law is a dairy farmer, there is more nutrients in the poop of cows that eat grass than there is in corn. That's right, a cow will be healthier eating the poop of other cows than corn.

Why do they feed it corn? It's cheap, because it's heavily subsidized. Plus you make more money growing corn on the land than letting grass naturally grow for free to feed your cows.


----------



## Buddywannaride

DollarStoreChauffeur said:


> Obamacare was the biggest scam, especially for people like rideshare drivers who are living on a tight budget. So you're barely able to pay your bills with this scummy gig, but now you're faced with either being forced to pay for insurance premiums each month or a penalty at the end of the year?


Would you rather have no health insurance???


----------



## senorCRV

Buddywannaride said:


> Would you rather have no health insurance???


Yes. Because then I would pay my $120 yearly physical out of pocket Imstead of $120 out of pocket and $450 a month for someone to tell me to use a different doctor I don't like.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> View attachment 89477
> 
> I guess I'm just beating a dead horse because you don't get it.LOL


You don't even know what it is you want me to get.


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> Yes. Because then I would pay my $120 yearly physical out of pocket Imstead of $120 out of pocket and $450 a month for someone to tell me to use a different doctor I don't like.


My silver plan health care cost 132 a month my deductibles are 500 year and in three years I've had yet to pay that deductible, $10 co-pays and I was able to choose from 20 different doctors that's because California exchange is robust I don't know about yours


----------



## senorCRV

Oscar Levant said:


> My silver plan health care cost 132 a month my deductibles are 500 year and in three years I've had yet to pay that deductible and I was able to choose from 20 different doctors that's because California exchange is robust I don't know about yours


So basically you set $132 a month on fire?


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> So basically you set $132 a month on fire?


How so? I had an $8,000 operation and my share was 300. Numerous doctor visits check-ups x-rays etcetera all of which cost me nothing my subsidie is 600 a month


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> Lol


Everything I've told you is true and can be documented. You believe what you want to believe I could care less. And those states where the governors opted out of Medicaid expansion and creating a state Exchange, those States people suffer much more than those states that opted in


----------



## senorCRV

Oscar Levant said:


> Everything I've told you is true and can be documented. You believe what you want to believe I could care less. And those states where the governors opted out of Medicaid expansion and creating a state Exchange, those States people suffer much more than those states that opted in


Yes, and you had a surgery and didn't pay your deductible.

Suuuure.


----------



## grams777

senorCRV said:


> Lol


It's entirely possible. It sounds similar to my plan.

There are two areas of subsidies on obamacare. One is the premium subsidy. This reduces your premiums. The other is the cost sharing subsidy on silver plans. This reduces what you pay for deductibles etc all the way down to near zero in many cases.

The more income you have the more you pay and the less you get because you lose both areas of subsidies.

https://www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/


----------



## Adieu

No we WON'T


I stopped paying it after TRYING AND FAILING to get ANY appointments with a real medical professional (NOT "dr. Jimmy", university of Cairo Egypt medical school alumnus who got his prescription pad repealed by the DEA... and NOT a nurse practitioner who kept looking up words in a concise edition medical terminology dictionary....and although she barely spoke English, she was looking for INFO ---- not translations of stuff she knew)


So Obamacare costs me money (payments or fines) for NOT having medical services, whether I choose to opt in or out


OBAMACARE IS UTTER Bull Guano


----------



## Adieu

DollarStoreChauffeur said:


> Obamacare was the biggest scam, especially for people like rideshare drivers who are living on a tight budget. So you're barely able to pay your bills with this scummy gig, but now you're faced with either being forced to pay for insurance premiums each month or a penalty at the end of the year?


Premiums for FICTIONAL coverage no less


----------



## senorCRV

Adieu said:


> No we WON'T
> 
> I stopped paying it after TRYING AND FAILING to get ANY appointments with a real medical professional (NOT "dr. Jimmy, university of Cairo medical school alumnus who got his prescription pad repealed by the DEA" and NOT a nurse practitioner who kept looking up words in a concise edition medical terminology dictionary)
> 
> So Obamacare costs me money (payments or fines) for NOT having medical services, whether I choose to opt in or out
> 
> OBAMACARE IS UTTER Bull Guano


People who have Obamacare have no idea what real health insurance was and now isn't.


----------



## DollarStoreChauffeur

senorCRV said:


> People who have Obamacare have no idea what real health insurance was and now isn't.


Yes, the term "major medical" has been shelved in an archive 6 miles deep in the ground, never to be spoken of again.


----------



## senorCRV

DollarStoreChauffeur said:


> Yes, the term "major medical" has been shelved in an archive 6 miles deep in the ground, never to be spoken of again.


20 years ago health insurance was actually insurance. You only used it when you needed it (were sick or injured) and you actually paid your doctor yourself for an office visit (which adjusted for inflation is less than your covered appt copay now).

You used to be allowed to see the nurse if you had a cold and if they determined you had a need for a script the doctor would hand you one at the desk. It literally took 5-10 minutes in and out.

The lady at the front desk took your check and thanked you. Now there are a team of 5-10 nurses in scrubs that never see a patient between phone calls to insurance companies and medical billing offices.


----------



## UberNaToo

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


You should have served. Get a real job or suck it up and pay the premiums .


----------



## Jorsen

My 2 cents.

Free Market system would be better but the moment we move in that direction, the crony capitalistic corporations use their money to put restrictions that make the market "Not Free" ex. Big Pharma selling us the same drugs for many times more than across the border in Canada.

Single Payer has the potential for corruption and inefficiencies yet as many doctors have told me personally they would at least have a reliable model in which to build a practice instead of the current "Bill for 10k and hope you get 100 bucks back" of the current system.

What made America unique in it's Republic status was its limited government and grass roots state power. This ideal is undermined by any sweeping federal regulation such as health care. However, we live in an oligarchy ran by lobbying corporations now. I suspect the best way forward is one of two paths.

1. Get money out of politics, and engage in true free market capitalism without lobbying (This is virtually impossible without fundamental transformation of our government)

2. Universal Healthcare despite it weakening the Ideal of American Individualism of a State Ran Republic. This is more likely in my opinion as, to quote many an entrepreneur "You know you've reached the big leagues when you start to work with the government with your business." In other words, Corporations make a ton of money in not only capital gains but the incredible tax breaks the government offers which is the carrot before the donkey that it extends to "encourage" corporations to do what it wants.

I suspect #2 as I see corpoations at least figuring out a way to make their money using the system. A genuine free market approach which while that might be best, would require the corps to do something hard and difficult....actually innovate to be successful.


----------



## senorCRV

Jorsen said:


> My 2 cents.
> 
> Free Market system would be better but the moment we move in that direction, the crony capitalistic corporations use their money to put restrictions that make the market "Not Free" ex. Big Pharma selling us the same drugs for many times more than across the border in Canada.
> 
> Single Payer has the potential for corruption and inefficiencies yet as many doctors have told me personally they would at least have a reliable model in which to build a practice instead of the current "Bill for 10k and hope you get 100 bucks back" of the current system.
> 
> What made America unique in it's Republic status was its limited government and grass roots state power. This ideal is undermined by any sweeping federal regulation such as health care. However, we live in an oligarchy ran by lobbying corporations now. I suspect the best way forward is one of two paths.
> 
> 1. Get money out of politics, and engage in true free market capitalism without lobbying (This is virtually impossible without fundamental transformation of our government)
> 
> 2. Universal Healthcare despite it weakening the Ideal of American Individualism of a State Ran Republic. This is more likely in my opinion as, to quote many an entrepreneur "You know you've reached the big leagues when you start to work with the government with your business." In other words, Corporations make a ton of money in not only capital gains but the incredible tax breaks the government offers which is the carrot before the donkey that it extends to "encourage" corporations to do what it wants.
> 
> I suspect #2 as I see corpoations at least figuring out a way to make their money using the system. A genuine free market approach which while that might be best, would require the corps to do something hard and difficult....actually innovate to be successful.


Perhaps a universal catastrophic coverage and people can buy health maintenance and care policies for the small stuff on their own.

Cancer: govt pay
Flu: you pay

Before anything, you need to make one law: every doctor and medical facility has to publish their rates and charge the same price for the same code regardless of who is paying


----------



## UberNaToo

UberNaToo said:


> You should have served. Get a real job or suck it up and pay the premiums .


That was a little harsh. I apologize. I think.


----------



## Chauffeur_James

tohunt4me said:


> The medical system rapes the govt. Which we pay for. Medicare,Medicaid,some institutions will run $48,000.00 worth of tests on a comatose corpse for profit.
> Corruption must be brought under control before bills or insurance will ever become reasonable.


Frivolous lawsuits are why you have to have so many tests done, has nothing to do with the medical system. Doctors are terrified of getting sued for missing something. Until people stop suing for stupid crap just to get a payday nothing will change. My Dad's a medical director and knows first hand


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> Yes, and you had a surgery and didn't pay your deductible.
> 
> Suuuure.


I paid $300.


----------



## UberNaToo

Chauffeur_James said:


> Frivolous lawsuits are why you have to have so many tests done, has nothing to do with the medical system. Doctors are terrified of getting sued for missing something. Until people stop suing for stupid crap just to get a payday nothing will change. My Dad's a medical director and knows first hand


Here's the real truth. I was an ACH registered rep. The parking lot of the call center I worked at looked like a junk yard from the legion of "get rich being your own boss" sales people populating that enterprise.

Here's the bottom line. America unlike its allies does not provide healthcare, higher education to its people because in the global economy we are the enforcers, the hit men for the mafia. When all those jumping around protesting America it's legit. Our CIA types destabilize legitimate governments so we have a pretense to utilize military action to prop up puppet governments, sorry Karzi and extract their natural resources at cost. Later on Uber shows up and it really gets bad.

The point being, an educated populace does not support a military industrial complex. No common foder, no one to fire the cannons. We are dumbing down the masses so we can continue to be the world's largest terrorist state. (This last comment should gain me some likes from the green card carrying crowd that are convinced my sardonic posts.)

Btw, I have to believe all those ACH sales types are buzzing by me on my trek into the ATL searching for that fictional surge!

Irony....


----------



## Oscar Levant

Chauffeur_James said:


> Frivolous lawsuits are why you have to have so many tests done, has nothing to do with the medical system. Doctors are terrified of getting sued for missing something. Until people stop suing for stupid crap just to get a payday nothing will change. My Dad's a medical director and knows first hand


This is a problem with the system, which is litigious. I was coming up one or two pills short on an expensive drug that my medicare pays, so i asked my doctor if he could give me a prescrition which I could use to purchase the drug, a few extra as I need it, from Canada, since from there it's affordable. he said, "Canada drugs not approved by FDA, so I can't".

I think the solution here is allow patients the option, should they desire the drug or procedure, to sign a waiver, for some drugs and procedures doctors are paranoid getting sued for. My brother has chronic pain from an injury, her recieved years ago, doctors are reluctant to prescribe the increase of necessary pain killing drugs because they fear he will get addicted, abuse the drugs, etc., and if he dies for ODing, relatives will sue, etc. Here, a waiver signed by the patient will solve the problem .

I talked to a doctor today. The problem, he said, was not Obamacare, the problem was not Obamacare, it was the insurance companies, how they operate, and screw doctors. I asked him, would "medicare for everyone be better?". He said "Yes, absolutely".


----------



## Buddywannaride

senorCRV said:


> Yes. Because then I would pay my $120 yearly physical out of pocket Imstead of $120 out of pocket and $450 a month for someone to tell me to use a different doctor I don't like.


What if you get sick or hurt? Everyone thinks they're invincible- you are not invincible. We all need health insurance for the unexpected. What if your yearly physical found something wrong? More tests, more doctors, more medicine. Get real, get insurance.


----------



## senorCRV

Oscar Levant said:


> This is a problem with the system, which is litigious. I was coming up one or two pills short on an expensive drug that my medicare pays, so i asked my doctor if he could give me a prescrition which I could use to purchase the drug, a few extra as I need it, from Canada, since from there it's affordable. he said, "Canada drugs not approved by FDA, so I can't".
> 
> I think the solution here is allow patients the option, should they desire the drug or procedure, to sign a waiver, for some drugs and procedures doctors are paranoid getting sued for. My brother has chronic pain from an injury, her recieved years ago, doctors are reluctant to prescribe the increase of necessary pain killing drugs because they fear he will get addicted, abuse the drugs, etc., and if he dies for ODing, relatives will sue, etc. Here, a waiver signed by the patient will solve the problem .
> 
> I talked to a doctor today. The problem, he said, was not Obamacare, the problem was not Obamacare, it was the insurance companies, how they operate, and screw doctors. I asked him, would "medicare for everyone be better?". He said "Yes, absolutely".


You're going to die sooner than you should because your doctor is a moron.


----------



## senorCRV

UberNaToo said:


> Here's the real truth. I was an ACH registered rep. The parking lot of the call center I worked at looked like a junk yard from the legion of "get rich being your own boss" sales people populating that enterprise.
> 
> Here's the bottom line. America unlike its allies does not provide healthcare, higher education to its people because in the global economy we are the enforcers, the hit men for the mafia. When all those barefooted Muslims are jumping around protesting America it's legit. Our CIA types destabilize legitimate governments so we have a pretense to utilize military action to prop up puppet governments, sorry Karzi and extract their natural resources at cost. Later on Uber shows up and it really gets bad.
> 
> The point being, an educated populace does not support a military industrial complex. No common foder, no one to fire the cannons. We are dumbing down the masses so we can continue to be the world's largest terrorist state. (This last comment should gain me some likes from the green card carrying crowd that are convinced my sardonic posts.)
> 
> Btw, I have to believe all those ACH sales types are buzzing by me on my trek into the ATL searching for that fictional surge!
> 
> Irony....
> View attachment 89749


Nice hat, is it recyclable?

Except that there is far more of a correlation over time and geographic borders between the amount of clothing women wear and the size of the economy, level of education, and level of infrastructure. The smaller the normal female outfit, the more sophisticate the society.

Bottom line, if ladies want to improve society, skin to win.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Do tell said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.


A "primary" state is where the law instructs the police to stop and issue a summons to anyone who is not using a seat belt. A "secondary" state is one where the police must stop you for something else before they can issue you a summons for not using a seat belt. Massachusetts is a secondary state. New York is a primary state.



Oscar Levant said:


> Thing is I hear of all these nightmares over the deductibles, but what I don't understand is, aren't they looking at the silver plans? I mean, no one is mentioning this.
> 
> It's not Obama's fault if your state opted out, it's your governor's fault.


I will mention it. I bought a "silver". Why did I buy a "silver"? The "bronze" plans offered here cost a pile of money, have impossible deductibles and offer no benefits. The "silver" have ridiculous deductibles, cost a pile of money and offer next-to-nothing for benefits. If you buy a "bronze" from the "state" marketplace here (D.C. is not a state, but you get the idea............), you get the same thing that you would for paying the fine: nothing. The difference between "bronze" and the fine, here, is that you get nothing at a higher price with the "bronze".

As you can understand, my "state" did not opt-out.



Oscar Levant said:


> You've been watching and listening to too many right wing radio shows, fox news, etc. if I believed half of the things republicans sayabout democrats, I would be a republican.
> 
> No, progressives want middle class and poor to pay less or no taxes.
> 
> Progressives want the rich to pay them, for one simple reason, they can afford it. We say if someone makes one billion per year, he can probably manage to squeak by on a million per day, ya think?


I could reply that you are getting your daily DNC-ordered programming from watching MSNBC, but I will refrain, for now. I have had the ecstatic pleasure of _*experiencing*_ what the Republicans state about the Democrats. Despite that, I am anything *but* a Republican. The Republicans only use me and people like me to fund their wasteful habits.

The Repress-ER-uh-_*Progress*_ives talk a big line about "taxing the rich" and every time that they talk that talk, it is *MY* taxes that increase.






The rich can get the "Progressives" to go away by paying off the same. The poor have nothing to take. That leaves the middle class.



Oscar Levant said:


> Brainwashed people always stoop to ad homenims


............like "You're listening to too much Limbaugh and Hannity" or words similar?



Wardell Curry said:


> It's kind of funny how many people blindly hate Obamacare when it has helped millions of Americans who were previously uninsured get health insurance.


That is all marvellous, flowers, beads and butteflies for those people. It has done nothing for me. Previously, I could not get it because I could not afford it so I did not buy it. Now, _*STILL*_ I can not afford it, but I am compelled to buy it. The Democrats tell me that I can afford something that I can not, compel me to buy this thing that I can not afford with money that I do not have and once bought, I can not afford to use it.



senorCRV said:


> years and years before Obamacare and would LOVE for those rates to come back. Obamacare doubled my premiums and tripled my deductible. So now I pay twice as much for insurance I pretty much can't use.
> 
> In this case working for a living instead of watching Judge Judy and waiting for a gov't subsidy mean you're not the targeted audience.


................yet another member of the middle class "helped" by the "progressives" who are so out to "help" and "bolster" the middle class..................



Buddywannaride said:


> Would you rather have no health insurance???


Effectively, this is what many of us have now. Thanks to the ridiculous deductibles, we can not afford to use this thing. We are paying for the "privilege" of being our own primary insurer. I did not need to spend all of this money to do that before the "progressives" foisted this nanny state horror scam onto me.



Adieu said:


> Premiums for FICTIONAL coverage no less


*^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^*.....thanks to the ridiculous deductibles, this is what I have: "fictional coverage". I have a piece of paper that the Kaiser calls "Evidence of Coverage" but, thanks to the excessively high deductibles, it is more, to use Patton's turn of phrase, ".....................what is alleged to be coverage..............."


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> You're going to die sooner than you should because your doctor is a moron.


Those who have no argument or a weak argument, contribute nothing to the conversation, stoop to ad hominems, etc.


----------



## senorCRV

Another Uber Driver said:


> A "primary" state is where the law instructs the police to stop and issue a summons to anyone who is not using a seat belt. A "secondary" state is one where the police must stop you for something else before they can issue you a summons for not using a seat belt. Massachusetts is a secondary state.  New York is a primary state.
> 
> I will mention it. I bought a "silver". Why did I buy a "silver"? The "bronze" plans offered here cost a pile of money, have impossible deductibles and offer no benefits. The "silver" have ridiculous deductibles, cost a pile of money and offer next-to-nothing for benefits. If you buy a "bronze" from the "state" marketplace here (D.C. is not a state, but you get the idea............), you get the same thing that you would for paying the fine: nothing. The difference between "bronze" and the fine, here, is that you get nothing at a higher price with the "bronze".
> 
> As you can understand, my "state" did not opt-out.
> 
> I could reply that you are getting your daily DNC-ordered programming from watching MSNBC, but I will refrain, for now. I have had the ecstatic pleasure of _*experiencing*_ what the Republicans state about the Democrats. Despite that, I am anything *but* a Republican. The Republicans only use me and people like me to fund their wasteful habits.
> 
> The Repress-ER-uh-_*Progress*_ives talk a big line about "taxing the rich" and every time that they talk that talk, it is *MY* taxes that increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich can get the "Progressives" to go away by paying off the same. The poor have nothing to take. That leaves the middle class.
> 
> ............like "You're listening to too much Limbaugh and Hannity" or words similar?
> 
> That is all marvellous, flowers, beads and butteflies for those people. It has done nothing for me. Previously, I could not get it because I could not afford it so I did not buy it. Now, _*STILL*_ I can not afford it, but I am compelled to buy it. The Democrats tell me that I can afford something that I can not, compel me to buy this thing that I can not afford with money that I do not have and once bought, I can not afford to use it.
> 
> ................yet another member of the middle class "helped" by the "progressives" who are so out to "help" and "bolster" the middle class..................
> 
> Effectively, this is what many of us have now. Thanks to the ridiculous deductibles, we can not afford to use this thing. We are paying for the "privilege" of being our own primary insurer. I did not need to spend all of this money to do that before the "progressives" foisted this nanny state horror scam onto me.
> 
> *^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^*.....thanks to the ridiculous deductibles, this is what I have: "fictional coverage". I have a piece of paper that the Kaiser calls "Evidence of Coverage" but, thanks to the excessively high deductibles, it is more, to use Patton's turn of phrase, ".....................what is alleged to be coverage..............."


More or less, health insurance is government fine prevention with bankruptcy prevention coverage.

They love that line... you shouldn't have to go bankrupt because you got sick.

Oddly from the same government that wrote personal bankruptcy laws to specifically include a provision allowing you to go bankrupt to avoid being financially deviated because you got sick.

If you get cancer and go bankrupt on $80k of medical bills you can't afford... is the inability to get a $10k credit card limit really a worse outcome than being dead?

No.


----------



## senorCRV

Oscar Levant said:


> Those who have no argument or a weak argument, contribute nothing to the conversation, stoop to ad hominems, etc.


No, I just am under the impression that a more intelligent doctor is preferable as it likely leads to a more desirable outcome.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> .....thanks to the ridiculous deductibles, this is what I have: "fictional coverage". I have a piece of paper that the Kaiser calls "Evidence of Coverage" but, thanks to the excessively high deductibles, it is more, to use Patton's turn of phrase, ".....................what is alleged to be coverage..............."


The ACA works for the vast majority of those who signed up for it. It is widely acknowledged by the designers that it's new legislation, and it's not perfect, and will need fixing. It works beautifully for me and millions of others. It surely would if you lived in CA, because I could show you my exact plan, which you could have signed up for, whereby your cost would minimal, if your income is low ( if you are a full time uber driver with no other source of income and you are taking the IRS deduction, your income will be low enough ) and your payment would be heavily subsidized, as mine is. It needs fixing for the middle class who got squeezed, but the right won't cooperate in fixing it, and have put forth measures to assure it's destruction, such a the Marco Rubio rule that disallowed insurance companies to take advantage of an 80 billion fund set up for that purpose, to help them get though, in their start up stages when ACA had disproportionate numbers of elderly compared to young, who would experience a loss until the ACA paid for itself later on. Marco's rule is called a kneecap provision, designed to make sure the ACA fails, so the right has sabatoged it. Still, it leaves much to the insurers, and insurers, being the devils they are, do evil shit all the time. The better idea is medicare for everyone. I switched to medicare when it turned 65, and it is better for me than the ACA was, but, of course, the right will have no part of that. What the right wants to do is have deductions and vouchers, which will be much worse than what currently exists. Look, in the entire history of the US, the right has never offered any real type of health care ( well, nixon did, but he's a lib by today's standards ) and the right wouldnt even be talking about health care if Obama and dems hadn't put for the ACA. The ACA, for all it's inequity, is getting congress to do something about it. For that, I give Obama credit.

But, of course, whiners whine, sit on the sidelines and offer no ideas or solutions. You got a good or better idea? Okay hot shot, let's hear it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> No, I just am under the impression that a more intelligent doctor is preferable as it likely leads to a more desirable outcome.


Thank you for proving my oiginal statment. Those who contribute nothing to the conversation always stoop to ad hominems, etc.

by the way, through the advice of my doctor, via a perscription of my doctor, years of suffering from chronic headaches have ended. Before the ACA, I had several emergcy room visits at the UCSD med center, and none of the interns there ( under supervison by more experience doctors ) were able to do what my doctor did, and I was billed thousands for it, which destroyed my credit, which took many years to straighten out. Then came the ACA, my credit preserved, and no more headaches. This doesn't square with your comments.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Those who have no argument or a weak argument, contribute nothing to the conversation, stoop to ad hominems, etc.


 Of course you're happy,you're subsidized.You don't have any skin in the game.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/21/legacy-10-ways-barack-obama-broke-american-system/

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...ed-with-thousands-of-dollars-in-medical-debt/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-state-budget-quick-overview-20170112-story.html


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> In reality, it should be called Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care


Or, more accurately, 'RomneyCare' since Reid/Pelosi/Clinton (and the majority of Americans) support A national universal healthcare system.


----------



## senorCRV

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Or, more accurately, 'RomneyCare' since Reid/Pelosi/Clinton (and the majority of Americans) support A national universal healthcare system.


Lol... a majority of Americans support what is described as "free healthcare" without knowing 1. It's not free 2. There's barely any healthcare involved.

All you need to do is point out the disaster that is the VA. That's government run healthcare that nearly everyone supports and very few would argue paying as much as needed to support... and the government can't even come close to getting that right.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Or, more accurately, 'RomneyCare' since Reid/Pelosi/Clinton (and the majority of Americans) support A national universal healthcare system.


http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/02/the-shocking-truth-about-who-wrote-obamacare/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Creamer_(political_consultant)


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *]The ACA works for the vast majority of those who signed up for it.
> 
> *2. *It works beautifully for me and millions of others. It surely would if you lived in CA, because I could show you my exact plan, which you could have signed up for, whereby your cost would minimal, if your income is low
> 
> *3. * (if you are a full time uber driver with no other source of income and you are taking the IRS deduction, your income will be low enough ) and your payment would be heavily subsidized, as mine is.
> 
> *4. *It needs fixing for the middle class who got squeezed, but the right won't cooperate in fixing it, and have put forth measures to assure it's destruction,
> 
> *5. *The better idea is medicare for everyone.
> 
> *6. *The ACA, for all it's inequity, is getting congress to do something about it. For that, I give Obama credit.
> 
> *7. *But, of course, whiners whine, side on the sidelines and offer no ideas or solutions. You got a good or better idea? Okay *hot shot*, let's hear it.


 (emphasis mine)

1. I have stated more than once that before I can worry about the "vast majority", I need to worry about my problems. How many times do I need to state that? I will pass over my doubt that this is working for the "vast majority of those who signed up for it". I will not disagree with one interlocutor's statement that it works well for those who pay little or nothing for it.

2. I do not live in California. .....or does California think that it should dictate to the rest of the country? (see the three million vote controversy on that one) .

3. Already I have stated once that this is not the case. How many times do I need to state it? .....or is it that because I do not agree with the "progressive" view of this, my arguments must be inconsequential?

4. This is nothing but a cyber version of lip service, something both sides give to the middle class before they ream it, while they ream it and after they have reamed it. Once more, the "progressive" way is to pay lip service and do nothing for the very people for whom they claim to be. Add to the Virtual Lip Service the deflection. The Right did not bring this to the Federal Level, the Left did. Why could not the Left do, or cause to have done, the proper research to make sure that this thing did not harm the middle class, for whom the Left claims to be helping? It is no wonder that Pelosi stated that Congress had "pass it before we can find out what is in it". More on the third-to-last statement and the last, momentarily.

5. I am not necessarily against this, as long as it does not turn out to be production line medicine and a pile of bureaucratic rigamarole that results in your dying before you can have your treatment approved. This is what has plagued the health care systems that Eurosocialist governments have put into place. We can do it better here, so if this does happen here, it needs to be done the right way, which we can do.

6. We laud inequity and ignore those who are harmed. This is wonderful how______________________________? Funny, I had thought that "progressives" were against any sort of inequity.

7. See the below quoted statement and correlate the emphasised words. In case you do not understand me, consider this: Did I call you "Sparky" or "Skippy"? Double standard much? Oh, sorry (NOT), I forgot, those who agree with "progressives" get a pass on that sort of thing.

As for a "better solution", that is a cop-out. I did not ask for this. I was told that I wanted it and compelled to participate. One of its proponents even balked at telling me that in which I was participating (We have to pass it, first.....................). Further, as I stated in the reply to Number Four, I would have to do the research and investigation to come up with something better. This is something that the Government was _*supposed to have done*_, which obviously it _*failed to do*_. Remember Jean-Jacques Rousseau? You have governments because there are some things that it supposed to be able to do better than can individuals? Clearly, the government failed on this one. If the government wants me to find a solution or a better idea, let it pay me and give me a staff and equipment. I will come up with a better idea.

Pelosi did not learn anything from her Daddy, obviously. Tommy D'Alessandro may have been a crook, but he did many things for many people and would not have allowed the middle class to get the reaming that this so-called "Affordable" "Care" has rendered unto it, something to which even you admit (as does much of the Left)



Oscar Levant said:


> Thank you for proving my oiginal statment. *Those who contribute nothing to the conversation always stoop to ad hominems, etc.*


 (emphasis, again, mine)

^^^^^^^^^Applies to Number Seven^^^^^^^^^^^^ Someone needs to take a look in the mirror.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Or, more accurately, 'RomneyCare' since Reid/Pelosi/Clinton (and the majority of Americans) support A national universal healthcare system.


It was, indeed, under Romney that it was first to put it into effect anywhere in the U.S. of A. In fact, during the 2012 Presidential campaign, Romney stated that he gave it birth, so he could kill it, or words similar. Reid/Pelosi/Clinton brought it to the Federal Level, hence the appellation.

Do take care not to confuse a "national universal healthcare system" that works for everyone with the current so-called "Obamacare". In fact, those who are pointing to the results of the poll that the Congresswoman from Tennessee took are confusing the two. People want a "national universal healthcare system" that works for everyone. People do not want a dysfunctional so-called "healthcare system" or one that harms a large number of people, they way in which the current one has. Even the proponents of the current system admit that it has harmed large numbers of the middle class. Even the gentleman who is disagreeing with me admits that. One of its major proponents came as close as she dared to admitting it when it was still in Congress. Clinton told your typical politician's lie when she stated that [she] realised that it would be a "heavy lift" for the middle class. A politician can not come out and admit that she is committing a direct assault on a constituency that her side claims to support.

Yes, even I want a national universal health care system, but, to take a turn of phrase from whoever that historiographer was, the current system is neither national nor universal nor health care. (the use of "neither" actually is incorrect here, but that is how the historiographer phrased it. It may have been a deliberate butchering of the English Language on his part, I do not know)


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> A "primary" state is where the law instructs the police to stop and issue a summons to anyone who is not using a seat belt. A "secondary" state is one where the police must stop you for something else before they can issue you a summons for not using a seat belt. Massachusetts is a secondary state. New York is a primary state.


I guess we're a primary state.Since they set up roadblocks to pull you over for no seatbelt.Sometimes when pulling onto an on-ramp,they'll be waiting for you.LOL


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> The ACA works for the vast majority of those who signed up for it. It is widely acknowledged by the designers that it's new legislation, and it's not perfect, and will need fixing. It works beautifully for me and millions of others. It surely would if you lived in CA, because I could show you my exact plan, which you could have signed up for, whereby your cost would minimal, if your income is low ( if you are a full time uber driver with no other source of income and you are taking the IRS deduction, your income will be low enough ) and your payment would be heavily subsidized, as mine is. It needs fixing for the middle class who got squeezed, but the right won't cooperate in fixing it, and have put forth measures to assure it's destruction, such a the Marco Rubio rule that disallowed insurance companies to take advantage of an 80 billion fund set up for that purpose, to help them get though, in their start up stages when ACA had disproportionate numbers of elderly compared to young, who would experience a loss until the ACA paid for itself later on. Marco's rule is called a kneecap provision, designed to make sure the ACA fails, so the right has sabatoged it. Still, it leaves much to the insurers, and insurers, being the devils they are, do evil shit all the time. The better idea is medicare for everyone. I switched to medicare when it turned 65, and it is better for me than the ACA was, but, of course, the right will have no part of that. What the right wants to do is have deductions and vouchers, which will be much worse than what currently exists. Look, in the entire history of the US, the right has never offered any real type of health care ( well, nixon did, but he's a lib by today's standards ) and the right wouldnt even be talking about health care if Obama and dems hadn't put for the ACA. The ACA, for all it's inequity, is getting congress to do something about it. For that, I give Obama credit.
> 
> But, of course, whiners whine, sit on the sidelines and offer no ideas or solutions. You got a good or better idea? Okay hot shot, let's hear it.






How quick you forget.I never attacked you personally.If posting links and videos doesn't support my argument,what does?


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Maybe uber can solve all the health care problems with "UberCare".


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ChortlingCrison said:


> Maybe uber can solve all the health care problems with "UberCare".


D'ya' think that the doctors will give up twenty-per-cent of their fee to Uber as long as the Uber provides malpractice insurance?


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> D'ya' think that the doctors will give up twenty-per-cent of their fee to Uber as long as the Uber provides malpractice insurance?


Under the guise of socialism,they won't have a choice will they?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Do tell said:


> Under socialism,they won't have a choice will they?


.......and will be compelled to like it, as well................................


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Those who have no argument or a weak argument, contribute nothing to the conversation, stoop to ad hominems, etc.


Do you refute any info in this video?




May he rest in peace.My father was a WWII vet.From the beaches of Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge to fight for our freedom.God Bless America.


----------



## Dinoberra

tohunt4me said:


> I personally know some people who will run up a $5,000.00 ambulance bill for the govt. Because they do not have transportation to a Dr. Or Hospital.
> Some will call an ambulance just so as not to have to wait in the waiting room before being seen.


The problem is there cost of the ambulance not the fact someone uses the service


----------



## Do tell

A quote from Ronald Reagan,"the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant,it is that they know so much that isn't so".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

senorCRV said:


> 1. It's not free 2. There's barely any healthcare involved.


 More declaratory statements about something that doesn't exist -otherwise known as 'straw-man arguments'.


> All you need to do is point out the disaster that is the VA. That's government run healthcare that nearly everyone supports and very few would argue paying as much as needed to support... and the government can't even come close to getting that right.


... or those disasters called 'nearly every nation in the world'. According to the WHO, prior to 2014, the US was the only country among these developed (and less-than-developed) nations that did not have a universal health care system:

Country - Start Date of Universal Health Care - System Type

Norway 1912 Single Payer
Japan 1938 Single Payer
UK 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
UAE 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Spain 1986 Single Payer
Iceland 1990 Single Payer

New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Israel 1995 Two-Tier

Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate

United States 2014 Insurance Mandate​


Do tell said:


> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/02/the-shocking-truth-about-who-wrote-obamacare/
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Creamer_(political_consultant)


Yeah... thanks, but I'll get my news and facts from real sources - not agenda driven conspiracy blog sites.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Do you refute any info in this video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May he rest in peace.My father was a WWII vet.From the beaches of Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge to fight for our freedom.God Bless America.


I stopped when it said Obama was a socialist-- that's a falsehood. If you want me to read past that point you'll have to correct that error.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do take care not to confuse a "national universal healthcare system" that works for everyone with the current so-called "Obamacare".


 The only reason that the ACA is not a single payor system is that Reid/Pelosi/Clinton knew full well that congress - republicans in-particular - would not pass a single payer system into law which would dismantle an entire industry (and lobby) of health insurance companies.


----------



## senorCRV

Michael - Cleveland said:


> More declaratory statements about something that doesn't exist -otherwise known as 'straw-man arguments'.... or those disasters called 'nearly every nation in the world'. According to the WHO, prior to 2014, the US was the only country among these developed (and less-than-developed) nations that did not have a universal health care system:
> 
> Country - Start Date of Universal Health Care - System Type
> 
> Norway 1912 Single Payer
> Japan 1938 Single Payer
> UK 1948 Single Payer
> Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
> Sweden 1955 Single Payer
> Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
> Brunei 1958 Single Payer
> Canada 1966 Single Payer
> UAE 1971 Single Payer
> Finland 1972 Single Payer
> Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
> Italy 1978 Single Payer
> Portugal 1979 Single Payer
> Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
> Spain 1986 Single Payer
> Iceland 1990 Single Payer
> 
> New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
> Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
> Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
> France 1974 Two-Tier
> Australia 1975 Two Tier
> Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
> Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
> Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
> Israel 1995 Two-Tier
> 
> Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
> Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
> Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
> Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
> Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
> South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
> Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
> 
> United States 2014 Insurance Mandate​
> Yeah... thanks, but I'll get my news and facts from real sources - not agenda driven conspiracy blog sites.


We are the only country in North America who doesn't allow prostitution nationally and the highest age of consent by two years at 16.

So let's not just do what others do because they do it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> A quote from Ronald Reagan,"the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant,it is that they know so much that isn't so".


All this talk about Republicans being better for business but history proves as indicated by articles and both Wall Street Journal and Forbes that stock gains were higher overall under democratic presidents than Republicans, this is the reason for the old saying if you want to live like Republican vote like a Democrat.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> More declaratory statements about something that doesn't exist -otherwise known as 'straw-man arguments'.... or those disasters called 'nearly every nation in the world'. According to the WHO, prior to 2014, the US was the only country among these developed (and less-than-developed) nations that did not have a universal health care system:
> 
> Country - Start Date of Universal Health Care - System Type
> 
> Norway 1912 Single Payer
> Japan 1938 Single Payer
> UK 1948 Single Payer
> Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
> Sweden 1955 Single Payer
> Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
> Brunei 1958 Single Payer
> Canada 1966 Single Payer
> UAE 1971 Single Payer
> Finland 1972 Single Payer
> Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
> Italy 1978 Single Payer
> Portugal 1979 Single Payer
> Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
> Spain 1986 Single Payer
> Iceland 1990 Single Payer
> 
> New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
> Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
> Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
> France 1974 Two-Tier
> Australia 1975 Two Tier
> Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
> Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
> Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
> Israel 1995 Two-Tier
> 
> Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
> Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
> Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
> Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
> Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
> South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
> Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
> 
> United States 2014 Insurance Mandate​
> Yeah... thanks, but I'll get my news and facts from real sources - not agenda driven conspiracy blog sites.


 Stick with your brainwashing.Ignorance is bliss when it doesn't fit your agenda.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

senorCRV said:


> We are the only country in North America who doesn't allow prostitution nationally and the highest age of consent by two years at 16.
> So let's not just do what others do because they do it.


riiiight.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> All this talk about Republicans being better for business but history proves as indicated by articles and both Wall Street Journal and Forbes that stock gains were higher overall under democratic presidents than Republicans, this is the reason for the old saying if you want to live like Republican vote like a Democrat.


So you can't refute any of the information in that video?I thought so.


----------



## senorCRV

Oscar Levant said:


> All this talk about Republicans being better for business but history proves as indicated by articles and both Wall Street Journal and Forbes that stock gains were higher overall under democratic presidents than Republicans, this is the reason for the old saying if you want to live like Republican vote like a Democrat.


The alternative is following a party that says evolution is why Humans exist and also believes homosexuality is genetic at the same time.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> I stopped when it said Obama was a socialist-- that's a falsehood. If you want me to read past that point you'll have to correct that error.


What is socialism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

What's a falsehood?Obamacare,last I checked it's the law.Do you follow Karl Marx?


----------



## senorCRV

Do tell said:


> What is socialism?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> 
> What's a falsehood?Obamacare,last I checked it's the law.Do you follow Karl Marx?


I've studied Karl Marx. He quite clearly despises socialism and declares that it isn't a viable economic system.

I love that people who carry around Karl Marx's writings never seem to actually have read them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> So you can't refute any of the information in that video?I thought so.


*does the economy do better under republicans or democrats?*


----------



## Do tell

senorCRV said:


> I've studied Karl Marx. He quite clearly despises socialism and declares that it isn't a viable economic system.
> 
> I love that people who carry around Karl Marx's books never seem to actually have read them.


_A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher, Marx did not live to see his ideas carried out in his own lifetime, but his writings formed the theoretical base for modern international communism._
_
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/marx_karl.shtml_


----------



## senorCRV

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *does the economy do better under republicans or democrats?*


Depends. Do,you mean as president or Congress? Do you mean federal or state?

Do you mean while they occupy the seat of government or the during the affect of their policy?


----------



## senorCRV

Do tell said:


> _A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher, Marx did not live to see his ideas carried out in his own lifetime, but his writings formed the theoretical base for modern international communism.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/marx_karl.shtml_


Again. You should read his works instead of quoting a few sentences on BBC, Wikipedia or any other website. Marx did create the theoretical basis for communism but he also declared it wasn't achievable.

No form of communism ever attempted was Marx defined communism. Marx defined communism's most notable feature as being a lack of any government.

On socialism (important to note, socialism and communism are NOT synonymous.) he said it was a mechanism to achieve communism and that socialism was in inhuman concept that is also doomed to failure as its goal is to bring about communism which is not achievable.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> Stick with your brainwashing.Ignorance is bliss when it doesn't fit your agenda.


When presented with factual arguments, instead of just not commenting, the lazy and naive, it seems to me, tend to resort to the silliness of calling other people "ignorant" or "brainwashed".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

senorCRV said:


> Depends. Do,you mean as president or Congress? Do you mean federal or state?
> Do you mean while they occupy the seat of government or the during the affect of their policy?


"I" don't mean anything... the articles define the circumstances - and some, like the Politifact piece, take great care to note some of the underlying reasons why the economy does better during the terms of democratic presidents.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *does the economy do better under republicans or democrats?*


What I know is,Obama doubled our debt for his socialistic agenda.And the fact is,93 million Americans have no jobs.But that will change.As it is already happening.Many corporations are begging to do business with America now that Trump will be our next president.The real hope and change,please stand up.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> When presented with factual arguments, instead of just not commenting, the lazy and naive, it seems to me, tend to resort to the silliness of calling other people "ignorant" or "brainwashed".


There is nothing factual about your base.Just your pointless personal attacks on my opinions.You are welcome.


----------



## Do tell

senorCRV said:


> Again. You should read his works instead of quoting a few sentences on BBC, Wikipedia or any other website. Marx did create the theoretical basis for communism but he also declared it wasn't achievable.
> 
> No form of communism ever attempted was Marx defined communism. Marx defined communism's most notable feature as being a lack of any government.
> 
> On socialism (important to note, socialism and communism are NOT synonymous.) he said it was a mechanism to achieve communism and that socialism was in inhuman concept that is also doomed to failure as its goal is to bring about communism which is not achievable.


Very well said.Thank you for being informative.


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> The alternative is following a party that says evolution is why Humans exist and also believes homosexuality is genetic at the same time.


Are you aware that homosexuality is about a prevalent in the animal kingdom as with humans? I'm not going to waste time arguing about evolution-- the vast majority of scientists accept it, although they may differ on details.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> When presented with factual arguments, instead of just not commenting, the lazy and naive, it seems to me, tend to resort to the silliness of calling other people "ignorant" or "brainwashed".


America's youth has been successfully brainwashed to support the left and elect liberals like President Barack Obama - but Republicans are partially to blame for it happening, outspoken conservative pundit Michelle Malkin tells Newsmax TV.

"We have generations and generations of kids who have been absolutely brainwashed by social justice warriors who see their primary mission as turning our kids into the next generation of junior lobbyists and Democratic voters rather than inculcating them with sound American values and knowledge," Malkin said Monday on "The Steve Malzberg Show."

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/648104


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Are you aware that homosexuality is about a prevalent in the animal kingdom as with humans? I'm not going to waste time arguing about evolution-- the vast majority of scientists accept it, although they may differ on details.


Maybe a tad off topic.But humans are animals after all.lol

It appears we have different opinions.Both of us are passionate about our beliefs.God bless you and God bless America.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> There is nothing factual about your base.Just your pointless personal attacks on my opinions.You are welcome.


All of my posts have been backed up with citations.
(my opinions, however, are my own)
I've never made any derogatory comment about you - no matter how tempting. There's no need to since your posts speak for themselves. Think I've made a personal attack against you? Then point to one and I'll apologize to you.


Do tell said:


> America's youth has been successfully brainwashed


yeah... everyone who doesn't agree with you has apparently been 'brainwashed'.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> All of my posts have been backed up with citations.
> (my opinions, however, are my own)
> I've never made any derogatory comment about you - not matter how tempting. There's no need to since your posts speak for themselves. Think I've made a personal attack against you? Then point to one and I'll apologize to you.
> 
> yeah... everyone who doesn't agree with you has apparently been 'brainwashed'.


No apologies needed.I only cited your comment directed to my comment,not your other posts.LOL


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Another Uber Driver said:


> D'ya' think that the doctors will give up twenty-per-cent of their fee to Uber as long as the Uber provides malpractice insurance?


That's a very good question. I'll have to think about that one.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Michael - Cleveland said:


> All of my posts have been backed up with citations.
> (my opinions, however, are my own)
> I've never made any derogatory comment about you - not matter how tempting. There's no need to since your posts speak for themselves. Think I've made a personal attack against you? Then point to one and I'll apologize to you.
> 
> yeah... everyone who doesn't agree with you has apparently been 'brainwashed'.


Michael, his avatar speaks for it-self.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Oscar Levant said:


> Are you aware that homosexuality is about a prevalent in the animal kingdom as with humans? I'm not going to waste time arguing about evolution-- the vast majority of scientists accept it, although they may differ on details.


vast majority?
That's like saying the 'vast majority' of scientists accept science.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ChortlingCrison said:


> Michael, his avatar speaks for it-self.


Indeed it does!
(Well, except that for better or worse there are about 100 users here who actually know me (and my sarcasm) personally.


----------



## Do tell

ChortlingCrison said:


> Michael, his avatar speaks for it-self.


Yes avatars do,don't they?Not really.LOL
I pick the avatar because I think it's absolutely hilarious Donald Trump doing bong hits.It's a fake picture if you couldn't tell.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Indeed it does!
> (Well, except that for better or worse there are about 100 users here who actually know me (and my sarcasm) personally.


Indeed.LOL


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> yeah... everyone who doesn't agree with you has apparently been 'brainwashed'.


The word brainwashed is still informally used to describe someone who holds strong ideas that are implausible and are completely resistant to evidence,common sense,experience and logic.Especially when these ideas developed under external influence e.g.books,TV programs,other people or a religious organization.


----------



## Trafficat

ChortlingCrison said:


> Maybe uber can solve all the health care problems with "UberCare".





Dinoberra said:


> The problem is there cost of the ambulance not the fact someone uses the service


UberAmbulance ! Take photos of your stretcher in your van and upload them to Uber's website to sign up.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Michael - Cleveland said:


> vast majority?
> That's like saying the 'vast majority' of scientists accept science.


No, it's not.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Do tell said:


> Yes avatars do,don't they?Not really.LOL
> I pick the avatar because I think it's absolutely hilarious Donald Trump doing bong hits.It's a fake picture if you couldn't tell.


My apologies. I just find his face annoying in general.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> Indeed.LOL


I don't do 'printed t-shirts'... but saw one in a computer store yesterday that almost got me to change my fashion.
It read:
"*I** speak fluent sarcasm.*"​BTW, just because I'm sarcastic doesn't mean I'm not annoying. : )


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Oscar Levant said:


> No, it's not.


hehe... riiiight.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> The word brainwashed is still informally used to describe someone who holds strong ideas that are implausible and are completely resistant to evidence,common sense,experience and logic.Especially when these ideas developed under external influence e.g.books,TV programs,other people or a religious organization.


...ZZZzzzzzz
Presented with "evidence,common sense,experience and logic", rather than just stating that you disagree and posting any factual citation to support your convictions, you noted that someone is brainwashed.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Adieu said:


> No we WON'T
> 
> I stopped paying it after TRYING AND FAILING to get ANY appointments with a real medical professional (NOT "dr. Jimmy", university of Cairo Egypt medical school alumnus who got his prescription pad repealed by the DEA... and NOT a nurse practitioner who kept looking up words in a concise edition medical terminology dictionary....and although she barely spoke English, she was looking for INFO ---- not translations of stuff she knew)
> 
> So Obamacare costs me money (payments or fines) for NOT having medical services, whether I choose to opt in or out
> 
> OBAMACARE IS UTTER Bull Guano


My experience has been the opposite that has worked out for me wonderfully some people get screwed but a lot of people like it prior to the ACA you have millions of people that didn't have insurance


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> So you can't refute any of the information in that video?I thought so.


Spend some time and energy and say something -- type it out and I'll respond, but I'm not going to watch any videos -- this is what lazy people do ( link to videos and expect someone to refute the content ). I don't watch videos nor respond to videos . I might make a general comment about whoever is in the video based on my general knowledge about that person, but refute? No, if you want me to refute anything, you express something and I'll respond to that.


----------



## UberBastid

Oscar Levant said:


> spend some time and energy and say something type it out and I'll respond but I'm not going to watch any videos this is what lazy people do, I don't watch videos nor respond to videos .


Preach it brother!


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Spend some time and energy and say something -- type it out and I'll respond, but I'm not going to watch any videos -- this is what lazy people do ( link to videos and expect someone to refute the content ). I don't watch videos nor respond to videos . I might make a general comment about whoever is in the video based on my general knowledge about that person, but refute? No, if you want me to refute anything, you express something and I'll respond to that.


That sounds so lazy of you.LOL


----------



## Do tell

What doctors think of the ACA.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/index.html

Maybe it's fake news.It's from CNN.lol


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The only reason that the ACA is not a single payor system is that Reid/Pelosi/Clinton knew full well that congress - republicans in-particular - would not pass a single payer system into law which would dismantle an entire industry (and lobby) of health insurance companies.


So what does Congress do instead? It passes a flawed law that creates a flawed system that harms large numbers of people.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> That sounds so lazy of you.LOL
> 
> View attachment 89944


First, Do Tell commits a variant of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I", then Do Tell links to a video revealing that there is such an animal as a lazy genius, under the deluded attempt that others might infer that Do Tell is a lazy genius,which, of course, no one will.

I got bad news for you, Do Tell, genius doesn't commit mediocrity, and you are guilty of it in the first degree.

I'm done wasting this forum's time replying to your say nothing contribute nothing comments, you may
now have the last word.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> What doctors think of the ACA.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/index.html
> 
> Maybe it's fake news.It's from CNN.lol


For the FIRST time in the history of the United States, Obama was able to pass a health care bill that drastically made available health care for a large part of the population who previously were not able to access it. No republican has ever attempted. The right wouldn't not even be talking about health care were it not for the ACA.

Now, watch the whining and bellyaching begin, because that's what mediocrity does, it does not seek to improve/fix, it seeks to destroy/blame, etc., and it's the insidious disease in this country for which there is no cure.

In my view, there, really, are only two ways to accomplish getting most/all of the population access health care. 1. A mandated system that disallows discrimination for pre-existing conditions with subsidies for poor and those who cannot afford insurance . 2. Universal Health Care ( dems want medicare for all ).

If you think there is another way, let's hear it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> So what does Congress do instead? It passes a flawed law that creates a flawed system that harms large numbers of people.


A number which is a much smaller, but albeit noisy minority, a system in which the flaws can be fixed.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Mediocrity also lauds the flawed. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.



Oscar Levant said:


> A number which is a much smaller, but albeit noisy minority, a system in which the flaws can be fixed.


Why are there flaws that must be fixed? If the Democrats knew so much about this, why did they let it go through with its flaws? Why were not the flaws corrected or eliminated before Congress let it go through?

The number of people that this so-called "Obamacare" harmed is not as small as the Democrats and MSNBC would have you believe. You can try to cite all of the polls that you will, but those polls never will convince me or anyone else harmed by this. In fact, when you consider how accurate polls have been recently, any sane person would doubt the result of any poll. Trivialise anything that you can about those who disagree with you; it is an old and well established rhetorical tactic. There are more than a few of us out here. We are mostly middle class. Remember us? We are those on whose side the Left claims to be.

..........or do you subscribe to what Pelosi said about it while it was still before Congress? That statement has to go into the book entitled _* Words to live by for Nanny Staters*_.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> Mediocrity also lauds the flawed. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
> 
> Why are there flaws that must be fixed? If the Democrats knew so much about this, why did they let it go through with its flaws? Why were not the flaws corrected or eliminated before Congress let it go through?


Health care is complicated, this is why the bill had 2000 pages. complex bills are never perfect when first enacted, no one can foresee every complication and inequity which only real world application can reveal. It's true with many bills of this complexity and nature, even simpler ones can have problems when they are first enacted.



> The number of people that this so-called "Obamacare" harmed is not as small as the Democrats and MSNBC would have you believe.


Of the 24 million ( now about 30 million ) estimates range from 3 million - 6 million. A substantial number, but way in the minority. However, no one is not saying the act can be improved to be less costly for that group. Prior to the ACA, that group had health care (noting that the larger group, some 24 million or so, had no access but emergency rooms ) , but much of it was an illusion, since policies at the time excluded pre-existing conditions, which often was not revealed until 20 years of paying for insurance, and when a claim was filed for a catastrophic illness, their lawyers subpoena your health records to discover that you visited a doctor for a condition (the condition's list, are typically many paragraphs long) long before you signed up, and thus violating the terms of their fine print, which they knew you would never read. As the ACA start to pay for itself, it enountered set backs as repubs sabatoged it, such as Rubio getting a provision installed disallowing insurers who would esperience losses in the initial stages ( since at first it was expected that sign ups would be lop sided leaning towards elderly and sick) to take advantage of an 80 billion fund set up and paid for by pharma for that purpose, and thus increasing the cost of health care. Pharma agreed to that payment but in exchance, they demanded the right to disallow government to negotiate on drug prices.

It was a necessary evil, Obama reasoned, for without it, insurers would go broke in the initial stages, or vastly increase prices, which, thanks to Rubio, is what happened. However, despite this, overall, health care costs to the public have risen at a rate a lot less than which occured during Bush years. Despite republican attempts to sabatoge the ACA, the ACA has resulted in lower rates of increase over prior years. Repubs like to cherry pick, point to someone who's policy went much higher, disregarding the greater truth, which of course, they would never mention, since it does not further their agenda if preventing the vast majority of poor from accessing health care.

But, of course, until you did file for such a claim of catastrophic illness coverage, your insurance paid for your regular doctor visits, giving you the illusion that you had health care that would take care of you at the time you would need it the most, giving you a temporary feeling that made you "happy" with your policy. Thing is, insurance that doesn't cure the worry of financial disruption is basically a junk policy. Of course, not all claims were denied, but millions were, as a famous 60 minutes episode on the subject revealed, the ins and outs of how insurance companies bailed on their insured. That state of affairs no longer exists with the advent of the aCA, but guess what, that added value makes health care more expensive until the day when every one signs up, which didn't happen in the first couple of years of the ACA, since the fines for not signing up initially were next to nothing. As the fines increase, more people sign up. Until republicans go along with the idea of rich people contributing more in taxes so that the middle class are squeezed, they will continue to be squeezed for this added value because the money has to come from somewhere. It could come from other places, like some of the 600 billion spent on defense, but, of course, republicans won't go along with that. In fact, republicans, from the very beginning, didn't want it to succeed because they didnt' want Obama to succeed, because if he did, it meant fewer people would vote for republicans.


> ..........or do you subscribe to what Pelosi said about it while it was still before Congress? That statement has to go into the book entitled _* Words to live by for Nanny Staters*_.


The right is very clever with words -- "Nanny state" and "Big Government".

They've been doing this for years, and have fooled a lot of people.
But, when pressed for what "we are against big government" "we are against a nanny state" means in terms of policy, all it ever means is less and less for poor and middle class, and more and more for rich people who don't need it.

Thats' all it ever means.

Republicans are very good at doing what all demagogues do, ie., fill people's brains with thought-terminating cliches.

Repubs try and convince the easy-to-fool masses that dems are goose-stepping commies bent on nationalizing everything, which is about as true as accusing the right of being nazis and facists.

One day, maturity and the novel idea of acting civilized towards each other will set in, and perhaps, one day, in the distant future, we can accomplish something. But, as long as Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine, which dictated that media had to give equal time to opposing view points, which paved the way for right wing "our way or the highway" dominance of radio, fox news, etc., which spawned the tea party and the polarization of politics, the truth will never get out.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> So what does Congress do instead? It passes a flawed law that creates a flawed system that harms large numbers of people.


That's the definition of Congress 
(and a horse designed by committee = a camel)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Why are there flaws that must be fixed? If the Democrats knew so much about this, why did they let it go through with its flaws? Why were not the flaws corrected or eliminated before Congress let it go through?


You know the answer to that. To even ask the question is disingenuous because I know you're smarter than that. A bill can be held up in committee in each house by an opposing group of Senators and Reps until the end of a Congressional session - at which point it dies - and you're back to square one. If you pass a bill into law - any bill - you then force the harder work of creating (to borrow a phrase) "a more perfect" bill. And that's exactly what has happened... the work has begun; and in the meantime, the old health insurance industry is still in place and 20 million more people, nearly 7% of the US population, have health care coverage than if no bill had been passed at all.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> First, Do Tell commits a variant of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I", then Do Tell links to a video revealing that there is such an animal as a lazy genius, under the deluded attempt that others might infer that Do Tell is a lazy genius,which, of course, no one will.
> 
> I got bad news for you, Do Tell, genius doesn't commit mediocrity, and you are guilty of it in the first degree.
> 
> I'm done wasting this forum's time replying to your say nothing contribute nothing comments, you may
> now have the last word.


Thank you for the drink.I made one for you too.





I haven't taken an IQ test in a long time.Here is my results without cheating and taking it blindly.








I never made the false claim of being a genius.But after taking this test.I scored lower than previous tests in the past.This website is dumbing me down.LOL

I'm a successful self-employed individual for 20 years.I thank my parents for instilling good moral values.Being the son of a WWII vet would do that to you.

Just because I don't spell it out for you and show videos that you refuse to even watch and comment on.........I do wish you good tidings.I've expressed these feelings to you in previous posts.I'm not your enemy.I'm just your fellow american who truly cares about our country.

By the way,the last word is a prohibition era drink.You should give it a try sometimes.A delicious drink.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> What doctors think of the ACA.
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/index.html


follow the money


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

http://tinyurl.com/hu6rb2q 
*Republicans say they'll protect you if you have a pre-existing condition. 
Don't believe it.*
The Washington Post 1/15/17

... and for Do tell , there's even a CNN video!


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Health care is complicated, this is why the bill had 2000 pages.


The ACA is 2700+ pages.With 10 - 20,000 pages of regulations.
Health Care is not a Right.Calling health care a human right does not make it one,for a number of reasons.Before addressing whether or not health care is a right,we need better definitions for both _human rights_ and _health care_.Without an understanding of what we're saying,"healthcare is a human right"is a throwaway phrase with no intrinsic meaning.*Health*_ care_ is an ambiguous term because it does not specify any particular level of care.Does the term refer only to basic care?Does it also include preventative medicine?What about elective procedures?Fertility treatments?Cosmetic surgery?Gym memberships?Dieticians?Where is the line drawn?Under the current system,the line is drawn by your insurer,or if you have no coverage,your bank account.The latter option is only truly workable for the very wealthy or the very healthy.Yes,the insurance companies can sometimes be rather nasty in what claims they accept and reject,but that does not point to a wholly flawed system,simply one that needs to be improved.Rather than digress further,I'll propose that the term _health care_ as being used by progressives in this debate encompasses total coverage of all non-elective(life-saving surgery)and preventative procedures(e.g.annual physicals).I'll further add that the concept of providing health care for free or at low cost also figures in to this definition.A human_ right_ is some freedom you can exercise as an individual.The first amendment of the United States Constitution tells us about the right to free speech:Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...Read this closely.The amendment tells us that Congress won't pass any laws that limit what we,as individuals,can say.The right is guaranteed as a freedom from limitation.The right is not granted,or given...simply acknowledged.This is an important distinction,and one worth explaining further.You have the right to free speech.It's intrinsic to your being.What differentiates the United States from many other nations,is that the first amendment to our Constitution recognizes that right.I hope this establishes first and foremost that rights are not something given by the government to the people.Rights are something guaranteed not to be taken away from the people by the government.You may be familiar with the word"unalienable"used to describe rights in the Declaration of Independence.Something"alienable"can be taken away.Something"unalienable"cannot.The other aspect of a right is that the exercise of that right requires only the action of the individual.You don't need anyone's help to exercise your right to free speech--just start talking,or writing,or performing an interpretive dance,or whatever form of speech you enjoy.You have the right to do so.You might be inclined to interject here that the sixth and seventh amendments guarantee a right to trial by jury.How can we square this with an understanding of rights which precludes the involvement of third-party participants?Remember that rights guarantee freedoms the government will not deny you.There is not guarantee that a jury of your peers will show up to court,but there is a guarantee that the government will not prevent them from showing up to court.As above,rights are for the people to exercise themselves,not for the government or anyone else to exercise for them.*If* rights are something acknowledged,not received,how can health care be a right?It cannot.The Declaration of Independence states:We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The"Right to Life"described here is not intended to be interpreted as the"Right to have my Life cared for by others".Remember,rights are something not taken away from the individual.The government may not take away your life.That's it.If your life is in danger because you're sick,the government is not obligated to help you.Your right to life is not being threatened by your illness--rights can only be threatened by governments.What do you do about your illness,then?Health care involves participation,doctors,nurses,hospitals,drug companies,medical equipment companies,pharmacists,etc.There are a lot of people in the health care field expecting some form of compensation for the products and services they provide.I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that these individuals and orgainzations work for free(they would take other jobs instead)in order to provide health care to everyone.Doctors need to eat,too.Since we've established that the provision of health care incurs some real cost,there is no tangible way to reconcile a _right_ to health care with the second aspect I discussed above.If you are dependent on others for your health care,you receive such care at their mercy.While some may offer it for free,most will expect to be paid,if not by you,by your insurer,or the government*.*Access to health care requires the involvement of doctors,etc.as I stated above.Rights don't require third-party participation*.You're* probably also thinking that my example doesn't work for a country as large and as wealthy as the United States.Will insuring those other 40-something million others without coverage guarantee that they can actually see a doctor or a dentist?If I have to wait weeks,or even months,to exercise a"right"to health care,is it really a right?Why_ don't we add more doctors?Doctors_ don't come cheap.There's a lot of education involved.Most everyone I know who has gone into medicine has done so out of concern for the welfare of others.They endure up to a decade of higher education to train for their careers,followed by multiple years of on-the-job training,sometimes as much as another decade.To address a shortage of doctors *today*,we would have had to start incentivizing the medical field to attract more students in 1999.You can't produce a doctor overnight.If we intend to expand the number of doctors in this country,we're going to pay for it one way or another.Free speech doesn't require the government to hand out money to individuals seeking to speak freely.*Access* to health care can be limited for reasons other than aggregate demand.Within the population of individuals seeking health care,there are different economic strata.There are the wealthy and the well-employed,who can afford health care themselves.There are the poor who are eligible for government overage.Finally,there are the in-betweens who aren't poor enough to get government coverage,but aren't employed well enough to afford their own(either individually or through their employer).The wealthy and the well-employed will always have better access to health care.That's a simply fact of life.It's not something a public option,or even a single-payer system,can correct.One problem facing Medicare now is that reimbursement rates aren't keeping up with the actual expenses doctors incur when providing care.The only way doctors can make ends meet is to increase rates for their other patients to compensate,or to refuse Medicare altogether.A public option has the potential to encounter the same issues.If the public option only reimburses up to a certain level,a doctor may well refuse to treat patients with that coverage.But_ there are other doctors!How_ many Medicare-friendly doctors are out there?How many patients on Medicare?The potential for waiting lists to expand is substantial.In addition,the distance a patient is required to travel to get to a doctor which accepts Medicare could be greater than that of other doctors.The mobility of a poor person without a car can limit their access to health care.If I haven't convinced you that healthcare is not a right from my arguments above,perhaps the Supreme Court will change your mind regarding a similar"right".Flemming v. Nestor.The short version is that a man who spent 19 years working in the United States was denied Social Security benefits,despite having paid into the system during that time.If you thought you had a right to Social Security,you're wrong.Social security is a privilege afforded to those who stay in the government's good graces.Even staying within the government's good graces is not enough.A bump in the retirement age,or a cut in retirement benefits,can change your life significantly.These things are functionally beyond your control--the policy and economic aspects are subject to both the whims of Congress and the ability of the United States to pay her bills.Any"right"to health care would similarly be subject to these same forces.The current administration may pass a public option.The subsequent administration may cut it.What kind of right is that?Health* Care is a Privilege.*Health care is a privilege to those who can afford it,either by paying for it directly as individuals,or paying indirectly through an insurer or government.But* I need health care!You* need food,too.Do you have a right to food?No.You have the right to obtain food, but not at the expense of another.Can you wander on to a farm,take whatever you want,and walk away?Yes,absolutely.It's called stealing.The farmer may call the cops,sick his dog on you,or simply unload his shotgun into your back as you flee(bet you wish you had a right to health care!).He's exercising his right to protect his property.Your right to food doesn't extend beyond your own garden.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> http://tinyurl.com/hu6rb2q
> *Republicans say they'll protect you if you have a pre-existing condition.
> Don't believe it.*
> The Washington Post 1/15/17
> 
> ... and for Do tell , there's even a CNN video!


I believe there is a video.Where is the link?LOL


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> *1. * complex bills are never perfect when first enacted, no one can foresee every complication and inequity which only real world application can reveal.
> 
> *2. *Of the 24 million ( now about 30 million ) estimates range from 3 million - 6 million. substantial number, but the minority. no one is not saying the act can be improved to be less costly for that group. Prior to the ACA, that group had health care but much of it was an illusion, since policies at the time excluded pre-existing conditions, which often was not revealed until 20 years of paying for insurance, and when a claim was filed for a catastrophic illness,
> 
> *3. *It was a necessary evil, Obama reasoned, for without it, insurers would go broke in the initial stages, or vastly increase prices, which, thanks to Rubio, is what happened.
> 
> *4. *despite this, overall, health care costs to the public have risen at a rate a lot less than which occured during Bush years.
> 
> *5. *Despite republican attempts to sabatoge the ACA, the ACA has resulted in lower rates of increase over prior years.
> 
> *6. *Repubs like to cherry pick
> 
> *7. *That state of affairs no longer exists with the advent of the aCA,
> 
> *8. *that added value makes health care more expensive until every one signs up, which didn't happen in the first couple of years of the ACA, As the fines increase, more people sign up.
> 
> *9. *Until republicans go along with the idea of rich people contributing more in taxes so that the middle class are squeezed, they will continue to be squeezed for this added value because the money has to come from somewhere.
> 
> *10. *In fact, republicans didn't want it to succeed because they didnt' want Obama to succeed, if he did, it meant fewer people would vote for republicans.
> 
> *11. *"Nanny state" and "Big Government". They've been doing this for years, and have fooled a lot of people.
> 
> *12. *But, when pressed for what "we are against big government" "we are against a nanny state" means in terms of policy, all it ever means is less for poor and middle class, more for rich.
> 
> *13. *Thats' all it ever means.
> 
> *14. *Republicans are very good at doing what all demagogues do, fill people's brains with thought-terminating cliches.
> 
> *15. *Repubs try and convince the easy-to-fool masses that dems are goose-stepping commies
> 
> *16. *But, as long as Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine, which paved the way for right wing "our way or the highway" dominance of radio, fox news, etc., which spawned the tea party and the polarization of politics, the truth will never get out.


1. You try to tell me that there was no way it could have been obvious that the bill, as it passed, would harm a large part of the population? If, for the sake of discussion, we use your figures, this has harmed twelve-point-five to twenty five per-cent of the people. That is a large number, by your own admission. Even your demagogue Clinton, when she was still in the Senate, admitted that it would harm the middle class ("heavy lift" ) It should not have been difficult to forsee that large a number of harmed people and to do something to stop it before it happened.

2. I had a policy from a job. I never encountered what you describe. What I did is a much higher premium than I had when I was paying for the policy myself (under COBRA) after I had left the job. I had far lower deductibles. Now I have a double digit premium increase for 2017 and have had double digit deductible increases every year. If you expect me to support anything that has inflicted this much harm on me, you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment.

3. If Rubio is the reason that the premiums are going up the way that they are, why would the Democrats, who were then in control of Congress, allow it to go through like that or even allow it to acquire such provisions? The Republicans opposed it, but the bill became law. You have failed to convince me.

4. I saw the books on the insurance during the years (W.J. Clinton/G.W. Bush) that my company provided health insurance for its employees. The rate of premium increases were not double digit or even high single digit. The deductibles never increased. I question the validity of your statement, But then, the Left never did let facts spoil a good concocted "argument".

5. See Number Four

6. I would be hard pressed to call harm to several million people "cherry picking". That applies even if I do accept your figures, which I suspect are too low.

7. Instead, the carriers have substituted double digit increases in deductibles. The effect is that you pay out of pocket for routine doctor visits that your insurance used to cover, but now, thanks to ridiculously high and ever increasing deductibles, you pay. Effectively, this "insurance" no longer covers them. I do. Thus, I am my own primary insurer, while this "affordable" coverage that the government compelled me to purchase is merely secondary insurance at primary rates.

8. If so many people are signed up and more are signing up every day, why do I get double digit increases in premiums and deductibles? The insurers stated from the beginning that in order to make it "affordable", they had to have massive sign-ups. If these "massive sign ups" are now occurring, should not my premiums and deductibles, at worst, remain flat?

9. ...as if the Democrats were not going to squeeze the middle class. Every time that the Democrats talk about taxing the rich, it is my taxes that increase. I believe rhetoric on reducing taxes from neither side. They are all a bunch of liars and only out to separate me from my peanuts for their own purposes.

10. That is unsubstantiated left wing propaganda.

11. The term "nanny state" does anything but "fool me". It is an accurate description of the government's increased interference in my private life and my business.

12. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise. It is mere regurgitation of something that I would expect to hear on MSNBC.

13. ...why, because Stephanie Miller told you that?

14. The Left excells at name calling, a well-established tactic of demagogues. Remember your girl the demagogue and her "deplorables"? Anyone who disagrees with it on even the smallest matter is automatically a "racist", "Fascist", "homophobe". While I like neither the Left nor the Right, I tend to be harder on the Left because it claims to be for me, when it _*ain't*_. The Right makes no bones about its not being for me.

15. ........which I never bought, any how. I have found, however, that the Left has this lockstep mentality. You must agree with it on every point or you are in automatic lockstep with the extreme Right.

16. To hear the Right tell it, the Left controls the newspapers, the internet newsnets and the television. If all that the Right has is AM radio, it is lagging.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's the definition of Congress


What was it S.L. Clemens wrote? Something similar to "Suppose I was a jackass...no, suppose I was a member of Congress,..but then suppose I was a jackass..."



Michael - Cleveland said:


> *1. *You know the answer to that. To ask the question is disingenuous I know you're smarter than that.
> 
> *2. *A bill can be held up in committee in each house until the end of a Congressional session - at which point it dies . If you pass a bill into law you then force the harder work of creating (to borrow a phrase) "a more perfect" bill.
> 
> *3. *the work has begun; and in the meantime, the old health insurance industry is still in place and 20 million more people, nearly 7% of the US population, have health care coverage than if no bill had been passed at all.


1. ...and you, Sirrah, know me far better than to direct such a tone at me...

2. ...or you can just let it stay as it is, which the Democrats have done. They have resisted any change to it. It never should have gotten out of Congress as it is. You would have to work very hard to convince me that the Democrats did not forsee the harm that it would inflict on so large a number of people. Even Clinton, who was one of its principal proponents, admitted that it would be hard on the middle class. The words and phrasing that she used were typical of a politician: at best, understatement; at worst an outright lie.

3. I see numbers from many sources that vary wildly. The numbers that I know are those on my premium bills and the deductibles on the declaration page. There is no disputing those; they are anything but "affordable". Hence the verse in my Inauguration Carol on the Washington Boards (it blasts Republicans and Democrats alike). The "work" may have "begun", but it has turned into one of these perpetual construction projects. The flashy arrows and the barricades are up, but no work is getting done to reach an end to the project. Instead, the cure has become at least as bad, if not worse, than the ailment.


----------



## Do tell

There are 93+ million Americans without a job.That number dwarfs 30+ million without healthcare.

Being anti-republican will not fix the problem.For the record,I'm from a union family.What does that make me?No ad hominems required.lol


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Do tell said:


> Free speech doesn't require the government to hand out money to individuals seeking to speak freely


Although through tireless labour and unstinting effort I have achieved the Rank of Inspector in the Grammar Police, I have refrained from pointing out several glaring and horrid errors in grammar and spelling on the part of my interlocutors on this topic. The cause of my restraint has been a desire to keep the discussion on topic.

I must, however, in your case, ask: "Are you aware that spacing and paragraphs are your friends?"

............and this comes from someone who does not necessarily disagree with you and does disagree vehemently with one of your (and my) interlocutors.


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> Although through tireless labour and unstinting effort I have achieved the Rank of Inspector in the Grammar Police, I have refrained from pointing out several glaring and horrid errors in grammar and spelling on the part of my interlocutors on this topic. The cause of my restraint has been a desire to keep the discussion on topic.
> 
> I must, however, in your case, ask: "Are you aware that spacing and paragraphs are your friends?"
> 
> ............and this comes from someone who does not necessarily disagree with you and does disagree vehemently with one of your (and my) interlocutors.


I had to squeeze the wall of text with lots of editing.LOL.Kept saying I was over 10,000 characters.LOL.I appreciate your grammar police concern.God bless you.With all sincerity,no sarcasm required.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Do tell said:


> Kept saying I was over 10,000 characters.LOL


I ran up against that in my last reply to my interlocutors on this topic. I had to edit out more than a few lines. I do wish that there were some indication of how far over the limit we were so that we would k now how much to edit........in fact, let me go right now and ask the Administrators if there is any way that such an indication can appear---------or at least a warning that you are approaching the limit.

I run up against that ERROR-limit frequently, as I have a well deserved reputation on these Boards, and elsewhere, for verbosity.

I did not take it as sarcasm....................._*atque te benedicat Deus*_...................


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> I run up against that ERROR-limit frequently, as I have a well deserved reputation on these Boards, and elsewhere, for verbosity.


You know the expression: Less is more.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> I believe there is a video.Where is the link?LOL


seriously? Click on the article title cited in the post.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> The ACA is 2700+ pages.With 10 - 20,000 pages of regulations.
> Health Care is not a Right.Calling health care a human right does not make it one,for a number of reasons.Before addressing whether or not health care is a right,we need better definitions for both _human rights_ and _health care_.Without an understanding of what we're saying,"healthcare is a human right"is a throwaway phrase with no intrinsic meaning.*Health*_ care_ is an ambiguous term because it does not specify any particular level of care.Does the term refer only to basic care?Does it also include preventative medicine?What about elective procedures?Fertility treatments?Cosmetic surgery?Gym memberships?Dieticians?Where is the line drawn?Under the current system,the line is drawn by your insurer,or if you have no coverage,your bank account.The latter option is only truly workable for the very wealthy or the very healthy.Yes,the insurance companies can sometimes be rather nasty in what claims they accept and reject,but that does not point to a wholly flawed system,simply one that needs to be improved.Rather than digress further,I'll propose that the term _health care_ as being used by progressives in this debate encompasses total coverage of all non-elective(life-saving surgery)and preventative procedures(e.g.annual physicals).I'll further add that the concept of providing health care for free or at low cost also figures in to this definition.A human_ right_ is some freedom you can exercise as an individual.The first amendment of the United States Constitution tells us about the right to free speech:Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...Read this closely.The amendment tells us that Congress won't pass any laws that limit what we,as individuals,can say.The right is guaranteed as a freedom from limitation.The right is not granted,or given...simply acknowledged.This is an important distinction,and one worth explaining further.You have the right to free speech.It's intrinsic to your being.What differentiates the United States from many other nations,is that the first amendment to our Constitution recognizes that right.I hope this establishes first and foremost that rights are not something given by the government to the people.Rights are something guaranteed not to be taken away from the people by the government.You may be familiar with the word"unalienable"used to describe rights in the Declaration of Independence.Something"alienable"can be taken away.Something"unalienable"cannot.The other aspect of a right is that the exercise of that right requires only the action of the individual.You don't need anyone's help to exercise your right to free speech--just start talking,or writing,or performing an interpretive dance,or whatever form of speech you enjoy.You have the right to do so.You might be inclined to interject here that the sixth and seventh amendments guarantee a right to trial by jury.How can we square this with an understanding of rights which precludes the involvement of third-party participants?Remember that rights guarantee freedoms the government will not deny you.There is not guarantee that a jury of your peers will show up to court,but there is a guarantee that the government will not prevent them from showing up to court.As above,rights are for the people to exercise themselves,not for the government or anyone else to exercise for them.*If* rights are something acknowledged,not received,how can health care be a right?It cannot.The Declaration of Independence states:We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The"Right to Life"described here is not intended to be interpreted as the"Right to have my Life cared for by others".Remember,rights are something not taken away from the individual.The government may not take away your life.That's it.If your life is in danger because you're sick,the government is not obligated to help you.Your right to life is not being threatened by your illness--rights can only be threatened by governments.What do you do about your illness,then?Health care involves participation,doctors,nurses,hospitals,drug companies,medical equipment companies,pharmacists,etc.There are a lot of people in the health care field expecting some form of compensation for the products and services they provide.I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that these individuals and orgainzations work for free(they would take other jobs instead)in order to provide health care to everyone.Doctors need to eat,too.Since we've established that the provision of health care incurs some real cost,there is no tangible way to reconcile a _right_ to health care with the second aspect I discussed above.If you are dependent on others for your health care,you receive such care at their mercy.While some may offer it for free,most will expect to be paid,if not by you,by your insurer,or the government*.*Access to health care requires the involvement of doctors,etc.as I stated above.Rights don't require third-party participation*.You're* probably also thinking that my example doesn't work for a country as large and as wealthy as the United States.Will insuring those other 40-something million others without coverage guarantee that they can actually see a doctor or a dentist?If I have to wait weeks,or even months,to exercise a"right"to health care,is it really a right?Why_ don't we add more doctors?Doctors_ don't come cheap.There's a lot of education involved.Most everyone I know who has gone into medicine has done so out of concern for the welfare of others.They endure up to a decade of higher education to train for their careers,followed by multiple years of on-the-job training,sometimes as much as another decade.To address a shortage of doctors *today*,we would have had to start incentivizing the medical field to attract more students in 1999.You can't produce a doctor overnight.If we intend to expand the number of doctors in this country,we're going to pay for it one way or another.Free speech doesn't require the government to hand out money to individuals seeking to speak freely.*Access* to health care can be limited for reasons other than aggregate demand.Within the population of individuals seeking health care,there are different economic strata.There are the wealthy and the well-employed,who can afford health care themselves.There are the poor who are eligible for government overage.Finally,there are the in-betweens who aren't poor enough to get government coverage,but aren't employed well enough to afford their own(either individually or through their employer).The wealthy and the well-employed will always have better access to health care.That's a simply fact of life.It's not something a public option,or even a single-payer system,can correct.One problem facing Medicare now is that reimbursement rates aren't keeping up with the actual expenses doctors incur when providing care.The only way doctors can make ends meet is to increase rates for their other patients to compensate,or to refuse Medicare altogether.A public option has the potential to encounter the same issues.If the public option only reimburses up to a certain level,a doctor may well refuse to treat patients with that coverage.But_ there are other doctors!How_ many Medicare-friendly doctors are out there?How many patients on Medicare?The potential for waiting lists to expand is substantial.In addition,the distance a patient is required to travel to get to a doctor which accepts Medicare could be greater than that of other doctors.The mobility of a poor person without a car can limit their access to health care.If I haven't convinced you that healthcare is not a right from my arguments above,perhaps the Supreme Court will change your mind regarding a similar"right".Flemming v. Nestor.The short version is that a man who spent 19 years working in the United States was denied Social Security benefits,despite having paid into the system during that time.If you thought you had a right to Social Security,you're wrong.Social security is a privilege afforded to those who stay in the government's good graces.Even staying within the government's good graces is not enough.A bump in the retirement age,or a cut in retirement benefits,can change your life significantly.These things are functionally beyond your control--the policy and economic aspects are subject to both the whims of Congress and the ability of the United States to pay her bills.Any"right"to health care would similarly be subject to these same forces.The current administration may pass a public option.The subsequent administration may cut it.What kind of right is that?Health* Care is a Privilege.*Health care is a privilege to those who can afford it,either by paying for it directly as individuals,or paying indirectly through an insurer or government.But* I need health care!You* need food,too.Do you have a right to food?No.You have the right to obtain food, but not at the expense of another.Can you wander on to a farm,take whatever you want,and walk away?Yes,absolutely.It's called stealing.The farmer may call the cops,sick his dog on you,or simply unload his shotgun into your back as you flee(bet you wish you had a right to health care!).He's exercising his right to protect his property.Your right to food doesn't extend beyond your own garden.


You do know that as a country - as a civilized society - that we provide health care to children, pregnant women, the disabled, those without means and everyone over the age of 65, (not to mention veterans and politicians) don't you? You do know that we guarantee food for those below a certain income level?


----------



## Brklyn_Knight

tohunt4me said:


> I personally know some people who will run up a $5,000.00 ambulance bill for the govt. Because they do not have transportation to a Dr. Or Hospital.
> Some will call an ambulance just so as not to have to wait in the waiting room before being seen.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You do know that as a civilized society - that we provide health care to everyone over the age of 65, (not to mention politicians) don't you?


Orval Faubus had to work at a bank, a Seven-Eleven, a fast food joint or someplace like that in his last years. I forget exactly what it was, but it was someplace like that. Can you imagine a former governor's asking you "....want fries with that?".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Orval Faubus had to work at a bank, a Seven-Eleven, a fast food joint or someplace like that in his last years. I forget exactly what it was, but it was someplace like that. Can you imagine a former governor's asking you "....want fries with that?".


" would you like some health-care with that?"


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Didn't know so many trumpets out and about. Lol so you hate aca but you have VA benefits. Are you stupid.... You hate govt subsidized insurance for low income but you're using a govt insurance program. Republicans are idiots


----------



## Cole Hann

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. This statement does nothing to address my predicament. I could not afford it then, I can not afford it now, and, if your statements are correct, I will not be able to afford it at that point, either.
> 
> 2. Everyone knows what happens when you try to tax the super rich. The super rich can fight back and do so effectively. The poor have nothing to take. This is why both the Left and the Right go after the middle class. They have something to take but can not afford to fight back against the thieves. The Right picks on us because once they steal what we have, we find ways to recover so that they can steal from us, again. The Left seeks to impoverish us so that we must depend on it for handouts thus must support it. Both sides try to call us the "backbone" of this country, but have no qualms about squeezing us and compelling us to give away everything for which we have worked. We are the "backbone", allright, because we pay for every damned thing at the expense of ignoring our needs. We are tired of it.
> 
> 3. I need to worry about my own problems before I can worry about anyone else's. The way that this thing is set up, I can not afford it. Until something arrives that addresses my problems, I will support none of it. This nanny state horror scam places intolerable burdens on the middle class. Even that liar Clinton had to admit that "We realise that this will be a heavy lift for the middle class". She was in the Senate when this thing passed Congress. "Heavy lift"? Try "Direct Assault". The Fourth Estate, as usual, is misinforming the public when it publishes these articles about Americans not wanting the so-called ACA repealed. They do want to be able to purchase _*affordable*_ health insurance, something that the so called ACA is not offering them. They do not like it the way that it is. If the press were to tell the truth, it would state that Americans want it replaced with something that actually is affordable to all, including the middle class. Currently, the middle class can not afford it.
> 
> 4. This is not untrue. There was one Life and Health insurance company in New Orleans that had a job description for entry-level Claims Adjuster that read, in short, "Your cubicle will be provided with a red ink stamp pad, a stamper, a copier and Company envelopes. Mail room personnel will make daily deliveries of claims. You will open the claim, copy it. You then will take the stamp that reads *DENIED* and stamp it across both original and copy of claim form. You will then put the copy in its designated place, put the original into the company provided envelope, address said envelope to the claimant and put it into its designated place. If you exhaust the claims assigned to you, you will inform your Supervisor who will take appropriate action. Every evening mail room employees will collect completed claims." It took you three and four submissions of the claim to get it past the entry-level Adjuster. It then took four more submissions where you had to submit copies in the policy where it specifically stated that this WAS COVERED. I never used a cheap insurance company. I always used reputable ones. In fact, I have obtained the best results from Kaiser.
> 
> 5. I do not want to pay for those people while I can not pay for my own health care. As this thing is, I am subsidising those people but I can not use what I have been compelled to buy to help myself. Until the day comes that I can afford to buy this "insurance" , I am not going to worry about those who have problems. Worrying about others problems while neglecting my own makes my problems only worse.
> 
> 6. I never stated that Uber is my sole income, nor is it. I do drive Uber. I have other sources of income. I am middle class, but thanks to
> the Oppress-ER-uh-*PROGRESS*ives and their Bright Idea Programmes, I am being driven into poverty. The We Are Telling You That You Can Afford This "Health Care" Act is a major contributor to the construction of my path to poverty. If I work enough to pay my bills, I am ineligible for subsidies. If I do not work enough to pay my bills, I will be thrown out into the street. If I work enough to pay my bills, still I can afford neither the premiums nor the fines. Regarding the fines, why should I give my money to the government and receive nothing in return for it? I do that for two governments every 15 April as it is. All that I get for it is subsidising the lifestyles of irresponsible people; stupid wars fought with aeroplanes that will not fly, warships that sink and tanks that burn more fuel than can be kept to fuel them; subsidising the room service in five star hotels for junketing legislators and re-imbursing fatcats who steal from me and waste the money that they do steal. I tend to be harder on the Left than I am on the Right only because the Left screams louder about how it is on the side of little guys like me then proceeds to demonstrate that it is on any side but mine. Further, I resent having my private life micromanaged, something that the Left does more than the Right. In truth, I have more than a little contempt for both.
> 
> 7. I am not opposed to the idea of parallel systems. Canada and Great Britain allow it. What would interest me is to know if this has created any competition among insurers and forced them to offer more reasonable policies with reasonable premiums and deductibles.


Jeez, cut your string Chatty Cathy


----------



## ubershiza

After reading this thread I'm just amazed at the time and effort some of you guys put into these lengthly rants. Either most here are payed or business is so slow that hours can be wasted here chatting gibberish. The other options are people with vested interests like medallion owners or people who are invested in the black car industry. IMO Less than 1% of the posters here are drivers. I felt it necessary to shed some light on the walls of BS going on here.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ubershiza said:


> After reading this thread I'm just amazed at the time and effort some of you guys put into these lengthly rants. Either most here are payed or business is so slow that hours can be wasted here chatting gibberish.


"Payed"? hehe... all kidding aside, it's obvious you have never had to wait in the airport queue for an Uber or Lyft request.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ubershiza said:


> After reading this thread I'm just amazed at the time and effort some of you guys put into these lengthly rants.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> What I know is,Obama doubled our debt for his socialistic agenda.


Don't let the facts get in the way of your rantings...






see the 'sources noted? That's the Senate and the House of Reps budget offices.



> And the fact is,93 million Americans have no jobs.


"FACT"? No - not even close...

"Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.) ... This leaves 40.5 million Americans who are not in the labor force and are between the ages of 25 and 64.
...
The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, it's possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says it's not unreasonable to include:​
• The 6.4 million people who haven't looked for work recently enough to qualify as being "in the labor force," but who say they "currently want a job."

• And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job.​This would mean that upwards of *21 million* Americans could be described with some justification as "out of work" involuntarily, either fully or partially... *that's not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered*."
source: PolitiFact​


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Don't let the facts get in the way of your rantings...


http://jobenomicsblog.com/tag/bureau-of-labor-statistics/









Population/Workforce Imbalance. As of 1 October 2016, out of a U.S. population of 325 million, 113 million private sector workers support 32 million government workers and contractors, _*94 million*_ able-bodied people who can work but chose not to work, 70 million who cannot work, and 16 million unemployed and underemployed. The U.S. economy is not sustainable with only 35% supporting an overhead of 65%. The growing contingent labor force, which consists of mostly lower paid wage earners, makes the overhead burden even more precarious. More people earning livable wages and having greater discretionary income must be productively engaged in the labor force for the U.S. economy to flourish.

Able-bodied adults who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. Those who have no job and are no longer looking for a job are accounted by the BLS in the Not-in-Labor-Force category. From 2000 through Q3 2016, the Not-in-Labor-Force cadre grew from 68,655,000 to 94,184,000, an increase of almost 26 million citizens who more often than not are dependent on public/familial assistance. Today, the Not-in-Labor-Force exceeds the U6 Unemployed cadre by 6-times (94,184,000 versus 15,510,979) and 12-times (94,184,000 versus 7,995,350) the number of people enrolled in the U3 Unemployment category that is generally referred to as the "officially unemployed". This great disparity is rarely addressed by policy-makers, analyzed by decision-makers or mentioned by the media's talking-heads, all of whom focus almost entirely on the "Official U3 Unemployment Rate" that is now at a near post-recession low of 5.0%.

These are the facts and they don't fit your narrative.So I'm the one ranting and you're not.LOL

If you want,I'll buy you A Little Green Rosetta,makes a muffin better.LOL




Wang tang ding dong I am the japanese sandman.
RIP Mr.Frank Zappa.You are surely missed.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> In my view, there, really, are only two ways to accomplish getting most/all of the population access health care. 1. A mandated system that disallows discrimination for pre-existing conditions with subsidies for poor and those who cannot afford insurance . 2. Universal Health Care ( dems want medicare for all ).
> 
> If you think there is another way, let's hear it.


Move to Cuba,problem solved.LOL

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...eal-no-cigar.-not-even-close./article/2608367


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> http://jobenomicsblog.com/tag/bureau-of-labor-statistics/
> 
> View attachment 90210
> 
> Population/Workforce Imbalance.


 "As of 1 October 2016, out of a U.S. population of 325 million"
Yup... TOTAL population.
Apparently you think every infant, toddler, elementary-age child, high-schooler, college student, stay-at-home-parent, disabled person and senior citizen should be part of the workforce.

In case you haven't done the math, a considerable number of people in those categories are employed.
If they weren't, then the absurd 94 million number you keep citing would be even higher
(because *people in those categories represent more than 41% of the population*).

80 million of the US population are under the age of 18. That alone is 25% of the population. (Under 21 years old is 27.x%)
Of course the 'able-bodied' non-workers number is going up... people are living longer - those over the age of 65 (the 'age of retirement') are the fastest growing segment of the population - 14% & growing. Since 1900, the % of the US population in the US living beyond age 80 has doubled from 5% to 10% with more than half that growth coming since just 1990. Damn slackers - grandma should get a job!

And none of that, obviously, is the 'fault' of or caused by Obama - or any other politician

These are the facts and they don't fit your narrative.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Republicans are very good at doing what all demagogues do, ie., fill people's brains with thought-terminating cliches.
> 
> Repubs try and convince the easy-to-fool masses that dems are goose-stepping commies bent on nationalizing everything, which is about as true as accusing the right of being nazis and facists.


 Wow,based on your dissertation.I'm the one that's brainwashed.LOL

Here is a unique perspective on the famous story,The Time Machine by H.G. Wells.

https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/utopia/?p=196


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> Wow,based on your dissertation.I'm the one that's brainwashed.LOL


See, we can agree on something.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "As of 1 October 2016, out of a U.S. population of 325 million"
> Yup... TOTAL population.
> Apparently you think every infant, toddler, elementary-age child, high-schooler, college student, stay-at-home-parent, disabled person and senior citizen should be part of the workforce.
> 
> In case you haven't done the math, a considerable number of people in those categories are employed.
> If they weren't, then the absurd 94 million number you keep citing would be even higher
> (because people in those categories represent more than 29% of the population).
> 
> 80 million of the US population are under the age of 18. That alone is 25% of the population.
> Of course the 'able-bodied' non-workers number is going up... people are living longer - those over the age of 65 (the 'age of retirement') are the fastest growing segment of the population.
> 
> These are the facts and they don't fit your narrative.


You appear to have very thin skin and selective reading,my apologies.

Only 4 more days!

Rest in peace Martin Luther King.You were a great man.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> You appear to have very thin skin and selective reading,


Another brilliant reply to factual information with blah, blah, blah..
BTW, happy to have done the actual work of providing the real numbers for you
(not that you'll pay attention to them, of course).


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Another brilliant reply to factual information with blah, blah, blah..
> BTW, happy to have done the actual work of providing the real numbers for you
> (not that you'll pay attention to them, of course).


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/trump-obamacare-slow/index.html


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Another brilliant reply to factual information with blah, blah, blah..
> BTW, happy to have done the actual work of providing the real numbers for you
> (not that you'll pay attention to them, of course).


It is brilliant,isn't it?I say appear and not the word are.Because I don't know if you really do have thin skin.But I digress.

Being educated doesn't make you smart and being uneducated doesn't make you dumb.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEH8Lj-GftnQhct2WDEs5zZXwj4Pg


----------



## Jermin8r89

I think this maybe the longest thread ive seen on here


----------



## phillipzx3

AllenChicago said:


> According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.
> 
> *Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/*
> 
> How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?
> 
> Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?
> 
> Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.
> 
> -Allen in Chicagoland


Veterans are exempt from the ACA. And if you think it's expensive now, just wait until the GOP gets done "fixing" things.

Obamacare has NOTHING to do with rates going up. Insurance companies set rates. The ACA doesn't.

I heard once we get rid of the ACA gasoline will drop to 50 cents a gallon because such an expensive burden will be lifted from the shoulders of big oil. ;-)


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> See, we can agree on something.


God bless and peace be with you and your family.


----------



## Do tell

phillipzx3 said:


> Veterans are exempt from the ACA. And if you think it's expensive now, just wait until the GOP gets done "fixing" things.
> 
> Obamacare has NOTHING to do with rates going up. Insurance companies set rates. The ACA doesn't.
> 
> I heard once we get rid of the ACA gasoline will drop to 50 cents a gallon because such an expensive burden will be lifted from the shoulders of big oil. ;-)


Did you hear it from a little birdie.LOL 




I'll be waiting for these higher prices,just like the rest of America and Donald Trump will fail if that's the case.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Move to Cuba,problem solved.LOL
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...eal-no-cigar.-not-even-close./article/2608367


those who have no merit worthy arguments, contribute nothing to the conversation.

I will say this, I've talked to many canadians, swedes, danes, dutch, and french, and asked them if they would trade the their health care system for that of America's, and the answer is a resounding unanimous NO.

Cuba's no example of universal health care as it would work in a democracy because Cuba is a totalitarian/authoritarian society, and thus not subject to the many checks, balances and self-correcting, self-instropecting aspects of free democratic societies.

Got any other bright ideas? I didn't think so.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> 0/
> 
> View attachment 90210
> 
> Population/Workforce Imbalance. As of 1 October 2016, out of a U.S. population of 325 million, 113 million private sector workers support 32 million government workers and contractors, _*94 million*_ able-bodied people who can work but chose not to work, 70 million who cannot work, and 16 million unemployed and underemployed. The U.S. economy is not sustainable with only 35% supporting an overhead of 65%. The growing contingent labor force, which consists of mostly lower paid wage earners, makes the overhead burden even more precarious. More people earning livable wages and having greater discretionary income must be productively engaged in the labor force for the U.S. economy to flourish.
> 
> Able-bodied adults who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. Those who have no job and are no longer looking for a job are accounted by the BLS in the Not-in-Labor-Force category. From 2000 through Q3 2016, the Not-in-Labor-Force cadre grew from 68,655,000 to 94,184,000, an increase of almost 26 million citizens who more often than not are dependent on public/familial assistance. Today, the Not-in-Labor-Force exceeds the U6 Unemployed cadre by 6-times (94,184,000 versus 15,510,979) and 12-times (94,184,000 versus 7,995,350) the number of people enrolled in the U3 Unemployment category that is generally referred to as the "officially unemployed". This great disparity is rarely addressed by policy-makers, analyzed by decision-makers or mentioned by the media's talking-heads, all of whom focus almost entirely on the "Official U3 Unemployment Rate" that is now at a near post-recession low of 5.0%.
> 
> These are the facts and they don't fit your narrative.So I'm the one ranting and you're not.LOL
> 
> If you want,I'll buy you A Little Green Rosetta,makes a muffin better.LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wang tang ding dong I am the japanese sandman.
> RIP Mr.Frank Zappa.You are surely missed.


It really doesn't matter precisely what the actual unemployment level is, and as such, really is unknowable.

What is important that the governing bodies that keep tabs on such things use the same measurement methodology through history, so it can determined if things are improving, staying the same, or worsening, based on upward or downward trends using these same methodologies.

The incontrovertible fact is that the unemployment situation has significantly improved in the last 8 years over the Bush years.

Additionally, the numbers in the article don't add up, and as such, I can't trust the article. Children make up 24% of the population, subtracting 78 million from 325 million leaves 247 million adults, and the number in the article would have us believe there are 325 million adults.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Got any other bright ideas? I didn't think so.











I have plenty of bright ideas,would you like me to share some?I might have come off too brash for your liking and that was not my intention.I don't like being argumentative for argument's sake.



Oscar Levant said:


> It really doesn't matter precisely what the actual unemployment level is, and as such, really is unknowable.


 Those numbers come from the Bureau of Labor.

https://www.bls.gov/mobile/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics



Oscar Levant said:


> The incontrovertible fact is that the unemployment situation has significantly improved in the last 8 years over the Bush years.


 I will never forget.Maybe you have forgotten.









I will tone down my rhetoric when I address your comments.Peace be with you Oscar Levant.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Oscar Levant said:


> those who have no merit worthy arguments, contribute nothing to the conversation.
> 
> I will say this, I've talked to many canadians, swedes, danes, dutch, and french, and asked them if they would trade the their health care system for that of America's, and the answer is a resounding unanimous NO.
> 
> Cuba's no example of universal health care as it would work in a democracy because Cuba is a totalitarian/authoritarian society, and thus not subject to the many checks, balances and self-correcting, self-instropecting aspects of free democratic societies.
> 
> Got any other bright ideas? I didn't think so.


We can have everyone get doctoret degrees. "Every family has an MD". Haha wich is MOM and DAD. Good solgan to get everyone to have doctoret degrees


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. You try to tell me that there was no way it could have been obvious that the bill, as it passed, would harm a large part of the population? If, for the sake of discussion, we use your figures, this has harmed twelve-point-five to twenty five per-cent of the people. That is a large number, by your own admission. Even your demagogue Clinton, when she was still in the Senate, admitted that it would harm the middle class ("heavy lift" ) It should not have been difficult to forsee that large a number of harmed people and to do something to stop it before it happened.


Must we use disparaging terms ( i.e., "demagogue" ) ?

The ACA is a vast compromise, done so with the hope of some bipartisan votes ( which never happened ). In my view, because of that fact, it will have defects. Most democrats were mad at Obama for not starting with Universal Health Care, and bargaining from that vantage point, but instead, Obama started with a compromise ( the ACA, because Obama reasoned it was a conservative idea to begin with, they would vote for it, but he didnt' understand the depth of hatred of him from the right, who chose to oppose him even on ideas they spawned ). In my view, as long as you have any system that uses the services of middlemen insurers, under the weak-link-in-the-chain theory, you're going to have problems because insurance companies are not motivated by doing what is best for the public good, they are motivated solely by profit, and doing whatever they can get away with.



> 2. I had a policy from a job. I never encountered what you describe. What I did is a much higher premium than I had when I was paying for the policy myself (under COBRA) after I had left the job. I had far lower deductibles. Now I have a double digit premium increase for 2017 and have had double digit deductible increases every year. If you expect me to support anything that has inflicted this much harm on me, you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment.


What state do you live in? Which plan did you select under ACA? I chose healthnet silver plan, which, in 3 years, have risen my monthly premium from $112 to $132, and a $500 deductible which never kicks in for regular and routine doctor visits ) and $10 copays, which is still affordable. Many of the plans in the ACA were problematic, but I found that healthnet had the best deal. also, remember, prior to ACA, if you filed a claim for catastrophic illness, your insurer could subpoena your health records, and if they discovered a preexisting condition, they could deny your claim. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but the fact is, as exposed by a 60 minutes episode on this subject, many did not. What good are all these "cheaper policies prior to the ACA" if you are not 100% sure they would be there for you in your time of need?



> 3. If Rubio is the reason that the premiums are going up the way that they are, why would the Democrats, who were then in control of Congress, allow it to go through like that or even allow it to acquire such provisions? The Republicans opposed it, but the bill became law. You have failed to convince me.


there never was a day that dems during Obama had a supermajority ( filibuster proof ) in the senate, and, as such, dems NEVER had control over both houses, only congress., despite the claim to the contrary. I can provide you with the precise timeline of events which will prove this.

But, it's a moot point, because Rubio introduced the kneecapping of the risk corridor provision in 2015. It's one of the reasons for health care premiums increase, not the only reason.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.



> 4. I saw the books on the insurance during the years (W.J. Clinton/G.W. Bush) that my company provided health insurance for its employees. The rate of premium increases were not double digit or even high single digit. The deductibles never increased. I question the validity of your statement, But then, the Left never did let facts spoil a good concocted "argument".


You can't learn what national averages are, which would be teh basis for making public policy, on what occurred in one particular circumstance.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/02/kff-chart-622x492.png

I base my opinion on the national stats, not what happened at your company.



> 5. See Number Four


See above



> 6. I would be hard pressed to call harm to several million people "cherry picking". That applies even if I do accept your figures, which I suspect are too low.
> 
> 7. Instead, the carriers have substituted double digit increases in deductibles. The effect is that you pay out of pocket for routine doctor visits that your insurance used to cover, but now, thanks to ridiculously high and ever increasing deductibles, you pay. Effectively, this "insurance" no longer covers them. I do. Thus, I am my own primary insurer, while this "affordable" coverage that the government compelled me to purchase is merely secondary insurance at primary rates.
> 
> 8. If so many people are signed up and more are signing up every day, why do I get double digit increases in premiums and deductibles? The insurers stated from the beginning that in order to make it "affordable", they had to have massive sign-ups. If these "massive sign ups" are now occurring, should not my premiums and deductibles, at worst, remain flat?


See my response to #2, and on the last sentence, addressed in my reply to #1.



> 9. ...as if the Democrats were not going to squeeze the middle class. Every time that the Democrats talk about taxing the rich, it is my taxes that increase. I believe rhetoric on reducing taxes from neither side. They are all a bunch of liars and only out to separate me from my peanuts for their own purposes.


I'm not defending Democrats, but I will tell you this, the USA has never had a progressive democrat ( such as Sanders) as president during your life time, and if we were ever to elect one, one who also gained control of congress and a supermajority in the Senate, you taxes would never go up. The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that conservatives prefer to lower taxes on both middle class and rich, whereas progressives prefer to lower taxes on middle class, and raise them for the rich. History proves that lowering taxes on the rich increases deficits.



> 10. That is unsubstantiated left wing propaganda.


The evidence is overwhelming, we can debate this in another thread, if you want.


> 11. The term "nanny state" does anything but "fool me". It is an accurate description of the government's increased interference in my private life and my business.


I stand by the premise that the right is fond of filling the heads of their fans with thought-terminating cliches designed to control their flock as much as possible. Dems do a terrible job of this. For example, we often refer to universal health care as "single payer', an virtual bland description of what could be a better idea than what we have, currently.

Again, I'm not using how it affects any one particular individual, just the methods of the right, and its general effect.



> 12. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise. It is mere regurgitation of something that I would expect to hear on MSNBC.
> 
> 13. ...why, because Stephanie Miller told you that?


We'll just have to disagree.



> 14. The Left excells at name calling, a well-established tactic of demagogues. Remember your girl the demagogue and her "deplorables"? Anyone who disagrees with it on even the smallest matter is automatically a "racist", "Fascist", "homophobe". While I like neither the Left nor the Right, I tend to be harder on the Left because it claims to be for me, when it _*ain't*_. The Right makes no bones about its not being for me.


Oh puhleez, I can't count the number of times a liberal has been referred by right leaning commentators as "commies" "pinkos" and if you listen to the likes of Rush & Savage, ooh, the name calling is borderline perverse. My faves do not call anyone names, who are Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, Alan Colmes.

If you don't like dems, fine, but how about progressives like Bernie Sanders? how about the green party? If you wont' believe he or they are for you, then who, on the national political landscape, do you like?


> 15. ........which I never bought, any how. I have found, however, that the Left has this lockstep mentality. You must agree with it on every point or you are in automatic lockstep with the extreme Right.


Msnbc, a station which most would characterize as leaning left, praise the moderate right an hire them, such as Greta Van Susterin, Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt. I enjoy Schmidts take on things, and though I dont' agree withi him on basic conservative ideology, he often makes compelling commentary. I never hear anything compelling or remotely in the ball park of truth coming from Rush or Hannity. Maybe I do if you pinned me down, but for the most part, I dont. I would say that the extreme left does as you suggest, but not the majority of the left.



> 16. To hear the Right tell it, the Left controls the newspapers, the internet newsnets and the television. If all that the Right has is AM radio, it is lagging.


I stand by my comment. that Reagan's repeal of the fairness doctrine contributed greatly, years later via causal chain I described, the polarization of current politics.


----------



## Peanut hello

Oscar Levent do speak the truth. I like that.


----------



## observer

senorCRV said:


> Perhaps a universal catastrophic coverage and people can buy health maintenance and care policies for the small stuff on their own.
> 
> Cancer: govt pay
> Flu: you pay
> 
> Before anything, you need to make one law: every doctor and medical facility has to publish their rates and charge the same price for the same code regardless of who is paying


Why do we need to pay insurance companies to pay doctors for the little stuff?

I am in Mexico right now and my mom caught a bad flu. The doctor charged approximately $7.50 and the three meds prescribed were another $10.00. Oh, and for that $7.50 the doc came to our house.

A few years ago, while on vacation here in Mexico, my wife got sick. Two doctors visits, an ultrasound and medicines were $80.00. Again, both doctor visits were house calls.

Insurance companies drive up the cost of healthcare for their profit.


----------



## Do tell

observer said:


> Why do we need to pay insurance companies to pay doctors for the little stuff?
> 
> I am in Mexico right now and my mom caught a bad flu. The doctor charged approximately $7.50 and the three meds prescribed were another $10.00. Oh, and for that $7.50 the doc came to our house.
> 
> A few years ago, while on vacation here in Mexico, my wife got sick. Two doctors visits, an ultrasound and medicines were $80.00. Again, both doctor visits were house calls.
> 
> Insurance companies drive up the cost of healthcare for their profit.


Exactly,let the doctors run their own businesses.Take out the middleman and end regulations that stifle competition.

I get it,people don't want bad doctors.That's why we should rate them like uber.We can give them one stars and no tip.lol


----------



## observer

Do tell said:


> Exactly,let the doctors run their own businesses.Take out the middleman and end regulations that stifle competition.
> 
> I get it,people don't want bad doctors.That's why we should rate them like uber.We can give them one stars and no tip.lol


You can't take out the middle man in the U.S. Their lobbies are too powerful.

A lot of regulations are put in or supported by major businesses, precisely TO STIFLE competition.

Just look at Uber.

We need to throw out Republicans and Democrats and try something else. Our present system is not working for 99% of Americans.


----------



## Do tell

observer said:


> You can't take out the middle man in the U.S. Their lobbies are too powerful.
> 
> A lot of regulations are put in or supported by major businesses, precisely TO STIFLE competition.
> 
> Just look at Uber.
> 
> We need to throw out Republicans and Democrats and try something else. Our present system is not working for 99% of Americans.


That's why Trump won.People are sick of the status quo.3 more days,oh yeah.

Like him or hate him.He beat all the professional politicians in the Republican Party to be the nominee.Then he beat the sure win Hillary.I guess it wasn't a sure win after all.lol


----------



## Do tell

observer said:


> You can't take out the middle man in the U.S.


 That's exactly what I did.I used to contract with courier companies and uber.I got sick of them taking all the cut and used my salesman skills and solicited my own accounts.

I work half as hard and make twice the money.This last sentence is just a partial exaggeration.lol


----------



## Do tell

*GOP lawmakers unaware of Trump's health care plan*
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/congress-obamacare-trump/index.html
*Duffy to lawmakers boycotting the inauguration: 'Put your big boy pants on' and show up*
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/duffy-democrat-boycott/index.html


----------



## Oscar Levant

observer said:


> You can't take out the middle man in the U.S. Their lobbies are too powerful.
> 
> A lot of regulations are put in or supported by major businesses, precisely TO STIFLE competition.
> 
> Just look at Uber.
> 
> We need to throw out Republicans and Democrats and try something else. Our present system is not working for 99% of Americans.


If you think you can do better than the current crop of politicians, run for office.
But, we're a nation of whiners, not comprehending that most of the people in the less
fortunate countries of the world, places in the world where they are jailed or murdered for whining, 
would kill to trade places with any one of us,


----------



## UberYanNJ

Do tell said:


> Is it so bad that we just can't have an open market.Just let the health care providers charge whatever they want like restaurants.Let the market determine who succeeds and who doesn't.Don't force me to pay a fine or health care that's unaffordable.
> 
> Thank God Donald Trump is going to change all this.Doesn't mean it'll be better,but at least it's something.
> 
> Socialism is a disease that must be treated.LOL


People don't understand this concept. Its like having 1 gas station at a corner or 4. Competition leads to lower prices.

Ask UBER, they know all about lowering prices


----------



## Do tell

UberYanNJ said:


> People don't understand this concept. Its like having 1 gas station at a corner or 4. Competition leads to lower prices.
> 
> Ask UBER, they know all about lowering prices


If it disagrees with their opinions,they don't like the truth.A spin doctor's work is never done.LOL


----------



## oscardelta

DollarStoreChauffeur said:


> Obamacare was the biggest scam, especially for people like rideshare drivers who are living on a tight budget. So you're barely able to pay your bills with this scummy gig, but now you're faced with either being forced to pay for insurance premiums each month or a penalty at the end of the year?


What were you doing before Obamacare?


----------



## observer

Oscar Levant said:


> If you think you can do better than the current crop of politicians, run for office.
> But, we're a nation of whiners, not comprehending that most of the people in the less
> fortunate countries of the world, places in the world where they are jailed or murdered for whining,
> would kill to trade places with any one of us,


I don't think anyone has a chance of being elected unless you have a lot of money to throw around. I certainly don't. But I can and do make my opinion heard. I talk to people, tell them my point of view, listen to their point of view. I vote.

Not that I am comparing myself to them but do you think Washington, Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock were whiners? Do you think they were whining about how England treated the colonies? Change has to start somewhere and that change is having your opinion heard.

Unfortunately, none of our opinions matter anymore. Money talks. But things are changing.

A long time ago I actually was involved in local politics in one of those countries you speak of, I knew two people who were likely killed for their views. The satellite antenna was taken off the roof of my home by ARMED SOLDIERS because the government wanted to control all news.

Times change. I'm writing this in that same house, with freedom and technology undreamed of at the time. Information flows freely now, some places freer than others.

I don't really see it as "whining" I see it as constructive criticism.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> If


 If Obamacare worked for the masses,we wouldn't have this topic on this website. 



 Enjoy the humor,I Do tell.LOL


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> If Obamacare worked for the masses,we wouldn't have this topic on this website


Were it not for ObamaCare, the Republicans would not be thinking about, talking about, concerned about , or doing anything about health care whatsoever


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Were it not for ObamaCare, the Republicans would not be thinking about, talking about, concerned about , or doing anything about health care whatsoever


More fake news for you.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/obamacare-approval-cnn-orc-poll/index.html

But then there's this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/donald-trump-gop-obamacare/index.html


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> More fake news for you.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/obamacare-approval-cnn-orc-poll/index.html
> 
> But then there's this.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/donald-trump-gop-obamacare/index.html


Trump has been talking the talk for some time and we have yet to see if he can actually Walk The Walk we shall see. Republicans say they want to provide access to health care for everyone well one can have access to purchasing a home that cost 10 million dollars but it's one thing to have access to purchasing it's another if you don't have the money to buy it so they throw words around all the time we need to see what the precise policies are and how they affect the real world.


----------



## Do tell

Oscar Levant said:


> Trump has been talking the talk for some time and we have yet to see if he can actually Walk The Walk we shall see. Republicans say they want to provide access to health care for everyone well one can have access to purchasing a home that cost 10 million dollars but it's one thing to have access to purchasing it's another if you don't have the money to buy it so they throw words around all the time we need to see what the precise policies are and how they affect the real world.


*Donald Trump And The Wollman Rinking of American Politics*

*http://www.forbes.com/sites/offwhit...an-rinking-of-american-politics/#40a9801926b2*

As you will find in this article,he's been walking the walk for many decades.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> *Donald Trump And The Wollman Rinking of American Politics*
> 
> *http://www.forbes.com/sites/offwhit...an-rinking-of-american-politics/#40a9801926b2*
> 
> As you will find in this article,he's been walking the walk for many decades.


It's easy to make deals when your daddy gives you a 200 million dollar Empire to play with when I say walk the walk I'm talking about accomplishing his promises in politics and that walk he has yet to walk


----------



## ZREXMike

Karen Stein said:


> That article isn't news, it's a simple editorial advocating the religious views of the author.
> 
> "Obama Care" is more accurately described as the UN-affordable care act. The very folks the act purports to help now have a choice: pay the fine, or bankrupt yourself buying insurance with a deductible so high you can never use it.
> 
> To steal a phrase from Hilary, the Supre me Court got it wrong. This country, our society was founded on the exact opposite concept, one of severely limited government.
> 
> "Our way" tamed a continent and advanced us from colonial backwater to world power in record time. It's time to return to our roots.


Karen, you are awesome! Post Of The Day!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Before ObamaCare, back in 2011 I got insurance for the first time and I paid $150 a month for like 4 months til I quit it. Now it's $400 a month and that's for the highest deductible insurance.

What a joke. Now I gotta pay a penalty for not paying 400 a month for a year($4800) just because I gotta pay to help the idiots that love taking all kinds of over the counter drugs and ruining their bodies so they constantly have conditions that they make me pay for.

All people need to understand that ALL DRUGS, even the prescription, even the over the counter, and all chemicals are bad for the human body. People get brainwashed by advertisements who's sole job is to get you to buy their poisonous products and keep you sick so you constantly have to pay for it in health coverage and visits.

The human body is normally able to take care of itself. You just have to let it. Normally when you get sick it's because your diet sucks so your immune system is weakened.

Drugs only work to mask a symptom(pain). That's the only job they have and when you actually look at what you're putting into your body you'll see it's poison. For proof, just look at all the "side effects" they have to put on the package. These are just a small amount of short term side effects. There are even more long term side effects such as cancer.


----------



## Do tell

uberdriverfornow said:


> Before ObamaCare, back in 2011 I got insurance for the first time and I paid $150 a month for like 4 months til I quit it. Now it's $400 a month and that's for the highest deductible insurance.
> 
> What a joke. Now I gotta pay a penalty for not paying 400 a month for a year($4800) just because I gotta pay to help the idiots that love taking all kinds of over the counter drugs and ruining their bodies so they constantly have conditions that they make me pay for.
> 
> All people need to understand that ALL DRUGS, even the prescription, even the over the counter, and all chemicals are bad for the human body. People get brainwashed by advertisements who's sole job is to get you to buy their poisonous products and keep you sick so you constantly have to pay for it in health coverage and visits.
> 
> The human body is normally able to take care of itself. You just have to let it. Normally when you get sick it's because your diet sucks so your immune system is weakened.
> 
> Drugs only work to mask a symptom(pain). That's the only job they have and when you actually look at what you're putting into your body you'll see it's poison. For proof, just look at all the "side effects" they have to put on the package. These are just a small amount of short term side effects. There are even more long term side effects such as cancer.


Here here,the side effects are worse than the symptoms they're trying to treat.LOL


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *Must we use disparaging terms ( i.e., "demagogue" ) ?
> 
> *2. *insurance companies are not motivated by doing what is best for the public good, they are motivated solely by profit, and doing whatever they can get away with.
> 
> *3. *What state do you live in? Which plan did you select under ACA? I chose healthnet silver plan
> 
> *4. *What good are all these "cheaper policies prior to the ACA" if you are not 100% sure they would be there for you in your time of need?
> 
> *5. *there never was a day that dems during Obama had a supermajority ( filibuster proof ) in the senate, and, as such, dems NEVER had control over both houses, only congress., despite the claim to the contrary. I can provide you with the precise timeline of events which will prove this.
> 
> *6. *But, it's a moot point, because Rubio introduced the kneecapping of the risk corridor provision in 2015. It's one of the reasons for health care premiums increase, not the only reason.
> 
> *7. *I base my opinion on the national stats, not what happened at your company.
> 
> *8. *See my response to #2, and on the last sentence, addressed in my reply to #1.
> 
> *9. *I'm not defending Democrats, but I will tell you this, the USA has never had a progressive democrat ( such as Sanders) as president during your life time, and if we were ever to elect one, one who also gained control of congress and a supermajority in the Senate, you taxes would never go up. The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that conservatives prefer to lower taxes on both middle class and rich, whereas progressives prefer to lower taxes on middle class, and raise them for the rich.
> 
> *10. *The evidence is overwhelming, we can debate this in another thread, if you want.
> 
> *11. *I stand by the premise that the right is fond of filling the heads of their fans with thought-terminating cliches designed to control their flock as much as possible.
> 
> *12. *Again, I'm not using how it affects any one particular individual.
> 
> *13. *We'll just have to disagree.
> 
> *14.*Oh puhleez, I can't count the number of times a liberal has been referred by right leaning commentators as "commies" "pinkos" and if you listen to the likes of Rush
> 
> *15. *Alan Colmes.
> 
> *16. *If you don't like dems, fine, but how about progressives like Bernie Sanders? how about the green party? If you wont' believe he or they are for you, then who, on the national political landscape, do you like?
> 
> *17. *Msnbc, a station which most would characterize as leaning left
> 
> *18. *I stand by my comment.


1. My post that you quoted is Number 181. In your posts Number Forty Nine and 174 you used the word "demagogue". This means that you used it twice before I did, yet you chide me for my use of it. Oh,......wait,..............sorry, I forgot about the "progressives" and their double standard.

2. That is correct, so they are not too worried about making this "affordable" despite the Democrats' claim that it is. All that your statement proves is that the Democrats are selling my behind to the insurance companies and trying to tell me that it benefits me. This is another reason for my contempt for the Left: it thinks that I am stupid and can not see through its deceptions. You are hoist by your own petard in that by your statement, you know that it is not affordable for many people.

3. I have stated more than once that I live in the District of Columbia. I have stated at least once that I picked a "silver" level plan. I chose Kaiser.

4. Kaiser always was "there" for me in the past. It is one reason why I chose it, here. Kaiser worked very well for me as far as rendering services went.

5. How is it, then, that the Republicans could not manage to stifle the so-called "Affordable" Care Act if they were as "powerful" as you claim that they were when they did not have a majority?

6. You keep trying to blame everything on Rubio, fail to be specific about what he allegedly "did" then admit that there are other factors in play. The bottom line is this: I can NOT afford the premiums. I can NOT afford the fines. The deductibles are so high that I can not afford to use this thing that the government compelled me to purchase with money that I did not have. Not you; not any poster to this topic that agrees with you; not any "progressive" has managed to answer this.

7. As I had an ownership interest in my company that was paying out this money, it was my money that was going out. I pay attention to the money in my bank account(s) and wallet and money that I am paying, not a bunch of fancy statistics that might make someone look oh-so-informed at a wine and cheese party somewhere but have little relevance to the money that I am paying. Statistics may be marvellous for a government or some other entity that wants to plug me into an equation so that I come out reamed: in short, they plug me into an equation where two plus two equals seven.

8. They fail to address any point that I have raised.

9. That is left-wing propaganda, nothing more. Every time that the Left rants about taxing the rich, it is my taxes that increase. I stopped believing that Left wing propaganda in 1975. I began to doubt it in 1968.

10. You are confusing "evidence" with "propaganda".

11. There goes your Left wing lockstep/beehive mentality. Anyone who disagrees with a "progressive" is automatically a tool of the extreme Right and in lockstep with it. You have that incorrect. I am what the Left hates worse than the extreme Right: someone who thinks for himself and can not be beta sigma-ed. Recall the old saw that you can not beta sigma a beta sigma-er.

12. I DO worry about how it affects one particular individual because I must. I must worry about how it affects me, as I must pay for it. I must worry about myself before I can start to worry about anyone else. To do otherwise is a recipe for misery and perpetual dissatisfaction.

13. English translation: I can not refute your point.

14. You are confusing "right wing commentators" with DISQUS and ya-HOO! trolls. You are confusing Limbaugh with a thinking human being. In fact, Limbaugh likely is a DISQUS, Facebook and ya-HOO! troll.

15. I actually like Ol' Groans. When he was still with Insanity, Ol' Sean was on vayy-cayy and Groans thoroughly Hannitised a Bush Administration Official and a high ranking Senate Democrat. I forget who they were, now.

16. The only thing that I really liked about Ol' Bernie is that his name is not Hillary Clinton. As for the Greens, I am more afraid of them than I am of the Democrats and ten Hillary Clintons.

17. You mean totally left wing, white and man hating propaganda, especially with Warpedtongue and Maddow.

18. Stand by it all that you will, you can not substantiate it.



Peanut hello said:


> Oscar Levent do speak the truth. I like that.


As you can see, he does anything but that. You like it only because you agree with him.


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. My post that you quoted is Number 181. In your posts Number Forty Nine and 174 you used the word "demagogue". This means that you used it twice before I did, yet you chide me for my use of it. Oh,......wait,..............sorry, I forgot about the "progressives" and their double standard.
> 
> 2. That is correct, so they are not too worried about making this "affordable" despite the Democrats' claim that it is. All that your statement proves is that the Democrats are selling my behind to the insurance companies and trying to tell me that it benefits me. This is another reason for my contempt for the Left: it thinks that I am stupid and can not see through its deceptions. You are hoist by your own petard in that by your statement, you know that it is not affordable for many people.
> 
> 3. I have stated more than once that I live in the District of Columbia. I have stated at least once that I picked a "silver" level plan. I chose Kaiser.
> 
> 4. Kaiser always was "there" for me in the past. It is one reason why I chose it, here. Kaiser worked very well for me as far as rendering services went.
> 
> 5. How is it, then, that the Republicans could not manage to stifle the so-called "Affordable" Care Act if they were as "powerful" as you claim that they were when they did not have a majority?
> 
> 6. You keep trying to blame everything on Rubio, fail to be specific about what he allegedly "did" then admit that there are other factors in play. The bottom line is this: I can NOT afford the premiums. I can NOT afford the fines. The deductibles are so high that I can not afford to use this thing that the government compelled me to purchase with money that I did not have. Not you; not any poster to this topic that agrees with you; not any "progressive" has managed to answer this.
> 
> 7. As I had an ownership interest in my company that was paying out this money, it was my money that was going out. I pay attention to the money in my bank account(s) and wallet and money that I am paying, not a bunch of fancy statistics that might make someone look oh-so-informed at a wine and cheese party somewhere but have little relevance to the money that I am paying. Statistics may be marvellous for a government or some other entity that wants to plug me into an equation so that I come out reamed: in short, they plug me into an equation where two plus two equals seven.
> 
> 8. They fail to address any point that I have raised.
> 
> 9. That is left-wing propaganda, nothing more. Every time that the Left rants about taxing the rich, it is my taxes that increase. I stopped believing that Left wing propaganda in 1975. I began to doubt it in 1968.
> 
> 10. You are confusing "evidence" with "propaganda".
> 
> 11. There goes your Left wing lockstep/beehive mentality. Anyone who disagrees with a "progressive" is automatically a tool of the extreme Right and in lockstep with it. You have that incorrect. I am what the Left hates worse than the extreme Right: someone who thinks for himself and can not be beta sigma-ed. Recall the old saw that you can not beta sigma a beta sigma-er.
> 
> 12. I DO worry about how it affects one particular individual because I must. I must worry about how it affects me, as I must pay for it. I must worry about myself before I can start to worry about anyone else. To do otherwise is a recipe for misery and perpetual dissatisfaction.
> 
> 13. English translation: I can not refute your point.
> 
> 14. You are confusing "right wing commentators" with DISQUS and ya-HOO! trolls. You are confusing Limbaugh with a thinking human being. In fact, Limbaugh likely is a DISQUS, Facebook and ya-HOO! troll.
> 
> 15. I actually like Ol' Groans. When he was still with Insanity, Ol' Sean was on vayy-cayy and Groans thoroughly Hannitised a Bush Administration Official and a high ranking Senate Democrat. I forget who they were, now.
> 
> 16. The only thing that I really liked about Ol' Bernie is that his name is not Hillary Clinton. As for the Greens, I am more afraid of them than I am of the Democrats and ten Hillary Clintons.
> 
> 17. You mean totally left wing, white and man hating propaganda, especially with Warpedtongue and Maddow.
> 
> 18. Stand by it all that you will, you can not substantiate it.
> 
> As you can see, he does anything but that. You like it only because you agree with him.


That's why I posted this earlier in the thread.lol








I do respect his thoughts.Because he stayed on his topic without childish name calling.Even though we couldn't be any more different on this subject.

Oscar Levant,I hope it all works out for you.I just don't want to pay for your medical insurance through subsidies.Taxpayers foot the bill for enough programs.


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> That was the plan by design.The ones that are cheerleaders for Obamacare are the ones that aren't paying much for it,or nothing at all.Ask the millions of Americans who can't afford it.Because deductibles are too high and they make too much money.But they still can't afford healthcare.
> 
> I'm not sorry about it.Healthcare is a privilege,not a right.Who said life was fair?They were lying.
> 
> Ask most uber drivers is it fair what they're getting paid from uber.Most will say it's not fair.


If life is a privilege, why does the GOP makes such a fuss over a woman having an abortion. Seems if they're going to claim a fetus has a right to life, it should also have a right to healthcare.


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> Took a little offense there did you.None intended,my apologies.Thank goodness I have a volunteer fire department a quarter mile from my house.You don't have to pay for any of it.
> 
> Socialism is a mental disorder that must be cured.


And who paid for your "volunteer" fire department? ;-)


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> What actually happened against advice from military advisers.Obama pulled out of Iraq and left a vortex of violence.Your analogies does not help your stance.
> 
> Being wimps in the world and giving everybody medals for coming in last is why we are the way we are today.Thanks for nothing President Obama.The worst president next to Jimmy Carter.


The military can advise all they want. The reason we pulled out of Iraq is because we were told to leave.

The military also advised we going into Iraq with 5 times the force. I guess it's OK for a Republican to reject advice, but be damned if a Democrat rejects military advice?

Put down the GOP kool-aid. It's poisonous to the human brain. ;-)


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> He's smarter than me and you.Good for him,he should be paid double that.LOL


He smarter than YOU. Those who are smarter than him realize he represents nothing but a person sucking up money that could be better used for HEALING people....not just collecting a paycheck.


----------



## phillipzx3

Cole Hann said:


> Bwahahahah, Uber Corp & Lyft Inc will Not suffer because u have no health insurance. They don't care about your Health and if u get sick there are thousands of other drivers to replace u.


Reading comprehension problems? The title says the DRIVERS will be hurt.


----------



## phillipzx3

Trebor said:


> A lot of third world countries have a national plan. How could bad could it be? Iraq had free medical care under Saddam...
> 
> Do you really want the government running the health system? If doctor's are not paid well, do you think it will attract top talent?


Doctors aren't the main problem. It's the middle man who does nothing but shuffle paperwork and deny coverage whenever they can...also known as insurance companies.


----------



## Cole Hann

phillipzx3 said:


> Reading comprehension problems? The title says the DRIVERS will be hurt.


Dude, drivers and society were hurt the day drivers took their first breath and became a Burden on Society sucking up Government funding for disabled and unemployable. Low Skill Low Wage earners drag down an economy.

Effective Feb 1 TNC drivers will not be eligible for any USA Local, State or Federal Government subsidy. Need free health insurance? Move to Canada, France, Britain or Cuba, just stay O U T of My Country


----------



## phillipzx3

ZREXMike said:


> Healthcare is a for-profit business. When the gov starts messing with free enterprise, it's called socialism. Which leads to communism. I don't wanna be a communist, myself.


But you're OK with our military run by communist? How about NASA. .that other communist run outfit.

It's obvious the private sector is perfect . They only cause things like financial collapse, etc. 

Democratic socialism is nothing remotely close to communism. Why people keep spouting this as if it's true is a demonstration of their ignorance.


----------



## Cole Hann

phillipzx3 said:


> But you're OK with our military run by communist? How about NASA. .that other communist run outfit.
> 
> It's obvious the private sector is perfect . They only cause things like financial collapse, etc.
> 
> Democratic socialism is nothing remotely close to communism. Why people keep spouting this as if it's true is a demonstration of their ignorance.


Dude, you and your cat's Tin Foil Hats are Askew


----------



## phillipzx3

Cole Hann said:


> Dude, drivers and society were hurt the day drivers took their first breath and became a Burden on Society sucking up Government funding for disabled and unemployable. Low Skill Low Wage earners drag down an economy.
> 
> Effective Feb 1 TNC drivers will not be eligible for any USA Local, State or Federal Government subsidy. Need free health insurance? Move to Canada, France, Britain or Cuba, just stay O U T of My Country


What does that have to do with the fact the thread title says DRIVERS are the ones who will be hurt? Not Uber or Lyft.

I already have free health care I'm perfectly happy with. I receive it for serving in our military. And you think I'm the one who should pack up and leave? Guess again, leg. ;-)


----------



## phillipzx3

Cole Hann said:


> Dude, you and your cat's Tin Foil Hats are Askew


So the military is under private sector control? That's news to me.


----------



## Malibu Joe

phillipzx3 said:


> But you're OK with our military run by communist? How about NASA. .that other communist run outfit.
> 
> It's obvious the private sector is perfect . They only cause things like financial collapse, etc.
> 
> Democratic socialism is nothing remotely close to communism. Why people keep spouting this as if it's true is a demonstration of their ignorance.


Democratic Socialism is a new term used by Socialists... they try to attach the "Socialism" word next to Democrat to just to justify Socialism.

Socialism is Socialism.. Free free free.NO THANKS


----------



## Another Uber Driver

phillipzx3 said:


> If life is a privilege


I had to laugh when Obama compared it to driving a car. "If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford to drive". I had to wonder, if I could not afford the insurance, what was I supposed to do, commit suicide? .............maybe Palin had something when she was talking about Death Boards. Considering
how the government makes more and more "choices" for me, how soon will it be before the government decides that it can make THAT choice for me, as well?



phillipzx3 said:


> Doctors aren't the problem. does nothing but shuffle paperwork and deny coverage whenever they can...insurance companies.


Do you not just HATE that? I always thought that you had to have an M.D. to practice medicine; an M.B.A, was not sufficient.



phillipzx3 said:


> What does that have to do with the fact the thread title says DRIVERS are the ones who will be hurt? Not Uber or Lyft.


Off topic and disconnected posts are characteristics of certain types of creatures who frequently dwell beneath bridges.


----------



## Honey Badger

Just the idea of Feds using the IRS to make me purchase health insurance inrages me. I am glad the mandate is going bye bye. Many ways to reduce health care cost for people. Health care is not a right and Obamacare was not sold to people as a tax .Obamacare is the biggest Ponzi scam ever and was destin to fail from the beginning. I am hopeful that a real solution to health care cost will happen.


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> There are 93+ million Americans without a job.That number dwarfs 30+ million without healthcare.
> 
> Being anti-republican will not fix the problem.For the record,I'm from a union family.What does that make me?No ad hominems required.lol


93 million out of work? You must share the same batch of "facts" from the same place Trump gets his....from his ass.


----------



## Honey Badger

phillipzx3 said:


> 93 million out of work? You must share the same batch of "facts" from the same place Trump gets his....from his ass.


All politicians are loose with the facts, both parties. The fact that the old guard in DC "both parties" hates Trump was enough to get my vote. We don't have any idea what Trump will do but at least it won't be business as usual, how can we do worst than Bush or Obama. The snowflake PC whiners need to get over it, he won and we should all hope he does a good job.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Of course you're happy,you're subsidized.You don't have any skin in the game.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/21/legacy-10-ways-barack-obama-broke-american-system/
> 
> http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...ed-with-thousands-of-dollars-in-medical-debt/
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-state-budget-quick-overview-20170112-story.html


That's interesting, you'll chastise someone who is poor who receives a subsidy, but not a peep out of you that corporate oil has higher profits than they have ever had in history, and are subsidized to the tune of billions.

I pay what I can afford, that's the design of a subsidy, to help those who cannot afford it. Breitbart is a tabloid. Bush drove America over a cliff, and though, in the last 8 years, coming out of it has been slow but steady, the guys we gave the keys to who drove the vehicle of state over the cliff are whining that dems are not pulling it out of the ditch fast enough. Not everyone on ACA is helped, and no one argues it's a perfect system. These things can be fixed, it just takes cooperation from republicans in congress.

Remember, republicans would not even be talking about, be concerned about health care but for the ACA. What have the republicans offered in terms of a health care policy that all americans can afford ( or come close as possible to it) ????

NOTHING, zilch, nada, zero in the entire history of the US.

at least dems are trying to do something about it, and it were not for Obamacare.

you got a better idea? Okay hot shot, quit whining and let's hear it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Honey Badger said:


> All politicians are loose with the facts, both parties. The fact that the old guard in DC "both parties" hates Trump was enough to get my vote. We don't have any idea what Trump will do but at least it won't be business as usual, how can we do worst than Bush or Obama. The snowflake PC whiners need to get over it, he won and we should all hope he does a good job.


he didn't win. But for a program called " interstate crosscheck", the math ( as by the evidence provided by investigative reporter Greg Palast) proves Hillary would have won the electoral college. The number of voters purged in the swing states vastly exceeded the pluralities Trump won by. Interstate crosscheck is a ruse to take democrats off the rolls, under the guise of removing voters who "voted twice". The program purges duplicate names, but middle names differ, as do titles Jr, Sr, and SSNs differ. Secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is the evil doer of this program, and he has an agenda of getting republicans elected. http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/


----------



## Oscar Levant

senorCRV said:


> We are the only country in North America who doesn't allow prostitution nationally and the highest age of consent by two years at 16.
> 
> So let's not just do what others do because they do it.


No one is suggesting doing anything just because others do it. If others do it because it is fair and just, and compassionate, then, if we do it ( and we should ) we should do it for that reason, and that reason alone.

also, as a social democrat/libertarian, I support the legalization of prostitution between consenting adults over the age of 18 because vice prohibition causes more problems than it solves, I'm also for legalization of all drugs.


----------



## Karl Marx

Another Uber Driver said:


> ..............yes, as the Originator of this "Bright Idea"................................
> 
> Many people blame the Democrats for this Nanny State policy as well as for another Nanny State policy: seat belt laws.
> 
> While it was Pell (D-Rhode Island) who invented the idea of Federal Arm Twisting over the drinking age, it was on Elizabeth Hanford Dole's (R) watch as Secretary of Transportation that the Feds began to twist the states' collective arm over Nanny-_*ER*_-uh-*SEAT* Belt Laws.
> 
> While many do call Democrats "nanny staters", they do forget that two of the worst nanny state horrors that have befallen this country had Republican backgrounds.


Luckily being from Canada where everyone pays into one pool sick or healthy. Canadians enjoy none of the pleasures of paperwork, co-payments and no one makes a profit from your illness. You simply walk to the closest clinic, hospital or GP. It just doesn't get any simpler.

I am old now but I have have had my list of medical woes. Kidney stones (painful, painful), 2 bouts of skin cancer ( I sail and play golf ), several cysts and blockage in my colin and horrific cyst in my throat, that was was most unpleasant, as well as my tonsils removed. The other amazing thing about our system is that all are physicians and hospitals are now working completely from digital patient records. One of the side benefits of this new integration is that we can now track patient outcomes based on quick diagnostics and use either surgery of personal drug therapies based on drug therapies using personal genomic sequences.

The big arguments we are now having about the state having so much personal data is that they are selling our large collective data sets to big pharma in the development of new drugs. Many professional health care workers think we should adopt the Cuban biotech model. Because of trade sanctions big Pharma was not allowed to sell drugs to Cubans so they started their own biotech industry. Reports in the WSJ, NYT's and FDA have taken notice that some of the biggest advances in cancer vaccines and cancer medications are now originating out of the Cuban Pharma Industry.

Many Americans illegally now travel to Havana for life saving medications via Pearson Airport in Toronto. The reason I know this is because I've met several families that regularly go back ( with ice coolers ) and forth to Cuba for these life saving drugs. Canadian gov't is aligning with Cuban Pharma because of our collective digital records databases. Canadians researchers can do trials and scale up drug development faster than the US because American hospitals classify their patient records and outcomes as proprietary knowledge. In other words we share and American medicine doesn't.

The one example that many of you guys that spend most of your days sitting down is prostate therapy outcomes. If you should have a diagnosis it is no longer the end of the world. Studies of non intervention and invasive procedures here in Ontario using hospital data, mandated by the federal government to be reported, showed that when men had the option of either surgery or drug therapies patient outcomes were the same. This is not to say that if you have a very aggressive cancer that you shouldn't have surgery, but in most cases surgical intervention was not the strongest predictor of best case scenarios. Two friends with prostate cancer one of whom was diagnosed 10 years ago is alive and kicking and beats me regularly at squash decided to forego the surgery as has my other friend. With history of prostate cancer in my family I do not smoke nor drink excessively. If and when my day arrives I will follow if the steps of my friends. Regular prostate checks are always the best recommendation.

This is an ongoing longitudinal study and I stay aware of what is happening from a friend who is a medical researcher who uses the D Wave computer to help hospital physicians, small biotechs and big pharma do ongoing data analysis. I am a fortunate man to not needlessly worry about myself or my family in the event of a medical issue or about horrific hospital bills or doctors invoices and better yet proud that social medicine is always there for me now and in the future. If the Canadian collective medical experience can work north of your own border why can't it work in your country?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> What I know is,Obama doubled our debt for his socialistic agenda.And the fact is,93 million Americans have no jobs.But that will change.As it is already happening.Many corporations are begging to do business with America now that Trump will be our next president.The real hope and change,please stand up.


I'll take hope and change under Obama over grope and derange under Trump.




























True, debt has risen under Obama, but it has been gradually rising exponentially since the fed was created, long before obama took office and Obama's term was an extension of that rise already set into motion.

The betters stat which is more attributable to presidential performance is the percentage change in public debt compared to other presidents? Take a look:


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> What doctors think of the ACA.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/index.html
> 
> Maybe it's fake news.It's from CNN.lol


Cherry picking. I can find as many doctors for the ACA ( admitting that it should be fixed ) as you can find doctors who are against it. I ask doctors, every chance I get, about the ACA. The one thing that stands out, is that they say it's not so much that the ACA is the problem, it's insurance companies in general. No matter what you come up with, if there are insurance companies involved, they are going to screw somebody, because that is what they do. The only way to take insurance companies out of the equation is medicare for everyone. ( the rich can pay directly, if they want ).


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> The ACA is 2700+ pages.With 10 - 20,000 pages of regulations.
> Health Care is not a Right..


Whether or not health care is a right, or a priviledge depends entirely on ONE thing:

What the voters decide.

Progressives and democrats believe that it is a right or at least it should be. 
I believe, if Trump's solution is some kind of free market BS, the voters will side with democrats in 2020. They were bamboozled this time around, and we had a weak candidate and repubs purged 1.1 democrats from voter rolls to win the election ( google Greg Palast "Crosscheck" ).


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> I believe there is a video.Where is the link?LOL


When, in the entire history of the united states, have republicans introduced a bill denying insurance companies the ability to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions?

Hint: ( never ).


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> Wow,based on your dissertation.I'm the one that's brainwashed.LOL


You just might be, ya never know. But, if you were brainwashed, you would never know it, that's the nature of being brainwashed. I know this because of my observations of relatives who are Scientologists.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> That's why Trump won.People are sick of the status quo.3 more days,oh yeah.
> 
> Like him or hate him.He beat all the professional politicians in the Republican Party to be the nominee.Then he beat the sure win Hillary.I guess it wasn't a sure win after all.lol


He didnt win, actually.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/


----------



## Oscar Levant

Cole Hann said:


> Dude, drivers and society were hurt the day drivers took their first breath and became a Burden on Society sucking up Government funding for disabled and unemployable. Low Skill Low Wage earners drag down an economy.
> 
> Effective Feb 1 TNC drivers will not be eligible for any USA Local, State or Federal Government subsidy. Need free health insurance? Move to Canada, France, Britain or Cuba, just stay O U T of My Country


Not quite true. For the bill to become the law of the land, Trump has to sign it. I doubt he will sign it without a replace bill ready to go, or so he's been saying. A replace bill will require at least 8 senate democrats to vote for it to beat a dem filibuster so the replace bill won't let you down. See, repubs have backed themselves into a corner, and they don't know how to get there from here. Until the day, I doubt they will be able to repeal it. But, of course, they seem to be bent on trying.

If they do succeed, and there is no replace bill, the repercussions of throwing 18 million off health care, and many need it to stay alive, the backlash will be so great, so intense, it would be political suicide, and the know it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republican-obamacare-repeal-crusade-starts-unravel


----------



## Oscar Levant

observer said:


> I don't think anyone has a chance of being elected unless you have a lot of money to throw around. I certainly don't. But I can and do make my opinion heard. I talk to people, tell them my point of view, listen to their point of view. I vote.
> 
> Not that I am comparing myself to them but do you think Washington, Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock were whiners? Do you think they were whining about how England treated the colonies? Change has to start somewhere and that change is having your opinion heard.
> 
> Unfortunately, none of our opinions matter anymore. Money talks. But things are changing.
> 
> A long time ago I actually was involved in local politics in one of those countries you speak of, I knew two people who were likely killed for their views. The satellite antenna was taken off the roof of my home by ARMED SOLDIERS because the government wanted to control all news.
> 
> Times change. I'm writing this in that same house, with freedom and technology undreamed of at the time. Information flows freely now, some places freer than others.
> 
> I don't really see it as "whining" I see it as constructive criticism.


Great, how about your solution? What do you think should be done? Let's hear it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

ZREXMike said:


> Healthcare is a for-profit business. When the gov starts messing with free enterprise, it's called socialism. Which leads to communism. I don't wanna be a communist, myself.


And the Strawman Argument Of The Year Award goes to ZREZMike, congrats Mike, you earned it bro !

Okay, name one democracy or democratic republic that does not have a government, and government programs, of one sort or another? You can't. All of them have varying degrees of "socialism".

But, it's a misnomer, it's not really socialism, for the definition of socialism is a where the state owns all of the means of production. None of the so-called "socialistic" countries are "socialism". True socialism is totalitarianism, and no one is advocating that.


----------



## phillipzx3

Do tell said:


> Did you hear it from a little birdie.LOL


Yup. My birdie is called "history." And historical records support the fact insurance rates went up at a faster rate PRIOR to Obamacare, than after.

Most of us are open for suggestions on how to control the *for profit* health insurance scam, and reel it back to affordable rates the average American can afford without government intervention. We know the "free market" doesn't work. So what do you suggest will fix this mess?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. My post that you quoted is Number 181. In your posts Number Forty Nine and 174 you used the word "demagogue". This means that you used it twice before I did, yet you chide me for my use of it. Oh,......wait,..............sorry, I forgot about the "progressives" and their double standard.


I would never describe someone who is not a demagogue, as a demagogue. I would, if they were. And if you could or would,, I wouldn't chastise you, either, but if you describe someone as a demagogue who is not, I would chastise you, no matter where on the timeline you did. Capiche? I didn't think so.



> 2. That is correct, so they are not too worried about making this "affordable" despite the Democrats' claim that it is. All that your statement proves is that the Democrats are selling my behind to the insurance companies and trying to tell me that it benefits me. This is another reason for my contempt for the Left: it thinks that I am stupid and can not see through its deceptions. You are hoist by your own petard in that by your statement, you know that it is not affordable for many people.


the reason, and the only reason, dems allow insurance companies into the equation is because its' a compromise. Taking them out of the equation is not something the right accept. Democrats are very mindful that ACA has problems in need of fixing, but repubs won't cooperate. You three choices: a free market system ( which cannot provide access to everyone). A mandated shared-risk plan ( it can, if it can prod everyone into signing up, and rich subsidize the poor, but repubs won't go along with that idea ), or a single payer. What dems want is single payer. There's no deceit there, we've been saying that all along. What is your solution? I'm waiting.



> 3. I have stated more than once that I live in the District of Columbia. I have stated at least once that I picked a "silver" level plan. I chose Kaiser.


 Too bad. If you had lived an CA, you'd have health care, if you are an Uber driver and that is your only source of income. I am solid evidence of that fact, my health care is $132 per month, $10 copays, $500 deductible under silver plan, Health Net. The deductible doens't kick in for preventative care. But, each state, region, has different insurance regs, so what is available in one state might not be available in another. Don't ***** the ACA, ***** the regs your state/district has.



> 4. Kaiser always was "there" for me in the past. It is one reason why I chose it, here. Kaiser worked very well for me as far as rendering services went.


No one is saying prior to the ACA, there weren't good plans. But there were tons of bad ones. The ACA strived to get rid of plans that allowed insurers to deny claims based on preexisting conditions, which they admit needs finer tuning



> 5. How is it, then, that the Republicans could not manage to stifle the so-called "Affordable" Care Act if they were as "powerful" as you claim that they were when they did not have a majority?


 Dems never had a supermajority in the Senate, well, for the vast a majority of his two terms. There was a very brief period of four months when they did, so I stand corrected:

Wikipedia

"In the Senate, the Democrats gained eight seats to hold 57 out of 100 seats. At the time, there were two Independent Senators, and each was expected to vote for the law. The Democrats needed one more seat in the Senate to gain a supermajority, which is 60 seats, and ensure that the Republicans would be unable to block the passage with a filibuster.

This 60th seat would come unexpectedly, when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat on April 28, 2009. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed the Obamacare bill by a 60 to 39 vote. It would take another three months for the House and Senate bills to be reconciled. President Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010. The supermajority only lasted four months."


> 6. You keep trying to blame everything on Rubio, fail to be specific about what he allegedly "did" then admit that there are other factors in play. The bottom line is this: I can NOT afford the premiums. I can NOT afford the fines. The deductibles are so high that I can not afford to use this thing that the government compelled me to purchase with money that I did not have. Not you; not any poster to this topic that agrees with you; not any "progressive" has managed to answer this.


 It would be simple to fix this ( a tax on the rich to ease the burden on those who are squeezed) , but no republican will cooperate. The reason they won't is the do not want Obama to succeed, or his legacy to succeed, for if they did, more people would vote democratic. You, nor any republican, in the entire history of the US, has come up with a health care plan that is accessible for all. The ACA didn't quite do it for all, but it did for 18 million more than what existed previously. That is a better state of affairs than any republican solution, which has been no solution.


> 7. As I had an ownership interest in my company that was paying out this money, it was my money that was going out. I pay attention to the money in my bank account(s) and wallet and money that I am paying, not a bunch of fancy statistics that might make someone look oh-so-informed at a wine and cheese party somewhere but have little relevance to the money that I am paying. Statistics may be marvellous for a government or some other entity that wants to plug me into an equation so that I come out reamed: in short, they plug me into an equation where two plus two equals seven.


Not sure what point you are making, other than indulging in stereotypes.


> 9. That is left-wing propaganda, nothing more. Every time that the Left rants about taxing the rich, it is my taxes that increase. I stopped believing that Left wing propaganda in 1975. I began to doubt it in 1968.


 Like I said, no progressive would raise your taxes, certainly not Bernie. We've only had moderates elected, there never has been a true progressive elected to the presidency. I've observed the chipping away of the standard of living since the 50s, when a man could earn, with one income, enough to support a family, pay a mortgage and a car payment and have some left over for savings. Concomitant and commensurate with the chipping away of the standard of living was the chipping away of the progressivity in the tax code. Progressives want to return the progressivity of the tax code. Politicians, left and right, have been unable to stand up to the powerful lobbyists. I sincerely believe that this type of thing would have ended if: 1. Bernie Sanders was elected. 2. He had control over both houses.


> 10. You are confusing "evidence" with "propaganda".


 Like I said. I'll debate it on another thread, if you want.


> 11. There goes your Left wing lockstep/beehive mentality. Anyone who disagrees with a "progressive" is automatically a tool of the extreme Right and in lockstep with it. You have that incorrect. I am what the Left hates worse than the extreme Right: someone who thinks for himself and can not be beta sigma-ed. Recall the old saw that you can not beta sigma a beta sigma-er.


That's funny, you are very willing to put words into progressives mouths. But, it's bullshit, of course. Just an opinion, you're entitled to it. The right does this type of thing all the time " the left hates freedom" etc., just because the left disagrees with the right. It's all nonsense, you sound more like that which you are accusing the left of.



> 12. I DO worry about how it affects one particular individual because I must. I must worry about how it affects me, as I must pay for it. I must worry about myself before I can start to worry about anyone else. To do otherwise is a recipe for misery and perpetual dissatisfaction.


 Fine, but you can't legislate on how it affects one person. The goal is for it to affect everyone fairly, but no new legislation rarely achieves it, it is introduced, and tweeked later on. However, the repubs of late have filibustered EVERY thing Obama proposes, they are obstructionists, not even willing to compromise. They obstruct, knowing that the population will ***** that congress can't get anything done. How can they with opposition, unprecedented in history, like that?


> 13. English translation: I can not refute your point.


No, but when you stoop to a comment like "why, because Stephanie Miller told you that?"
indicating the quality of discourse is descending towards adolescence, its' time to say "let's just disagree".,



> 14. You are confusing "right wing commentators" with DISQUS and ya-HOO! trolls. You are confusing Limbaugh with a thinking human being. In fact, Limbaugh likely is a DISQUS, Facebook and ya-HOO! troll.


 yeah, so what is it about conservative philosophy that it attracts more trolls per capita than any other? Look at the quality of the comments on Huffington Post, on the whole, and compare them with comments, say, on Ann Coulter's forum, or that of The Hill, or any right wing forum. On the right sites, its muckraking commentary ad hominems galore. The left jibes, pokes fun, calls names a bit, but its done with a lot more class -- but nothing like that on the right, you know, Pinko, liberal, I've heard it all, since 1964 when my sister's boyfriend introduced me to the John Birch Society and conspiracy theories.
]


----------



## Do tell

phillipzx3 said:


> If life is a privilege, why does the GOP makes such a fuss over a woman having an abortion. Seems if they're going to claim a fetus has a right to life, it should also have a right to healthcare.


 I wouldn't know.I'm not the GOP.



phillipzx3 said:


> And who paid for your "volunteer" fire department? ;-)


 Me and the rest of the taxpayers in my fire district.



phillipzx3 said:


> Put down the GOP kool-aid. It's poisonous to the human brain. ;-)


 I didn't know that you were psychic and know that I drink GOP Kool-Aid. All Kool-Aid is poisonous,just ask the Jones community in Guyana.


----------



## Do tell

Oh my God.I turned on my phone and it's all blown up with alerts from you.


Oscar Levant said:


> I'm done wasting this forum's time replying to your say nothing contribute nothing comments, you may
> now have the last word.


 I guess that drink I made for you didn't quench your thirst.



Oscar Levant said:


> you got a better idea? Okay hot shot, quit whining and let's hear it.


 I do have a better idea.For the sanctity of this website that I respect.I will no longer respond to your comments in this thread.I leave you my last response from me to you in this thread.Watch this video.I think it's fitting.


----------



## Do tell

Karl Marx said:


> Luckily being from Canada where everyone pays into one pool sick or healthy. Canadians enjoy none of the pleasures of paperwork, co-payments and no one makes a profit from your illness. You simply walk to the closest clinic, hospital or GP. It just doesn't get any simpler.
> 
> I am old now but I have have had my list of medical woes. Kidney stones (painful, painful), 2 bouts of skin cancer ( I sail and play golf ), several cysts and blockage in my colin and horrific cyst in my throat, that was was most unpleasant, as well as my tonsils removed. The other amazing thing about our system is that all are physicians and hospitals are now working completely from digital patient records. One of the side benefits of this new integration is that we can now track patient outcomes based on quick diagnostics and use either surgery of personal drug therapies based on drug therapies using personal genomic sequences.
> 
> The big arguments we are now having about the state having so much personal data is that they are selling our large collective data sets to big pharma in the development of new drugs. Many professional health care workers think we should adopt the Cuban biotech model. Because of trade sanctions big Pharma was not allowed to sell drugs to Cubans so they started their own biotech industry. Reports in the WSJ, NYT's and FDA have taken notice that some of the biggest advances in cancer vaccines and cancer medications are now originating out of the Cuban Pharma Industry.
> 
> Many Americans illegally now travel to Havana for life saving medications via Pearson Airport in Toronto. The reason I know this is because I've met several families that regularly go back ( with ice coolers ) and forth to Cuba for these life saving drugs. Canadian gov't is aligning with Cuban Pharma because of our collective digital records databases. Canadians researchers can do trials and scale up drug development faster than the US because American hospitals classify their patient records and outcomes as proprietary knowledge. In other words we share and American medicine doesn't.
> 
> The one example that many of you guys that spend most of your days sitting down is prostate therapy outcomes. If you should have a diagnosis it is no longer the end of the world. Studies of non intervention and invasive procedures here in Ontario using hospital data, mandated by the federal government to be reported, showed that when men had the option of either surgery or drug therapies patient outcomes were the same. This is not to say that if you have a very aggressive cancer that you shouldn't have surgery, but in most cases surgical intervention was not the strongest predictor of best case scenarios. Two friends with prostate cancer one of whom was diagnosed 10 years ago is alive and kicking and beats me regularly at squash decided to forego the surgery as has my other friend. With history of prostate cancer in my family I do not smoke nor drink excessively. If and when my day arrives I will follow if the steps of my friends. Regular prostate checks are always the best recommendation.
> 
> This is an ongoing longitudinal study and I stay aware of what is happening from a friend who is a medical researcher who uses the D Wave computer to help hospital physicians, small biotechs and big pharma do ongoing data analysis. I am a fortunate man to not needlessly worry about myself or my family in the event of a medical issue or about horrific hospital bills or doctors invoices and better yet proud that social medicine is always there for me now and in the future. If the Canadian collective medical experience can work north of your own border why can't it work in your country?


Wow,you have a lot to say.But coming from someone that has an avatar of a revolutionary socialist.I wouldn't expect anything less.

For me to properly respond to your post.I did a quick Google search with two questions.
1. What is right with Canadian Health Care?
2. What is wrong with Canadian Healthcare?
Here are the top links that Google gave me.I'll let you figure out which links are for what is right and what is wrong with Canadian Health Care.I purposely mixed up these links for transparency.You figure out which one is which.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

https://www.city-journal.org/html/ugly-truth-about-canadian-health-care-13032.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...re-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#ab5c8bb290dd

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37603883

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3733080

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4065817

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...eral-provincial-health-care-fight-walkom.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WhatsRight_CanadaHC.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3350591?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10526550

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinio...s-gone-wrong-with-canada-s-health-care-system

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/canadian-rangers-arctic-patrol-reserves-1.3938299

http://m.winnipegsun.com/2017/01/17/canadas-health-care-double-standard

http://m.northwestgeorgianews.com/c...914-ddb8-11e6-9b71-6bcfce360295.html?mode=jqm

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/why-...stop-being-scared-by-health-stories-1.3942951

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybo...e-for-bloated-health-care-costs/#7d60d67428b2

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...ggest-threat-to-canadian-medicare-walkom.html

https://www.thestar.com/life/2017/0...-scale-changes-to-the-health-care-system.html

http://www.macleans.ca/society/what-a-blood-plasma-for-profit-clinic-means-for-public-heath-care/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit.../pharmaceuticals-canada-cheaper-not-dangerous

http://blog.independent.org/2017/01/19/senator-sanders-there-is-no-right-to-health-care-in-canada/

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org

I did read each and every one of these articles.So I can be more educated.Because that's the way my brain works.And remember,don't drink the Kool-Aid.Jim Jones might have poured it for you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

senorCRV said:


> We are the only country in North America who doesn't allow prostitution nationally and the highest age of consent by two years at 16.


Not exactly.

Exactly like the US, Canada has found no constitutional grounds for banning prostitution. In Canada, its laws have been written (and recently re-written) to make just about everything involved in prostitution illegal: 
IT IS LEGAL to communicate with the intention of selling sex, in some circumstances.
IT IS ILLEGAL to sell sex near any area where a person under 18 years of age could reasonably be expected to be present.
IT IS ILLEGAL to purchase sexual services.
IT IS LEGAL, technically, to advertise your own services.
IT IS ILLEGAL to advertise the sale of others' sexual services.​[source: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/what-is-and-is-not-legal-under-canadas-new-200231637.html]

And, "prostitution in Mexico has been regulated since 1885. Today it is decriminalized under governmental supervision, but the laws vary by state. 13 of the 31 states of Mexico regulate prostitution. Prostitution involving minors under 18 is illegal."

What do all three countries have in common? They all recognize that their respective constitutions prohibit their federal government from outlawing individual personal liberties. States, on the other hand, can regulate the hell out of those activities.

While the age of consent in Canada is 16, in Mexico "the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18*".*


----------



## Do tell

phillipzx3 said:


> Yup. My birdie is called "history." And historical records support the fact insurance rates went up at a faster rate PRIOR to Obamacare, than after.
> 
> Most of us are open for suggestions on how to control the *for profit* health insurance scam, and reel it back to affordable rates the average American can afford without government intervention. We know the "free market" doesn't work. So what do you suggest will fix this mess?


Early in this thread.I did suggest what would fix this mess.I will repeat it here for you.Because you kindly ask.

It's called the free market without regulations so there can be open competition.If a doctor had to compete for my business and your business and everyone else's business.Believe me,healthcare would be more affordable.Socialized medicine will never work in a open free society.But that's what the left wants.To take mine and your freedoms away.And dictate how we should live.

I hope you can appreciate my point of view as I appreciate yours.Peace be with you and your family.God Bless America. 



. 
I'm extremely proud of my dad's generation and what they did for all the freedoms we enjoy today.But they're being stripped away by radical socialism.


----------



## Honey Badger

Oscar Levant said:


> he didn't win. But for a program called " interstate crosscheck", the math ( as by the evidence provided by investigative reporter Greg Palast) proves Hillary would have won the electoral college. The number of voters purged in the swing states vastly exceeded the pluralities Trump won by. Interstate crosscheck is a ruse to take democrats off the rolls, under the guise of removing voters who "voted twice". The program purges duplicate names, but middle names differ, as do titles Jr, Sr, and SSNs differ. Secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is the evil doer of this program, and he has an agenda of getting republicans elected. http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/


Blah blah blah both dems and republicans are two sides of the same coin. Neither has our best interest in mind. The dems screwed themselves by nominating Clinton. Feds taking over a 1/5 of the economy and shoving scocialized health care down our throats is one of many reasons we have Trump. The pendulum will swing it always does.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> If a doctor had to compete for my business and your business and everyone else's business. Believe me,healthcare would be more affordable.


 Perfect - let people get their healthcare form the lowest bidder. Uber MED anyone?


> Socialized medicine will never work in a open free society.


 You actually just said that? "
Virtually all of Europe has either publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care or publicly provided universal healthcare."
Ever hear of Canada or Mexico?


----------



## Karl Marx

Do tell said:


> Wow,you have a lot to say.But coming from someone that has an avatar of a revolutionary socialist.I wouldn't expect anything less.
> 
> For me to properly respond to your post.I did a quick Google search with two questions.
> 1. What is right with Canadian Health Care?
> 2. What is wrong with Canadian Healthcare?
> Here are the top links that Google gave me
> I'll let you figure out which links are for what is right and what is wrong with Canadian Health Care.I purposely mixed up these links for transparency.You figure out which one is which.
> 
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
> 
> https://www.city-journal.org/html/ugly-truth-about-canadian-health-care-13032.html
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...re-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#ab5c8bb290dd
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37603883
> 
> http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3733080
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4065817
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...eral-provincial-health-care-fight-walkom.html
> 
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WhatsRight_CanadaHC.html
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3350591?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10526550
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinio...s-gone-wrong-with-canada-s-health-care-system
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/canadian-rangers-arctic-patrol-reserves-1.3938299
> 
> http://m.winnipegsun.com/2017/01/17/canadas-health-care-double-standard
> 
> http://m.northwestgeorgianews.com/c...914-ddb8-11e6-9b71-6bcfce360295.html?mode=jqm
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/why-...stop-being-scared-by-health-stories-1.3942951
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybo...e-for-bloated-health-care-costs/#7d60d67428b2
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...ggest-threat-to-canadian-medicare-walkom.html
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/life/2017/0...-scale-changes-to-the-health-care-system.html
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/society/what-a-blood-plasma-for-profit-clinic-means-for-public-heath-care/
> 
> http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit.../pharmaceuticals-canada-cheaper-not-dangerous
> 
> http://blog.independent.org/2017/01/19/senator-sanders-there-is-no-right-to-health-care-in-canada/
> 
> http://www.canadian-healthcare.org
> 
> I did read each and every one of these articles.So I can be more educated.Because that's the way my brain works.And remember,don't drink the Kool-Aid.Jim Jones might have poured it for you.


Canadian medicare is under constant threat, we are not immune to partisan politics. However, it is almost a covenant between centrist and left leaning politicians and the Canadian people that we in no way will relent to a unfettered free market health care model, at least for the for seeable future. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservative provincial politicians are not immune to lobbyists. Capitalism is always searching for ways to dent social medicine's health care covenant. Neoliberal Capitalism is in its death throes but in its' place we have witnessed a replacement in the form of populism, both here and throughout western and former eastern european countries. Obviously capitalism has some serious challenges and its biggest problem will be redistribution and eliminating the enormous gap between rich and poor. Canada and two Scandinavian countries have already experiments in place as a guaranteed income. Right and left wing think tanks in the US and throughout Europe are all readying themselves to this bold experiment. As technology advances even out and disinter-mediate out entire sectors of whats left of industrial capitalism. If 20 million Americans think they will be keeping their present health care policies they're sadly misinformed. The chaos that will result will once again make Americans realize they live in a failed capitalist system. Our heartfelt condolences to the American people.


----------



## Do tell

phillipzx3 said:


> 93 million out of work? You must share the same batch of "facts" from the same place Trump gets his....from his ass.


Those statistics are from the Bureau of Labor.Unless you think the Bureau of Labor is from the keister.

https://www.bls.gov/mobile/


----------



## Do tell

Karl Marx said:


> Canadian medicare is under constant threat, we are not immune to partisan politics. However, it is almost a covenant between centrist and left leaning politicians and the Canadian people that we in no way will relent to a unfettered free market health care model, at least for the for seeable future. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservative provincial politicians are not immune to lobbyists. Capitalism is always searching for ways to dent social medicine's health care covenant. Neoliberal Capitalism is in its death throes but in its' place we have witnessed a replacement in the form of populism, both here and throughout western and former eastern european countries. Obviously capitalism has some serious challenges and its biggest problem will be redistribution and eliminating the enormous gap between rich and poor. Canada and two Scandinavian countries have already experiments in place as a guaranteed income. Right and left wing think tanks in the US and throughout Europe are all readying themselves to this bold experiment. As technology advances even out and disinter-mediate out entire sectors of whats left of industrial capitalism. If 20 million Americans think they will be keeping their present health care policies they're sadly misinformed. The chaos that will result will once again make Americans realize they live in a failed capitalist system. Our heartfelt condolences to the American people.


You do mean comrades,right.


----------



## Karl Marx

Do tell said:


> Early in this thread.I did suggest what would fix this mess.I will repeat it here for you.Because you kindly ask.
> 
> It's called the free market without regulations so there can be open competition.If a doctor had to compete for my business and your business and everyone else's business.Believe me,healthcare would be more affordable.Socialized medicine will never work in a open free society.But that's what the left wants.To take mine and your freedoms away.And dictate how we should live.
> 
> I hope you can appreciate my point of view as I appreciate yours.Peace be with you and your family.God Bless America.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I'm extremely proud of my dad's generation and what they did for all the freedoms we enjoy today.But they're being stripped away by radical socialism.


You can sing GBA as much as you like but it will never help you when you have a serious abdominal blockage at 2 AM in a nasty snowstorm. Picked up by snowmobile and wheeled into the emergency room and surgery and without my health card. I thank Tommy Douglas for the personal sacrifice he made in fighting the doctors in Saskatchewan. He is considered are Abraham Lincoln of Social Medicine.http://www.canadashistory.ca/Magazine/Online-Exclusive/Articles/History-Idol--Tommy-Douglas.aspx


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> Do you refute any info in this video?


Seriously?

"President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."  - Donald J. Trump 9/16


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> Those statistics are from the Bureau of Labor.Unless you think the Bureau of Labor is from the keister.
> 
> https://www.bls.gov/mobile/


They are also completely misrepresented as used...
and the BoLs own documentation and reports state as much (as I've previously posted in this thread - here are the details) -and you have yet to refute any of that information - but still continue to say the same insane thing.


----------



## Do tell

Karl Marx said:


> You can sing GBA as much as you like but it will never help you when you have a serious abdominal blockage at 2 AM in a nasty snowstorm. Picked up by snowmobile and wheeled into the emergency room and surgery and without my health card. I thank Tommy Douglas for the personal sacrifice he made in fighting the doctors in Saskatchewan. He is considered are Abraham Lincoln of Social Medicine.http://www.canadashistory.ca/Magazine/Online-Exclusive/Articles/History-Idol--Tommy-Douglas.aspx


Wow,you put Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence of social medicine.After reading your comments.You didn't read a single one of the articles.


----------



## Karl Marx

Do tell said:


> You do mean comrades,right.


I don't care what they call us as long as we get decent health care. My doctor couldn't care less if I was a liberal, conservative or socialist.


----------



## Karl Marx

Do tell said:


> Wow,you put Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence of social medicine.After reading your comments.You didn't read a single one of them articles.


Dude, I spent over 30 years in the health care industry. Also helped pioneer the introduction of analytical genomics to undergraduate medical students after the human genome was sequenced in 2001. I think I speak and write with not just authority but real hands on experience.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

This has devolved into troll-feeding.


----------



## Karl Marx

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This has devolved into troll-feeding.


I am terrified that Americans have fallen into a demented psychotic world of fantasy. We need to help them from devolving into anarchy and social collapse. We all need to say a prayer for them.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Karen Stein said:


> That article isn't news, it's a simple editorial advocating the religious views of the author.
> 
> "Obama Care" is more accurately described as the UN-affordable care act. The very folks the act purports to help now have a choice: pay the fine, or bankrupt yourself buying insurance with a deductible so high you can never use it.
> 
> To steal a phrase from Hilary, the Supre me Court got it wrong. This country, our society was founded on the exact opposite concept, one of severely limited government.
> 
> "Our way" tamed a continent and advanced us from colonial backwater to world power in record time. It's time to return to our roots.


Then why do I pay for anything I don't use? I don't expect my house to burn down. I'm careful, I have smoke detectors. Why should I pay for a fire department I'll never use?

There but for the grace of God...


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

senorCRV said:


> People who have Obamacare have no idea what real health insurance was and now isn't.


People in this country have no idea what it's like to get sick and not have to wonder how they'll pay for a doctor.

Insurance or no.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> He didnt win, actually.


By the rules on the books at the time, he did. Yes, I followed the link. More propaganda from the Left, or should I call them "alternative facts"?



Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *I would never describe someone who is not a demagogue, as a demagogue. if you describe someone as a demagogue who is not, I would chastise you, no matter where on the timeline you did. Capiche? I didn't think so.
> 
> *2. *the reason, and the only reason, dems allow insurance companies into the equation is because its' a compromise. Taking them out of the equation is not something the right accept.
> 
> *3. *Democrats are very mindful that ACA has problems in need of fixing, but repubs won't cooperate. What dems want is single payer. There's no deceit there, we've been saying that all along.
> 
> *4. *What is your solution? I'm waiting.
> 
> *5. *If you had lived an CA, you'd have health care, if you are an Uber driver and that is your only source of income. I am solid evidence of that fact, my health care is $132 per month, $10 copays, $500 deductible under silver plan, Health Net. The deductible doens't kick in for preventative care. But, each state, region, has different insurance regs, so what is available in one state might not be available in another. Don't ***** the ACA, ***** the regs your state/district has.
> 
> *6. *No one is saying prior to the ACA, there weren't good plans. But there were tons of bad ones.
> 
> *7. *Wikipedia
> 
> *8. *Not sure what point you are making, other than indulging in stereotypes.
> 
> *9. *Like I said, no progressive would raise your taxes, certainly not Bernie. We've only had moderates elected, there never has been a true progressive elected to the presidency.
> 
> *10. *That's funny, you are very willing to put words into progressives mouths.
> 
> *11. *But, it's bullshit, of course.
> 
> *12. * Fine, but you can't legislate on how it affects one person.
> 
> *13. *No, but when you stoop to a comment like "why, because Stephanie Miller told you that?".,
> 
> *14. * yeah, so what is it about conservative philosophy that it attracts more trolls per capita than any other?
> 
> *15.*Look at the quality of the comments on Huffington Post, on the whole, and compare them with comments, say, on Ann Coulter's forum, or that of The Hill, or any right wing forum. On the right sites, its muckraking commentary ad hominems galore.
> 
> *16. *The left jibes, pokes fun, calls names a bit, but its done with a lot more class -- but nothing like that on the right, you know, Pinko, liberal,


1. Clinton is a left wing demagogue and if you believe otherwise you are just what the Left wants: a duped patsy. If there is anything that the Left hates it is someone who actually thinks critically.

2. How do you propose to provide insurance without an insurance company? I am waiting.

3. You keep blaming the Republicans for something that the Democrats created, That dog will not fight; never would, does not and never will.

4. I have stated more than once that it is not my job to come up with a solution. I voted for these people because they told me that they had a solution. They lied. If you want me to solve it, you can be my campaign manager and I can run for office. Too bad that the the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress, even though we pay Federal income tax.

5. I do not live in California, so that is irrelevant. My state created this in response to the Federal Legislation. It does not work, it never has and I have every indication that it never will.

6. There were good and bad, but your previous statements have characterised all of them as bad.

7. Wikipedia is not the best "authority" to cite. I know another poster to these Boards whom you might like. He offers Google pages as evidence then criticises someone else who does the same, even if it is done in mockery of him.

8. You can read the point, easily. I pay attention to the money that goes out of my pocket, not statistics. Statistics mean nothing to me. Reality does. What part of that escapes you?

9. People who claim the title of "progressive"" do raise my taxes. You can say what you will, I know what goes into and out of my bank account and what gets deducted from my paychecks. Names and statistics mean little, if anything to me. What comes out of my check and bank account means quite a bit. As for Presidents and raising taxes, they can not do it; Congress must do that. I had to know that to pass the California State Civics Examination in 1969. Back then, you did not get out of eighth grade in California if you did not pass that examination.

10. I simply repeat what the "progressives" call me when I disagree with them on the slightest point. If that accusation were to stand, then I could accuse you, on the same grounds of putting words into "conservatives'" mouths. I refrain from doing that because I am not a conservative, so I do not care what you call them. Remember, it is important to avoid that trap into which the Left so frequently and easily falls: assuming that anyone who disagrees with it on even the slightest matter is in automatic lockstep with the extreme Right.

11. You have just described your post.

12. ............but I can and will oppose and criticise anything that affects me adversely. If you think that I am going to cheer something that affects me adversely just because it benefits all of these other people, you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment. Further, you have admitted that I _*ain't*_ the only one whom the We Are Telling You That You Can Afford This "Health Care" Act has harmed. You do not legislate something that harms a large group of people in the United States of America. You might do that in China or Venezuela, but not here.

13. It was a question. Answer it, if you can. If you can not, state that.

14. You do have to admit that it is the liberals who are so easily offended. Do keep in mind that the purpose of the troll is to attract attention to himself, elicit reactions and make people so angry that they start tripping over their own words. How best do you do this? Offend them. It is very easy to offend a "progressive". They are the most thin-skinned as a group that I have encountered, ever. That is why you see and hear from so many "right wing" trolls. If even twenty five per-cent of them believed even ten per-cent of what they posted, I would be surprised. A troll will post anything if he thinks it will elicit a reaction.

15. Yes, I know. Calling people who disagree with you "racist", "sexist", "nazi", _________________________(fill in appropriate "superlative", here) is not _*ad hominem*_; calling people "snowflakes", "whiners" and "guilty white liberals" is. That is the old double standard of the Left coming into play, yet again. I have seen just that kind of quality on the Huffington Post. Ariana Huffington and Anne Coulter make the same use of "alternate facts" and are nothing but Left and Right wing propaganda, respectively. Anyone who relies on either for programming is going to a good source.

16. I know, the Left uses "nazi", "racist", "contard", "tea-bagger", "religious whack-0" and "fundiecon", which have more "class", because the Left's double standard says so. What is really funny is the use of the first epithet. As the Left is oh-so-politically correct, it subscribes to such politically
correct claptrap as Godwin's Law. Thus, by the Left's own rules, it loses the argument by default when it employs the first epithet.........or does the Left's double standard give it a pass on that one, too?


----------



## Do tell

Another Uber Driver said:


> I pay attention to the money that goes out of my pocket, not statistics. Statistics mean nothing to me. Reality does.


 La La Land must be a nice place,but I live in reality as well.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Names and statistics mean little, if anything to me. What comes out of my check and bank account means quite a bit.


 Exactly



Another Uber Driver said:


> I can and will oppose and criticise anything that affects me adversely. If you think that I am going to cheer something that affects me adversely just because it benefits all of these other people, you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment.


 Here here.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You do have to admit that it is the liberals who are so easily offended.


To the point where it's sickening.


Another Uber Driver said:


> A troll will post anything if he thinks it will elicit a reaction.


 I really enjoy this website.But the troll baiters are strong here.

My opinion is based on the posts you have written on this website.I admire your tact and handling of discussions.As a fellow American.I will never lose hope when I read posts from fellow Americans as yourself.

Do you belong to the Society of Odd Fellows?lol
I'm an Odd Fellow.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> He does pay for the Fire Department. Please do not tell me that "progressives" have forgotten all about something called "taxes", you know, the "progressives' " universal solution to all problems: taxes, Taxes, TAXES, *TAXES* and *MORE TAXES*


And the conservative's solution of debt, _Debt, DEBT, *DEBT, *and_* MORE DEBT* is better?
How did that work out for us during Reagan and Bush?
Trickle Down my arse... stay tuned folks - I believe more of the same is on our way.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Karl Marx said:


> I am terrified that Americans have fallen into a demented psychotic world of fantasy. We need to help them from devolving into anarchy and social collapse. We all need to say a prayer for them.


If prayer works, then why do we need ANY healthcare? Shouldn't all the believers be like the Christian Scientists or Jehovahs Witnesses or whatever the sect is that rejects medicine and instead prays?

I always like it when a believer borrows my ibuprofen and tells me 30 minutes later "Thank God my headache is gone!"


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And the conservative's solution of debt, _Debt, DEBT, *DEBT, *and_* MORE DEBT* is better? How did that work out for us during Reagan ? Trickle Down my arse...


I do not know, ask the conservatives; I am not a conservative. What I know is that I pay too much in taxes and too many taxes and get little, if anything for it. I pay so much in and so many taxes that I can not pay to look out for my own behind. I can not even pay for this "Health Care" that the Democrats tell me that I can afford.

I tend to be harder on the Left than the Right because the Left claims to be "for me" then demonstrates that it is for anyone _*but*_ me. I _*ain't*_ the only one who feels this way, although I did not resort to the extreme that some of my fellow travellers did. The Right, on the other hand, is always out for the fatcats, so I do not expect any better from it. I did not buy that "trickle down" talk when Rappin' Ronnie talked it, I do not buy it now and it would take some hard work to sell it to me, to-morrow.

Each side seems to think that the Americans voted them in because they subscribe to their agenda (remember Dubb'ya and his "political capital"?). _*NO, morons*_, we did not vote you in to ram your agenda down our collective throat, we voted out the other guys because that is what they were doing. We voted you in to govern and govern properly, now do the job that we elected you to do. Neither side listens, so it gets voted out every four, six or eight years.

I suppose that I should be glad that they get voted out, here, whereas in Egypt, they get kicked out with widespread rioting and military intervention. In fact, when the people in Egypt were rioting over the Muslim Brotherhood, they told them that they did not vote in the Muslim Brotherhood so that it could impose its agenda on Egyptians, they voted in the Muslim Brotherhood because they were tired of the misrule and corruption of the military.

After four, six or eight years of misrule by one party, people get tired of it and figure that anything has to be better than what they have.


----------



## Do tell

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And the conservative's solution of debt, _Debt, DEBT, *DEBT, *and_* MORE DEBT* is better?
> How did that work out for us during Reagan and Bush?
> Trickle Down my arse... stay tuned folks - I believe more of the same is on our way.


Ending the Cold War was not cheap.But I guess you would rather have communism and socialism instead.Thank God for Ronald Reagan,a true American. 



 What did we get with Obama's 10 trillion dollar debt? Obamacare,that working Americans can't afford.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not know, ask the conservatives; I am not a conservative.


oh - ok... so now I'll play your game: I never said you were a conservative - and I never asked if you were a conservative. I just rephrased your assertion from the opposite side of the spectrum: when congress doesn't pay for what they spend (through taxes) then we get debt.


Another Uber Driver said:


> What I know is that I pay too much in taxes and too many taxes and get little, if anything for it.


Hey, I *feel* the same way, but...
You know who pays higher taxes? Pretty much every other western nation.

All of these countries have tax rates of 49%-59% (an d the Danes are '_the happiest people in the world_')
Aruba
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Japan
Great Britain/UK
Finalnd

< vent >
And the prices we pay for goods, including fuel, are lower than in all of those countries. We also have inflation rates that are good for business and manageable for consumers and interest rates still at historical lows. We have a Starbucks and McDonalds on every corner, an unemployment rate and a GDP growth rate that (even if lower than we'd like) remains the envy of all first world nations. We have the best politicians that money can buy (which ain't sayin' much - and allows money to buy politicians and political power - no different than in any democracy)... and we have Kit-Kats!
We have a public school system so bad that it forces all parents who can manage it to send their kids to private schools - which helps employ more teachers and put more $ into the hands of politicians and education privateers. We have a for-profit health care system that sometimes help people, but mostly lines the pockets of insurance companies, the pharma industry and the medical devices industry. And we've got great National Parks - that you have to pay to use at times. Did I mention our fabulous high-speed rail system? Oh, that's right, we don't have one. And our great roads? You know, the ones that need to be rebuilt every year because we build them with the cheapest materials so that we can rebuild them each year (can you say 'jobs program?'...​< /vent >


> I pay so much in and so many taxes that I can not pay to look out for my own behind. I can not even pay for this "Health Care" that the Democrats tell me that I can afford.


I'm in the same boat - and I wouldn't be surprised if most of us here are, too. But I was never told it would be easy ... however, just as that famous (to some of us) West Wing episode illustrated: that's okay - I don't mind working hard. But I'd like it all just to be a little easier. I don't mind contributing to help people who have less than I do (less economic advantage, less educational opportunity, less food, less mobility, less political power) - I want to help them and I don't mind doing it through taxes. But I don't want to spend 50% of my income helping others when those whose wealth exceeds mine by 1,000% or 10,000% pay less than 12% of their income to support our community as a whole.

*20 People Now Own As Much Wealth as Half of All Americans*
And that's from two years ago.


> Each side seems to think that the Americans voted them in because they subscribe to their agenda (remember Dubb'ya and his "political capital"?). _*NO, morons*_, we did not vote you in to ram your agenda down our collective throat, we voted out the other guys because that is what they were doing. We voted you in to govern and govern properly, now do the job that we elected you to do. Neither side listens, so it gets voted out every four, six or eight years... After four, six or eight years of misrule by one party, people get tired of it and figure that anything has to be better than what they have.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> What did we get with Obama's 10 trillion dollar debt? Obamacare,that working Americans can't afford.


Of course, if the economy and world financial systems had not tanked under GW Bush, the US would not have had the to spend what it did under Obama 
(but why let the facts in your way)
Everything below is in addition to bringing about the smallest federal government in 30 years.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
*1. Passed Health Care Reform*
After five presidents over the course of a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. More than twenty million Americans have gained coverage since the passage of the law, which provides subsidies for Americans to buy coverage, expands Medicaid eligibility, and prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. The uninsured rate has dropped from 16 percent in 2010 to 9 percent in 2015. The law also mandates free preventive care, allows young people to stay on their parents' policies up to age twenty-six, and imposes a ban on annual and lifetime caps on benefits.
*2. Rescued the Economy*
Signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid the most severe downturn since the Great Depression. As of October 2016, the economy had added 15.5 million new jobs since early 2010 and set a record with seventy-three straight months of private-sector job growth. The unemployment rate, which hit a sustained peak of about 10 percent in 2009, has dropped to 4.6 percent as of November 2016.
*3. Passed Wall Street Reform
4. Negotiated a Deal to Block A Nuclear Iran
5. Secured U.S. Commitment to a Global Agreement on Climate Change
6. Eliminated Osama bin Laden
7. Ended U.S. Combat Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan
8. Turned Around the U.S. Auto Industry*
In 2009, injected $62 billion (on top of the $13.4 billion in loans from the George W. Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. By December 2014, the car companies had repaid $70.4 billion of the funds, and the Center for Automotive Research estimated that 2.5 million jobs were saved.
*9. Repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
10. Supported Federal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
11. Reversed Bush Torture Policies
12. Established Rules to Limit Carbon Emissions from Power Plants
13. Normalized Relations with Cuba
14. Put Medicare on Sounder Financial Footing*
Slowed the growth of health care spending through cost-saving measures enacted as part of the ACA, ensuring the solvency of Medicare's principal trust fund through 2028.
*15. Protected DREAMers from Deportation
16. Established Net Neutrality
17. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
18. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards
19. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Funding
20. Improved America's Image Abroad
21. Left His Mark on the Federal Judiciary
22. Diversified the Federal Bureaucracy
23. Passed Fair Sentencing Act
24. Revived the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division
25. Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
26. Gave the FDA the Power to Regulate Tobacco
27. Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense
28. Kick-started Clean Energy Investment
29. Reduced the Threat from Nuclear Weapons
30. Passed Credit Card Reforms
31. Cut Veteran Homelessness by Half
32. Enacted Government Surveillance Reform
33. Expanded Overtime Pay
34. Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges
35. Cut the Deficit
36. Created the College Scorecard
37. Improved School Nutrition
38. Expanded the Definition of Hate Crimes
39. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
40. Strengthened Women's Right to Fair Pay
41. Secured the Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria
42. Protected LGBTQ Americans From Employment Discrimination
43. Reduced Discrimination Against Former Prisoners in Federal Hiring
44. Won Major Victories Against Housing and Mortgage Discrimination
45. Expanded Broadband Coverage
46. Expanded Health Coverage for Children
47. Improved Food Safety
48. Let the Space Shuttle Die and Killed the Planned Moon Mission
49. Rebuilt and Fortified the Gulf Coast post-Katrina*


----------



## PremiumSELECTion

There is no financial gain in a cure!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

PremiumSELECTion said:


> There is no financial gain in a cure!


well, there is - but it's a long-term gain in GDP - and we're a short-term gain society right now.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> By the rules on the books at the time, he did. Yes, I followed the link. More propaganda from the Left, or should I call them "alternative facts"?


Interstate Crosscheck is a verifiable fact. You can deny it, but it is a fact. it is also a fact that Kris Kobach ran the program,
and only red states cooperated. 1.1 million voters, asians, hispanics, blacks, were purged. Not progranda, sorry.
A fact is not propaganda. Obviously, you don't know what propranda means.



> 1. Clinton is a left wing demagogue and if you believe otherwise you are just what the Left wants: a duped patsy. If there is anything that the Left hates it is someone who actually thinks critically.


Which, of course, is what real propoganda looks like, weasel words, loaded phrases, ad hominems, etc, and no effort
to counter arguments made with evidence, and/or compelling logic.



> 2. How do you propose to provide insurance without an insurance company? I am waiting.


 Progressives favor medicare for all ( for those who cannot afford private health care or private health care insurance, that is your answer. The other alternative, a grand compromise, is a mandate spreading the risk across the board, charging according to ability to pay. ACA needs lots or work, and dems admit it.



> 3. You keep blaming the Republicans for something that the Democrats created, That dog will not fight; never would, does not and never will.


No I was not. I was blaming republicans for their unwillingness to fix the inequities in the ACA, the basic idea of which, mandated enrollment as a means of spreading risk evenly and lowering costs, now that you mention, was inspired by a republican bill, verisimilar, introduced 1993 and RomneyCare in Mass.



> 4. I have stated more than once that it is not my job to come up with a solution. I voted for these people because they told me that they had a solution. They lied. If you want me to solve it, you can be my campaign manager and I can run for office. Too bad that the the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress, even though we pay Federal income tax.


 yeah, "not my job" the eternal cop out, --- people like you are tall on complaining, but short on solutions. I'm perfectly willing to offer my solutions, though I'm not running for office.


> 5. I do not live in California, so that is irrelevant. My state created this in response to the Federal Legislation. It does not work, it never has and I have every indication that it never will.


 It works for people like me, which number quite a few million, so it proves it can work. For those that don't, there is no reason it can't be improved, but, of course, republicans don't want Obama to succeed, so they won't lift a finger to help Obama and his ACA. But, again, the ACA is a compromise, progressives such as myself want medicare for everyone that cannot afford private health care, the tax burden of which to fall only on those who can actually afford to pay taxes.



> 6. There were good and bad, but your previous statements have characterised all of them as bad.


 Prior to the ACA, The truth is there is no way to know if they were bad or good ( unless you hired a lawyer to read the fine print ), insofar as the long term, you just had to wait and see if you had a catastrophic illness and file a claim and pray your insurer would cover you. What good is insurance if it is crapshoot? The whole point of insurance is to allow you to sleep at night. Most insurers would deny claims if you had a pre-existing condition. So, most were a crap shoot, prior to the ACA, it was a state of health care where you didn't realize your insurer would drop you until years later, whereupon the subpoena your health records, and discover you violated the fine print, had a pre-existing condition, etc, the fine print of which no one reads, and deny your claim for some catastrophic illness you might get years later. There was a 60 minutes episode on this. With the advent of the ACA, this can no longer happen. This is an added value, and, as such, will increase the value of insurance, but it offset as long as the risk is spread along a long pool, such as everyone in the US.


> 7. Wikipedia is not the best "authority" to cite. I know another poster to these Boards whom you might like. He offers Google pages as evidence then criticises someone else who does the same, even if it is done in mockery of him.


Yes, and no. Care must be exercised when quoting wiki. 


> 8. You can read the point, easily. I pay attention to the money that goes out of my pocket, not statistics. Statistics mean nothing to me. Reality does. What part of that escapes you?


 Indulging in stereotypes isn't reality. I'm debating whether or not ACA is a good policy, not whether or not it works for you. Of course, many are going to make their vote based on whether or not it works for them. Fine, but from the viewpoint of a policy maker, which is what I strive to do, is try to understand whether or not the ACA is doing more good than harm, and if it is, and it is, quite significantly, to the tune of 18 million ( versus a few million it doesn't work for nearly as well ), then it's worth fixing. Sure, the policy makers should listen to people like yourself, but your issue with it isnt a valid reason, by itself, to toss about the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. But, of course, complainers like you refuse to even consider the broader picture, just complain, and have no solutions yourself, and hide behind the cop out that "its' not my job".


> 9. People who claim the title of "progressive"" do raise my taxes. You can say what you will, I know what goes into and out of my bank account and what gets deducted from my paychecks. Names and statistics mean little, if anything to me. What comes out of my check and bank account means quite a bit. As for Presidents and raising taxes, they can not do it; Congress must do that. I had to know that to pass the California State Civics Examination in 1969. Back then, you did not get out of eighth grade in California if you did not pass that examination.


 Well, were they raised when a progressive was in the white house and he had control of both houses? I don't recall a time when there was a progressive in the White House. Clinton was not, Carter was not, JFK was not, Obama was not ( all of them were left of center and are centrists by today's progessive's standards ), so who are we talking about? LBJ was, but were you paying taxes in 1964? I wasn't, and I doubt you are older than me. Republicans have raised taxes many times, in the annals of history, but you seem to directing anger towards "progressive" when I can't name one since LBJ, a time before you were paying taxes. I voted for Bernie, whom i believe would be one of the rare politicians who would not raise your taxes. But, there are other taxes than federal, and those are increased, but gradually. How much were they raised? What , precisely, are you complaining about?


> 10. I simply repeat what the "progressives" call me when I disagree with them on the slightest point. If that accusation were to stand, then I could accuse you, on the same grounds of putting words into "conservatives'" mouths. I refrain from doing that because I am not a conservative, so I do not care what you call them. Remember, it is important to avoid that trap into which the Left so frequently and easily falls: assuming that anyone who disagrees with it on even the slightest matter is in automatic lockstep with the extreme Right.


I'm not here to defend the character deficiencies of others. It's wrong, whoever does it. I might call someone a whiner, but that's about as bad I get. 


> 11. You have just described your post.


 Naturally, so we're in "I know you are, but what am I" territory?
Leave it be.


> 12. but I can and will oppose and criticise anything that affects me adversely. [...] You do not legislate something that harms a large group of people in the United States of America. You might do that in China or Venezuela, but not here.


The status quo was far worse for a vastly greater number of people before the ACA. While it's not medicare for all, what progressives want, it is better than what existed prior to the ACA, a place where a pre-existing condition can result in denied care, years down the road, unbeknownst to you.



> 13. It was a question. Answer it, if you can. If you can not, state that.


 No, it was an obvious dig framed as a rhetorical question.. I made no mention of Miller, so why, if it were a sincere question, could you possibly ask it? you can't backpedal and tell me "answer it" when you obviously weren't asking in a sincere fashion a question. You apparently are mistaking me for someone who is stupid.



> 15. Yes, I know. Calling people who disagree with you "racist", "sexist", "nazi", ___(fill in appropriate "superlative", here) is not _*ad hominem*_; calling people "snowflakes", "whiners" and "guilty white liberals" is.
> [...]


nit picking on who does the most and who does the worse is a silly exercise., okay, I'll concede both do, and let's just leave it at that. I don't, nor do i approve of it by anyone ( I strive my best not to, - no one is perfect )


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *1. *when congress doesn't pay for what they spend (through taxes) then we get debt.
> 
> *2 *You know who pays higher taxes? Pretty much every other western nation.
> 
> *3. *I don't mind working hard. But I'd like it all just to be a little easier.
> 
> *4. * I don't mind contributing to help people who have less than I do I want to help them and I don't mind doing it through taxes.


1. How about we try *this novel idea*? The government lives within its means. Just because the government runs deficits does not mean that I must.

2. What anyone else pays is of no concern to me. I must worry about what I pay. It is too much, too many and I get little, if anything for it.

3. I do not mind working hard, either, but I want to keep that for which I work.

4. I do not mind helping out Fellow Americans Down on Their Luck, either, but before I can do that, I must take care of my own needs.



Oscar Levant said:


> *1. *Interstate Crosscheck is a verifiable fact. and only red states cooperated. 1.1 million voters, asians, hispanics, blacks, were purged. Not progranda, sorry.
> 
> *2. *A fact is not propaganda. Obviously, you don't know what propranda means.
> 
> *3. *Which, of course, is what real propoganda looks like, weasel words, loaded phrases, ad hominems, etc, and no effort
> to counter arguments made with evidence, and/or compelling logic.
> 
> *4. *ACA needs lots or work, and dems admit it.
> 
> *5. *No I was not. I was blaming republicans for their unwillingness to fix the inequities in the ACA, the basic idea of which, mandated enrollment as a means of spreading risk evenly and lowering costs, now that you mention, was inspired by a republican bill, verisimilar, introduced 1993 and RomneyCare in Mass.
> 
> *6. * yeah, "not my job" the eternal cop out, --- people like you are tall on complaining, but short on solutions. I'm perfectly willing to offer my solutions.
> 
> *7. *It works for people like me, which number quite a few million, so it proves it can work. For those that don't, there is no reason it can't be improved, but, of course,
> 
> *8. *republicans don't want Obama to succeed, so they won't lift a finger to help Obama and his ACA.
> 
> *9. *But, again, the ACA is a compromise, progressives such as myself want medicare for everyone that cannot afford private health care, the tax burden of which to fall only on those who can actually afford to pay taxes.
> 
> *10. *Indulging in stereotypes isn't reality.
> 
> *11. *I'm debating whether or not ACA is a good policy, not whether or not it works for you.
> 
> *12. *Of course, many are going to make their vote based on whether or not it works for them. Fine, but
> 
> *13. *whether or not the ACA is doing more good than harm, and if it is, and it is, quite significantly, to the tune of 18 million ( versus a few million it doesn't work for nearly as well ), then it's worth fixing. Sure, the policy makers should listen to people like yourself, but your issue with it isnt a valid reason, by itself, to toss about the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
> 
> *14. *But, of course, complainers like you refuse to even consider the broader picture, just complain, and have no solutions yourself, and hide behind the cop out that "its' not my job".
> 
> *15. *Well, were they raised when a progressive was in the white house and he had control of both houses?
> 
> *16. *I'm not here to defend the character deficiencies of others. It's wrong, whoever does it. I might call someone a whiner, but that's about as bad I get.
> 
> *17. *Leave it be.
> 
> *18. *it is better than what existed prior to the ACA,
> 
> *19. * No, it was an obvious dig framed as a rhetorical question..
> 
> *20. *You apparently are mistaking me for someone who is stupid.
> 
> *21. *I'll concede both do, and let's just leave it at that.


1. That earns you the "HUH?" button.

2. Obviously you do not recognise propaganda when you see it.

3. More of the Left's double standard. The Left can launch _*ad hominem*_s, use "weasel words" and "loaded phrases" against Trump and everyone is supposed to cheer, but when someone who does not agree with Clinton calls her a "demagogue", he is criticised for all of the above. .....or shall we take it to the instant matter? You call Trump a "demagogue" and all of uberpeopledotnet is supposed to cheer you. I call Clinton a "demagogue" and I am launching _*ad hominem*_s ( A favourite buzzowrd(s) of the Left) and using "weasel words" and "loaded phrases". If you can not see a double standard there, you can not see and I am wasting bandwidth trying to discuss anything more with you.

4. If the so-called ACA needs all of this work, the Democrats, who created it, rammed it through Congress (they had to "pass it before we could see what was in it", remember?) then down the throats of the American People, never should have let it out of Congress as it is. It should have been fixed before it got out of Congress and you can not blame the Republicans for the flaws. The Republicans voted against it almost to a man (if not to a man). If the Republicans, whom you keep blaming for the flaws, were as powerful as you keep suggesting that they were, at the time, this atrocity never would have made it out of Committee, never mind Congress.

5. You deny blaming Republicans then you turn straight to blaming them. Thou contradictest thyself, Sirrah.

6. Was it not you who told me that the so-called ACA was thousands of pages? Perhaps you have time to read them all, I do not. I must work for a living and work to pay these premiums that I can not pay and deductibles that I can not pay----all of this in addition to paying for room and board. This means that I do not have time even to read it, only to suffer the consequences of having it rammed down my throat by people I did not elect. I pay taxes to pay the salaries of these people. I pay them to govern properly. They have failed, they still fail and from what I can tell, they will continue to fail. It is no cop-out, it is reality. Re-read your Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I pay these people to come up with solutions. They have failed.

7. Then why did they not put out the "improved" version instead of the flawed? Oh, and do not bother to try blaming vague problems on the Republicans. That dog will not fight.

8. There you go blaming Republicans, again, while claiming that you do not. .......or is this another "pass" that the Left gets?

9. How do you plan to determine who can "afford to pay taxes"? The self proclaimed "progressives" who wrote and passed this thing tell me that I can pay for it, when clearly I can not. Will I be told that I can afford to pay taxes, when I can not? Every time that the government plugs me into a two plus two equation the answer comes out seven which means that I get reamed.

10. When did paying attention to the money that goes in and out of my bank account become "indulging in stereotypes"?

11. If it does not work for me, it is poor policy. If it does not work for millions, which it does not, it is poor policy.

12. Why would it surprise you that people vote their purses? Consider what happened in Maryland in 2006.

13. If you had paid even the smallest shred of attention to any complaint that I have posted about this so-called ACA, you would understand that it is not working for me because it is anything _*BUT*_ affordable. Make it affordable, and I will not need any government or law to compel me to purchase it. I would buy it of my own accord. As it is, I can not afford the fines; I can not afford the premiums, I can not use this thing that I have purchased because the deductibles are too high. Make the premiums reasonable, get rid of the deductibles and I will stop complaining about it.

14. If they want to pay me to fix it, I will. I am supposed to be paying them to come up with workable programmes. They come up with one disaster after another.

15. Had you read anything that I posted about "progressives", you would be aware that I am referring to those who claim this title. In fact, most on the Left prefer that name to "liberal", as the ya-HOO!, Facebook and DISQUS trolls have slung so much mud at "liberal" that enough has stuck to muck up the name.

16. .............but you do not hesitate to try and pin "character deficiencies" on me............................

17. More pontificating and patronising.

18. Perhaps it is for you, it _*ain't*_ for me and I _*ain't*_ the only one for whom it _*ain't no better*_.

19. So now the "progressives" have added mind-reading to their list of talents and abilities. It was and is a question. Answer it if you can, you dare of if you can not answer it, state that.

20. Look in the virtual mirror.

21. Good, then you can stop chiding those who do not agree with you for handing back to you your namecalling, _*ad homines*_, "weasel words" and "loaded phrases".

I am _*outta'*_ here likely until Tuesday next, at the earliest, so all of you participating in this can discuss among yourselves. Have fun, enjoy and do not do anything that I would not do.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. How about we try *this novel idea*? The government lives within its means. Just because the government runs deficits does not mean that I must.


Well, once upon a time, during Clinton, the government had a $250 billion surplus, but along came bush.

I'm going to shorten this argument to its essence.

You're complaining about the ACA because for you it's too expensive.

fine, noting that the vast majority of sign ups, ACA is doing good for them, but, most people would feel the same way about it in your shoes, but that's not a reason to kill it, it's a reason to fix it.

You say "make it cheap, and I will buy it", but unless everyone buys it, it will NEVER be cheap, that is, if you need the insurance to not deny claims for pre-existing conditions. So, you're left with some version of a mandate, or single payer. There really aren't any other options.

The health care insurance landscape before the ACA was much worse than after, on the whole.

But for the ACA, the right wouldn't even be talking about, concerned about, health care.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If prayer works, then why do we need ANY healthcare? Shouldn't all the believers be like the Christian Scientists or Jehovahs Witnesses or whatever the sect is that rejects medicine and instead prays?
> 
> I always like it when a believer borrows my ibuprofen and tells me 30 minutes later "Thank God my headache is gone!"


Something like this....


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> You deny blaming Republicans then you turn straight to blaming them. Thou contradictest thyself, Sirrah.


I didn't "deny", I qualified your misunderstanding, sheesh


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I'm neither democrat or republican, I just think Trump is a major league enuf said


----------



## Cole Hann

phillipzx3 said:


> Yup. My birdie is called "history." And historical records support the fact insurance rates went up at a faster rate PRIOR to Obamacare, than after.
> 
> Most of us are open for suggestions on how to control the *for profit* health insurance scam, and reel it back to affordable rates the average American can afford without government intervention. We know the "free market" doesn't work. So what do you suggest will fix this mess?


*Trump on 60 Minutes: "We Need Socialized Medicine"*

*https://spectator.org/64193_trump-60-minutes-we-need-socialized-medicine/*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Do tell said:


> What I know is,Obama doubled our debt for his socialistic agenda.


yeah - on all those socialist big-government programs, right?
Wrong. Stop making stuff to make the point you want when the point is wrong. That's what Trump does: It's called LYING.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ld-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#bbc18257eca1
Forbes:
*Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? *
*Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?*
It's enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.








​


----------



## Zap

Here is the ACA, a/k/a "Obamacare" in all its glory. I've attached the pdf for download.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Do tell said:


> If it's good for society.How come there so many dumb people in this country? I'll give you my answer.It's because everyone has their hands out.I want I want I want.If you want better education.If you want better health care.Make more money and pay for it.Stop blaming the rich for ones woes.
> 
> Last time I looked.I have to live my own life and you have to live your own life.Stop having your hands out like a bum.Not you personally.But I think you get the point.


 This is the eternal strawman argument on the right, and arises out of the false belief that _everyone_ in need are bums looking for handouts.

If the entirety of the national situation were as simple as that simplistic view, I would agree.

But it is not, and there are many people who need a helping hand, who don't have the same advantages and priviledges you were blessed with.

Lest reduce the complexity of the issue down to one anecdote:

An 80 year old woman who is in poor health, cannot afford to pay rent, food, etc.

So, according to your philosophy, we should throw her to the wolves, tell her to "get a job".

Right?

That is what your simplistic view is saying. "Simplistic" is not the same as 'simple'. Simplistic means overly simplified to the point it is unworkable, it means treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.


----------



## AllenChicago

ObamaCare levies $50 Billion dollars a year in extra/new taxes and fees on Businesses. That is what pays for the subsidies to help make premiums affordable for those who earn under 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. (100% of FPL = $11,000 in annual income)

Full List of ObamaCare taxes and fees: https://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

Under the replacement (likely to eventually be called TrumpCare), most of those taxes and fees will remain. The subsidies to help lower premiums will still be present too, but will be based on AGE, rather than INCOME, like they are now. Older people will get larger subsidies.


----------



## Caroline O'Donovan

Hi! I'm a reporter with BuzzFeed News. I'm curious to know what people think about Trumpcare now that we have more information. If you're interested in talking about how repeal/reform could impact your life as a driver, please message or email me! [email protected]. Thanks!


----------



## TheFixer1

No one is entitled to anything, including Healthcare.


----------



## AllenChicago

November 9, 2017 UPDATE:

ObamaCare Open Enrollment for 2018 got underway on November 1st and ends on December 15th this year. UBER is "all in" with getting drivers to sign up.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] and some smaller technology companies are launching campaigns to publicize Obamacare enrollment among their contract workers after the Trump administration slashed government marketing for the health program by 90 percent.

Freelance and contract workers are an important part of the workforce for many Silicon Valley companies, including drivers at Uber and rival Lyft Inc, and technology companies also have been among the most vocal in confronting Trump administration policies - particularly immigration - that they perceive as hurting their workforce.

Uber describes its program as a response to a growing need for drivers rather than a political act. The program is part of an effort started in June by Uber to improve the company's relationship with drivers by rolling out new initiatives and features, such as tipping, that better serve them.

Starting on Friday November 10th, Uber will hold events for drivers in 28 U.S. cities, from Los Angeles to Indianapolis, to offer in-person assistance in signing up for insurance plans offered through the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Uber did not disclose a budget for the initiative.

*Full Article at: * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-to-enroll-drivers-in-obamacare-idUSKBN1D91M6

If you don't make too much money, there are some FREE ObamaCare health insurance plans available for 2018.


----------



## Oscar Levant

TheFixer1 said:


> No one is entitled to anything, including Healthcare.


In a dog eat dog libertarian dystopia, that is indeed, correct. Run for office with that philosophy, and you'll never go very far.


----------



## TheFixer1

Oscar Levant said:


> In a dog eat dog libertarian dystopia, that is indeed, correct. Run for office with that philosophy, and you'll never go very far.


Because people want free shit, which is not free, they want other people to pay for their socialist services.


----------

