"Cadillac" Health Care Plans and Obamacare

[Buddy Spike]

So she would've voted for the guy who passed legislation for which the ACA was modeled after? Does not compute.

You mean the guy who campaigned on repealing Obamacare? That guy?

[Fuzz]

So she would've voted for the guy who passed legislation for which the ACA was modeled after? Does not compute.

Yeah I agree Romney and his Romneycare is an irony, however the case could be made that this was something better left to the states (not that I'm a fan of that either). My point and I think her's as well was she doesn't want this cluster that obamacare has become was always known to be. Again we are also talking about "NY Elites", the same supposedly educated and informed people that couldn't put two and two together with this legislation in the first place, and vote with their feelings than their brains.

[Vertigo]

You mean the guy who campaigned on repealing Obamacare? That guy?

And we all know how candidates ALWAYS follow through on their campaign promises *cough cough Gitmo*

[Hueypilot]

And we all know how candidates ALWAYS follow through on their campaign promises *cough cough Gitmo*

Gitmo vs government-run health insurance are apples and oranges. It's relatively easy to skip out on a single-issue minor promise like closing a facility. It's much harder to campaign on keeping the federal govt out of healthcare and then turn around and sign a massive law that affects everyone. Had he been elected and then done that, I guarantee you he wouldn't get reelected, and he understood that.

[Buddy Spike]

And we all know how candidates ALWAYS follow through on their campaign promises *cough cough Gitmo*

We're not talking about a lying community organizer.

Both Romney and Ryan specifically campaigned on repealing Obamacare. Saying that he wouldn't have followed through just because he was part of a state push to do something similar (Romneycare) is stupid.

[Vertigo]

We're not talking about a lying community organizer.

Both Romney and Ryan specifically campaigned on repealing Obamacare. Saying that he wouldn't have followed through just because he was part of a state push to do something similar (Romneycare) is stupid.

And believing he would have completely repealed the ACA is just as stupid.

[Buddy Spike]

And believing he would have completely repealed the ACA is just as stupid.

Based on what? That was his stated day one agenda.

Your original assertion is still invalid. The woman had two candidates to choose from - one clearly in favor of the ACA, and one clearly against. Romneycare (which was not passed as written) is not relevant to the hypothetical of what Romney would've done.

[HeloDude]

And believing he would have completely repealed the ACA is just as stupid.

You could say the same thing about any politician on any issue they run on. So with your logic, why should a cirizen ever vote for anybody at all? Are you suggesting it is time for a revolution? It's a strawman type argument, but that being said, I am curious to hear your response...again, if we can't ever trust our politicians, then what should be done?

[Buddy Spike]

No.. Just.. No.

[Spur38]

2. Absurd

[Vertigo]

I'm not saying he wouldn't have pushed to change the law, maybe repealed portions of the law, but to believe he would've outright scrapped the whole thing is naive at best.

[HeloDude]

I'm not saying he wouldn't have pushed to change the law, maybe repealed portions of the law, but to believe he would've outright scrapped the whole thing is naive at best.

So then answer my question in regards to what you think people should do if we can't trust put politicians to do what they say they will do?

[Hueypilot]

No.. Just.. No.

Well...it would be fair to say the definition of manhood has changed somewhat with our current WH. Especially given that Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty" fame is currently getting thrashed in a manner similar to Paula Deen. And Mr Kiddie Pajamas is probably looked upon as normal.

[Ram]

That fruit of an "adult" in the toddler pajamas totally has the

"$200K in college debt for his useless art history degree" look

and

"I live at home w/my parents and listen to bands you've probably never heard of" look

just written all over him.

I don't know him, but I want to punch him in his hipster fucking face. Does that make me a bad person?

[ThreeHoler]

I don't know him, but I want to punch him in his hipster fucking face. Does that make me a bad person?

You know the old saying...nope.

[Vertigo]

So then answer my question in regards to what you think people should do if we can't trust put politicians to do what they say they will do?

I'll tell you what will happen- people will still keep voting for one candidate with either a R or a D next to their name- not many has the guts to try and change the system even though they bitch about it constantly.

Do you really think we can trust politicians to follow through on their promises?

Obama promised GITMO.

Bush II promised jews he'd move the U.S embassy in Israel to Jerusalem- it's still in Tel Aviv.

Bush the elder had "no new taxes".

Heck even Thomas Jefferson campaigned as a constructionist yet pushed through the Louisiana Purchase.

Clinton promised middle class tax cuts- never happened.

Woodrow Wilson ran on a campaign of staying out of war and then threw us into WWI.

FDR's campaign centered on balancing the budget- yet he ballooned the deficit.

LBJ promised no ground troops in Vietnam.

But, by all means, continue to believe everything would have been unicorns and rainbows under Romney.

[HeloDude]

I'll tell you what will happen- people will still keep voting for one candidate with either a R or a D next to their name- not many has the guts to try and change the system even though they bitch about it constantly.

Do you really think we can trust politicians to follow through on their promises?

...

But, by all means, continue to believe everything would have been unicorns and rainbows under Romney.

First off, I voted for Gary Johnson and some other Libertarian candidates as well. Second, I agree that the vast majority of folks will still vote for the memebers of one of the 2 establishment parties.

But I asked YOU what YOU suggest people do about it? Because, by the way, you said all politicians, so in that case, you believe nobody will be honest and do what they say they'll do. So again, I ask you, what do you suggest as a remedy?

[Vertigo]

First off, I voted for Gary Johnson and some other Libertarian candidates as well. Second, I agree that the vast majority of folks will still vote for the memebers of one of the 2 establishment parties.

But I asked YOU what YOU suggest people do about it? Because, by the way, you said all politicians, so in that case, you believe nobody will be honest and do what they say they'll do. So again, I ask you, what do you suggest as a remedy?

Until people start voting third and fourth party candidates in respectable numbers, there will be no remedy and hardly any accountability. Politicians now know they can lie and have a decent chance of getting away without any repercussions. But if we, the electorate, were to stop voting within only two parties and actually have 3, 4, 5 viable candidates for offices then there's a greater chance a broken promise will get punished and thus less incentive for a candidate to slough off their promise.

[matmacwc]

I think, at the moment, third party candidates just make it worse

[Spur38]

Every citizen must purchase a new set of golf clubs, before April 2014.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only the wealthy or financially responsible have been able to purchase new golf clubs without the assistance of their government.

This new law ensures that every American can now have "affordable" golf clubs of their own, because everyone is equally entitled to new golf clubs. And if you want to keep the golf clubs you already have, you can do that, until April 2014.

These affordable golf clubs will cost from $1,000 to $3,000 each depending on your income level. This does not include taxes, pull cart, electric cart fees, green fees, membership fees, balls, tees, gloves, range finders, storage fees, maintenance, or repair costs.

In order to make sure everyone participates and purchases their affordable golf clubs, the costs of owning golf clubs will increase 50% each year up to 400% by year 2018. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. People who can't afford or refuse to maintain their golf clubs will be fined. However, children under the age of 26 can use their parents’ golf clubs until they turn 27 at which time they must purchase their own golf clubs.

If you don't want or think you don't need golf clubs, you are still required to buy them. If you refuse to buy a set or make claims that you can't afford them, you will be fined $800 until you purchase a set or face imprisonment.

People living in farming areas, ghettos, inner cities, Wyoming, or areas with no access to golf courses are not exempt. Age, health, prior experience or no experience are not acceptable excuses for not buying, maintaining, and using your golf clubs.

A government review board that doesn't know the difference between a hook and a slice will decide everything. This includes when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your golf clubs along with how many people can ride in your golf cart. The board will also determine if participants are too old or not healthy enough to be able to use their golf clubs.

They will also decide if your golf clubs have outlived their usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, like a range finder with slope adjustment or a newer and more expensive set of golf clubs.

Those that can afford memberships at expensive golf country clubs will be required to buy memberships. If you are already a member and you like your membership you can keep your membership. After April 2014, a different country club will be assigned for you to purchase a membership.

Government officials are exempt from this new law as they and their families and some of their friends and a few of their friends friends can obtain golf clubs at taxpayers expense.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Spur38

[DUNBAR]

That's pretty darn good Spur. Did you write that?

[Vertigo]

That's pretty darn good Spur. Did you write that?

It's funny. And if people had been playing golf without paying their greens fees, cart and club rental thus driving up the costs for everyone else, it would be germane too!

[Spur38]

That's pretty darn good Spur. Did you write that?

Nope, set to me from a happy ACA customer!

[HeloDude]

It's funny. And if people had been playing golf without paying their greens fees, cart and club rental thus driving up the costs for everyone else, it would be germane too!

I agree...the law forcing ER's to take in people who can't afford care was a bad idea from the get go (hence the economic argument for Obamacare). Thank you very much Ronnie.

Whatever happened to charity coming voluntarily from charities?

[Vertigo]

I agree...the law forcing ER's to take in people who can't afford care was a bad idea from the get go (hence the economic argument for Obamacare). Thank you very much Ronnie.

Whatever happened to charity coming voluntarily from charities?

What even worse is that we in fact even NEED charity to pay for medical costs with the exception of a very few rare instances.