ACA/Obamacare - Highest Approval Rating

[BotanyBoy]

Because it proves healthcare is not a "goods and service" like any other.

LOL no it doesn't, the only difference between HC and other goods/services is your feelings on the matter.


There is no way around the fact that HC is goods and services. Someone has to supply the goods...( machines, drugs, band-aid's all of it) and someone has to perform the service (MD, DO, RN, CRNA, NP's etc.) and practically none of them can afford to do it at their own expense.

Bottom line at the end of the day is someone has to pay or nobody gets anything....just ask Venezuela. THAT is the inescapable fact that the debate of who has to pay for those goods and services revolves around.

You can call it a right to support your side who argues to use the government to force those who can to pay for those who can't and I call it a bullshit smoke screen to support my argument, that your suck doesn't entitle you to my win so everyone should pay for their own shit and we're all voting our bank accounts.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okeyyyyy, time to put up or shut up. Where did you come up with that 85% figure? Got a cite? Or did it spring whole from your fertile imagination? Because if you can't provide some back up that's the only explanation. Oh and by the way, don't try to use a poll to back your claim. They're all crap remember? So let's hear it, where did it come from? Or are you gunna pull a Donald on us?

Comshaw

AJ is quoting a George Will quote from 2010. It's accurate insofar as it goes, but outdated.

Obamacare extended the insurance pool to the previously uninsurable, who presumably were in the 15%. And I'm sure people like the removal of pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps, something unimaginable in 2010.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's not about feelings; it's the law. It's a fact that the law sees HC a BIT differently than any other thing.

If you can't afford your electric bill, the city is not required by law to get it turned back on. You have to be able to pay.

I didn't say anything about it being a right.

But it's not QUITE a "goods and service" like any other thing under the sun, hence, the LAWS regard it a bit differently. I would say if you want to argue that healthcare is any other good like any other, you have to do away with the Emergency Treatment requirement.

If you want to be saved from dying from a heart attack, show that you can purchase it first. Treat it like anything else.

LOL no it doesn't, the only difference between HC and other goods/services is your feelings on the matter.


There is no way around the fact that HC is goods and services. Someone has to supply the goods...( machines, drugs, band-aid's all of it) and someone has to perform the service (MD, DO, RN, CRNA, NP's etc.) and practically none of them can afford to do it at their own expense.

Bottom line at the end of the day is someone has to pay or nobody gets anything....just ask Venezuela. THAT is the inescapable fact that the debate of who has to pay for those goods and services revolves around.

You can call it a right to support your side who argues to use the government to force those who can to pay for those who can't and I call it a bullshit smoke screen to support my argument, that your suck doesn't entitle you to my win so everyone should pay for their own shit and we're all voting our bank accounts.

 

[MGurkus]

That's not the tune he and all the other (D)'s were singing before it turned out to be the total fucking bullshit scam everyone not drinking Dear Leader's Kool-Aid said it was.

Prior to it actually coming out and fucking the working class up the ass......it was the greatest thing ever and anyone saying otherwise was racist.

A simple YES would have sufficed.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's not about feelings; it's the law. It's a fact that the law sees HC a BIT differently than any other thing.

All that means is that congress of 1986 and Reagan saw it a bit differently than any other thing.

That doesn't make it so.

But it's not QUITE a "goods and service" like any other thing under the sun, hence, the LAWS regard it a bit differently. I would say if you want to argue that healthcare is any other good like any other, you have to do away with the Emergency Treatment requirement.

I just did, and if you want to try and say it's somehow different you're going to have to do better than the legal opinions of people in the past about who should pay for the goods and services.

I'm willing to come to your side but you're going to have to explain how my doctor is fundamentally different economically than my mechanic, as far as I can tell the only difference is that my mechanic has to wash his hands before he takes a piss.

If you want to be saved from dying from a heart attack, show that you can purchase it first. Treat it like anything else.

That's the way I think it should be.

A simple YES would have sufficed.

That wouldn't be honest though.

 

[Wrong Element]

Did you happen to catch Fox and Friends on Friday?
They said ...direct quote here...

I don't think they understand the concept of insurance.

The whole idea of having insurance of any kind is that if your life works out perfectly, you will never need it -- but it's there if you do.

That's the whole thing I've found puzzling about this 8-year long argument over the ACA. No one is clamoring to have horrendous health problems just so they can have the government pick up the tab.

15% of the population is on Obamacare. 85% of the population are on employer plans. Therefore when you poll people with no skin in the game, they have no idea what Obamacare does, therefore they have no strong feelings about it one way or another.

It's a fake poll...

Fake News.

Let's leave aside that you're forgetting the 50 million people on Medicare (who make up a disproportionate number of the voting population). These same stats -- most people are on employer-provided plans instead of Obamacare plans or expanded Medicaid -- were true back when the program was less popular. Were you dismissing the polls back then too?

 

[Hypoxia]

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay

ERs are for emergencies, for critical not chronic issues. If something smashes my face, I belong in an ER. But when my eyes suffered bacterial and viral infections while traveling recently, an ER visit would have been useless.

There's more to healthcare than stabilizing crises, and ERs are wasted when uninsured non-critical patients depend on them. Medicare and clinics are much more sensible. Medicare paid for most of the treatments and surgeries that let me retain my eyesight. Without Medicare I would soon be blind or broke.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why do I need a cite?


We were repeatedly told that Obamacare was to provide insurance for the 33 million underinsured...

Now, the poll doesn't have to worry about credibility. There's no vote upcoming, so they can design the questions to elicit a desired response to write a story. They did that during the election to dishearten Republican and Independent voters into the inevitability of President Clinton. But, as I pointed out not too long ago to Colonel Hogan, right before the vote, the polls all suddenly showed a dead heat, because those were the polls that would be pointed to and had to be credible if their story-creating polling was to be trusted gong forward.

Now, there's no need to be accurate, so they can sample skew and creatively weight however they want, and all assumptions are going to lean towards the desired outcome.

They're not asking questions like, "How do you feel about the rising costs of Premiums and Deductibles under ObamaCare?"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The whole idea of having insurance of any kind is that if your life works out perfectly, you will never need it -- but it's there if you do.

That's the whole thing I've found puzzling about this 8-year long argument over the ACA. No one is clamoring to have horrendous health problems just so they can have the government pick up the tab.





Let's leave aside that you're forgetting the 50 million people on Medicare (who make up a disproportionate number of the voting population). These same stats -- most people are on employer-provided plans instead of Obamacare plans or expanded Medicaid -- were true back when the program was less popular. Were you dismissing the polls back then too?

Yes, and I have been outlining why I distrust polling for a long time.

One of the factors that is very important is, "Who is being contacted?"