It's awfully early on a Monday for me to bust out my rage boner.
Lol. I'm wasting time myself bc I don't want to drag my butt up and exercise.
For the record, I am not anti access to healthcare for everyone and too bad if you don't have a job that provides it. Ideally, I'd like the insurance companies and medical field to work something out. Sigh.
You mean the way the food companies and apartment developers have worked something out to make sure that people can get food and affordable housing without government intervention? Oh wait....
Lol. I'm wasting time myself bc I don't want to drag my butt up and exercise.
For the record, I am not anti access to healthcare for everyone and too bad if you don't have a job that provides it. Ideally, I'd like the insurance companies and medical field to work something out. Sigh.
You mean the way the food companies and apartment developers have worked something out to make sure that people can get food and affordable housing without government intervention? Oh wait....
You mean the way the food companies and apartment developers have worked something out to make sure that people can get food and affordable housing without government intervention? Oh wait....
I'm agreeing with you.
Really? 'Cause it sounded like you didn't want government intervention in the provision of affordable healthcare.
I'm not trying to be bitchy (that just sort of happens), but you said you want insurers and "the medical field" to work something out. Between that and opposing the ACA (which is essentially the government telling insurers to be less terrible), I am not really seeing where you see a role for government in this.
Really? 'Cause it sounded like you didn't want government intervention in the provision of affordable healthcare.
I'm not trying to be bitchy (that just sort of happens), but you said you want insurers and "the medical field" to work something out. Between that and opposing the ACA (which is essentially the government telling insurers to be less terrible), I am not really seeing where you see a role for government in this.
I'm agreeing that it's a shit show that that all these problems haven't been dealt with without govt intervention, bc clearly they haven't been. But when govt gets involved, politics get involved and what's best never comes to fruition. Both sides. I'm pretty unhappy with the Rs myself. If the govt has to step in then come up with a better solution. Otherwise, shut up.
Really? 'Cause it sounded like you didn't want government intervention in the provision of affordable healthcare.
I'm not trying to be bitchy (that just sort of happens), but you said you want insurers and "the medical field" to work something out. Between that and opposing the ACA (which is essentially the government telling insurers to be less terrible), I am not really seeing where you see a role for government in this.
I'm agreeing that it's a shit show that that all these problems haven't been dealt with without govt intervention, bc clearly they haven't been. But when govt gets involved, politics get involved and what's best never comes to fruition. Both sides. I'm pretty unhappy with the Rs myself. If the govt has to step in then come up with a better solution. Otherwise, shut up.
Unfortunately, without government intervention, then millions are going to go without health insurance. Health insurance companies are not going to agree to insure those with pre-existing conditions, nor are they going to agree to provide insurance at a discount to those who can't afford it. So, if those are my choices, I am going to choose government intervention over millions without health insurance every time.
You say that you don't want ACA and you also say that you don't want people to go without health insurance. I don't really see how you can have it both ways.
As a side note, I think you are really brave for posting a dissenting point of view on this board.
Also, today this sounds really funny but part of the reason LBJ could get stuff done was bc of his years in the Senate. There's a reason Caro dubbed him "Master of the Senate."
and from what tef just posted, it looks like Congress has classified perjury as a "high crime" before.
The charges against Nixon were basically the same, when it comes down to it - obstruction of justice and perjury.
The circumstances of the obstruction and perjury were significantly different as one related to a civil lawsuit unrelated to his office, but I agree, it seems they've classified perjury and obstruction of justice as a high crime before.
? I don't think Nixon was ever under oath. He used the power of his office in many different ways to obstruct justice including use of his reelection money to pay the burglars, ordering his AG and Deputy AG and then after they resigned in protest his Solicitor General Bork to fire the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. I hope we can all agree that what Nixon did was not in the same universe as Clinton's lie about a personal affair.
I'm agreeing that it's a shit show that that all these problems haven't been dealt with without govt intervention, bc clearly they haven't been. But when govt gets involved, politics get involved and what's best never comes to fruition. Both sides. I'm pretty unhappy with the Rs myself. If the govt has to step in then come up with a better solution. Otherwise, shut up.
Unfortunately, without government intervention, then millions are going to go without health insurance. Health insurance companies are not going to agree to insure those with pre-existing conditions, nor are they going to agree to provide insurance at a discount to those who can't afford it. So, if those are my choices, I am going to choose government intervention over millions without health insurance every time.
You say that you don't want ACA and you also say that you don't want people to go without health insurance. I don't really see how you can have it both ways.
As a side note, I think you are really brave for posting a dissenting point of view on this board.
Before everyone goes on blast about the source, I have scrolled though many of your Washington Post articles!!
Sorry guys, I'd love to stay and chat, but I am a sweaty mess. I'll check back in later.
FWIW...we both want the same things, just have different ways of getting there. Both sides need to cut the crap with the personal mudslinging and do their job.
Seriously? There's no middle ground between fend for yourself and the ACA?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I didn't say there was no middle ground between fend for yourself and the ACA. I said that I didn't see how you couldn't have some sort of government intervention.
My original question, though, was what sort of alternatives are the Rs proposing to ACA. I would genuinely like to hear them. So, please share your thoughts.
Unfortunately, without government intervention, then millions are going to go without health insurance. Health insurance companies are not going to agree to insure those with pre-existing conditions, nor are they going to agree to provide insurance at a discount to those who can't afford it. So, if those are my choices, I am going to choose government intervention over millions without health insurance every time.
You say that you don't want ACA and you also say that you don't want people to go without health insurance. I don't really see how you can have it both ways.
As a side note, I think you are really brave for posting a dissenting point of view on this board.
Before everyone goes on blast about the source, I have scrolled though many of your Washington Post articles!!
Sorry guys, I'd love to stay and chat, but I am a sweaty mess. I'll check back in later.
FWIW...we both want the same things, just have different ways of getting there. Both sides need to cut the crap with the personal mudslinging and do their job.
Thank you. I have to actually go do some work (to make sure I can pay for my ACA healthcare plan), but I appreciate the link. I will be back to read later.
The charges against Nixon were basically the same, when it comes down to it - obstruction of justice and perjury.
The circumstances of the obstruction and perjury were significantly different as one related to a civil lawsuit unrelated to his office, but I agree, it seems they've classified perjury and obstruction of justice as a high crime before.
? I don't think Nixon was ever under oath. He used the power of his office in many different ways to obstruct justice including use of his reelection money to pay the burglars, ordering his AG and Deputy AG and then after they resigned in protest his Solicitor General Bork to fire the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. I hope we can all agree that what Nixon did was not in the same universe as Clinton's lie about a personal affair.
I think she's talking about the federal judge. It's still not on point. No one has pulled up an impeachment other than Clinton where the perjury involved a personal matter that did not directly relate back to misdeeds of the job.
Before everyone goes on blast about the source, I have scrolled though many of your Washington Post articles!!
Sorry guys, I'd love to stay and chat, but I am a sweaty mess. I'll check back in later.
FWIW...we both want the same things, just have different ways of getting there. Both sides need to cut the crap with the personal mudslinging and do their job.
No. No, R's and D's do not want the same things. At all.
Regarding the the topic at hand, the R's had the entire election of 2012 to reveal their happy medium and make a case for it. Instead, we heard "Repeal and replace and also, let's talk about gay marriage." They don't have shit as an alternative.
I would just like to add my 2 cents that as a liberal I don't like the ACA. I don't think it goes nearly far enough. I think the D's gave in to way too many R demands that it's far right of even the center (between fully privatized - what we essentially had 7 years ago - and full single-payer, which is what I support).
So, if you're talking about repealing the ACA, go ahead, but only if you replace it with something that gives more people have access to more health benefits, not fewer. And quite frankly, there is no way you are going to make that happen without government intervention.
For-profit companies should not be in the health insurance business.
Post by lasagnasshole on Jul 28, 2014 9:38:22 GMT -5
You don't have to buy into the ACA wholesale, but to suggest that insurance companies and healthcare providers are going to just magically work something out to provide healthcare to millions of low-income people without any government intervention is patently absurd.
Despite all its problems, does anyone really think that Medicaid doesn't provide a very real and necessary service? Does anybody really think that without Medicaid, insurance companies and healthcare providers would just be giving out healthcare for free to tens of millions of people? We have free and low-cost clinics (many of which are government funded), but they clearly don't meet the demand.
If we did away with SNAP, do we really think there are enough charities out there to make sure nobody in this country goes hungry? Without Section 8 and tax credits given to developers for affordable housing, do we really think that the market would step up and make sure everyone had housing?
This is where the whole Republicans and Democrats want the same thing line breaks down. No, no we do not. I want my government to take proactive measures to make sure everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare. Nothing in anything mmp wrote indicates to me that she believes that is the role of government.
Unfortunately, without government intervention, then millions are going to go without health insurance. Health insurance companies are not going to agree to insure those with pre-existing conditions, nor are they going to agree to provide insurance at a discount to those who can't afford it. So, if those are my choices, I am going to choose government intervention over millions without health insurance every time.
You say that you don't want ACA and you also say that you don't want people to go without health insurance. I don't really see how you can have it both ways.
As a side note, I think you are really brave for posting a dissenting point of view on this board.
Before everyone goes on blast about the source, I have scrolled though many of your Washington Post articles!!
Sorry guys, I'd love to stay and chat, but I am a sweaty mess. I'll check back in later.
FWIW...we both want the same things, just have different ways of getting there. Both sides need to cut the crap with the personal mudslinging and do their job.
I really tried to read this with an open mind, but no. I am sorry, but this is a joke. It does nothing to solve the problem. It still doesn't address pre-existing conditions. It also doesn't address how someone with a low income job or no job is going to afford a HSA or catastrophic coverage. And we can share our accounts with others? So, if I get sick, I have to go around begging my friends and family for a portion of their account??
Before everyone goes on blast about the source, I have scrolled though many of your Washington Post articles!!
Sorry guys, I'd love to stay and chat, but I am a sweaty mess. I'll check back in later.
FWIW...we both want the same things, just have different ways of getting there. Both sides need to cut the crap with the personal mudslinging and do their job.
I really tried to read this with an open mind, but no. I am sorry, but this is a joke. It does nothing to solve the problem. It still doesn't address pre-existing conditions. It also doesn't address how someone with a low income job or no job is going to afford a HSA or catastrophic coverage. And we can share our accounts with others? So, if I get sick, I have to go around begging my friends and family for a portion of their account??
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to believe this "we all want the same thing, we just want to get there differently" schtick until I hear some concrete ideas and bills being passed regarding something besides gay marriage and anti choice, misogynistic bullshit. Oh, and corporations are people and their rights as "job creators" should be protected at all costs.
No, Ds and Rs do not want the same things.
So you said this much better when I did when I asked what R's really want b/c I honestly can't tell.
The charges against Nixon were basically the same, when it comes down to it - obstruction of justice and perjury.
The circumstances of the obstruction and perjury were significantly different as one related to a civil lawsuit unrelated to his office, but I agree, it seems they've classified perjury and obstruction of justice as a high crime before.
? I don't think Nixon was ever under oath. He used the power of his office in many different ways to obstruct justice including use of his reelection money to pay the burglars, ordering his AG and Deputy AG and then after they resigned in protest his Solicitor General Bork to fire the special prosecutor investigating Watergate.
Yeah, the reason I mentioned perjury was because I was curious so I had looked up the Nixon charges - I wasn't aware they'd already be written up before he resigned - and they were definitely going to include lying, and they didn't even seem to care if it was under oath or not (bolded). At least half the charges had to do with lying. I was surprised at the non specificity of the charges in general. Some were:
1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or