|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 26, 2011 8:31:07 GMT -5
....with a self-proclaimed "Tea-Party Libertarian" the other day over health care. Damn, did they HATE what they kept insisting on calling "Obamacare." According to them, this was going to be the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to our country and should be opposed by any means necessary. They even supported the Ohio governor's proposed law saying that Ohio doesn't have to comply with Federal law on this issue....despite the fact that the entire concept of State's Nullification was settled more than a century ago.
I asked them why they hated it so much, expecting them to cite the federal mandate requiring all citizens to purchase or carry health insurance. At least I could understand that objection, especially if they did not understand exactly how the government was supposed to support this (which most people don't understand, it has to be admitted).
But that wasn't their primary objection. When I asked them to tell me exactly why they opposed "Obamacare" so passionately, they said:
1. "It would put health care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats and not doctors."
2. "It would ration health care in the United States."
3. "it would firmly establish a tiered system of health care where some people get excellent care and others do not, separating Americans into health care classes."
What astonished me about their arguments is that this is the health care system we currently have!
As to point number 1? Faceless bureaucrats currently make the health care decisions. They are called insurance companies and are in no way doctors.
Point number 2? Health care is already rationed in the USA. It's rationed based on economic class. If you have the money to afford it, or are fortunate enough to have a job that provides good insurance, you get your health care. If you are not fortunate, you get nothing.
And finally number 3. We already have separated health care classes in the USA. From the wealthy who can afford private office visits, specialists, and preventative care, to the poor who are forced to use hospital emergency rooms as primary care facilities due to the laws preventing them from being turned away because they have no insurance....and they are forced to use these facilities at far higher costs than the wealthy pay for comparative services.
I just don't get it. If they hate these things so much, if they oppose these things so vehemently, then WHY THE HELL ARE THEY OPPOSING CHANGE?
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Sept 26, 2011 8:36:51 GMT -5
Pfft, already knew why they were against it, I've seen the same reasons stated, and only those reasons, elsewhere. Telling them that's the system we have now and explaining in detail how things work now they willingly don't listen. Hence why I see libertarians and tea baggers as the absolute morons of society.
They'll buy any bullshit, no matter how idiotic and untrue as long as someone up top in the party says they should
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 26, 2011 9:36:39 GMT -5
I just don't get it. If they hate these things so much, if they oppose these things so vehemently, then WHY THE HELL ARE THEY OPPOSING CHANGE? Because to their way of thinking, everyone can get to be wealthy (or at least upper middle class) through hard work alone. Not able to afford health care? Get off your ass! Since healthcare controlled by the government might not favor the wealthy, it will therefore give lazy-ass poor people health care they didn't earn. Alternately, it could mean that the wealthy are treated just like the poor people. Which would be bad for them. I have relatives who love FOX News. I know how these people think. |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 26, 2011 9:36:44 GMT -5
I just don't get it. If they hate these things so much, if they oppose these things so vehemently, then WHY THE HELL ARE THEY OPPOSING CHANGE? From what I've seen, most of them are approaching this from a position that either already entitles them to medical services (Medicare/Medicaid, etc) or they have the personal wealth to either be able to afford good health insurance or outright pay for higher-end medical care. For them, the system already works and no "change" is necessary or needed. Ignorance explains the rest rather handily. |
|
|
|
Post by carole on Sept 26, 2011 9:47:36 GMT -5
Oh come on, we all already know the real reason the are opposed to Obamacare. . . . .
It is because they hate Obama and were determined from day one to oppose anything he did. The teaparty sprang up over night less than a month after Obama had entered the whitehouse. He hadn't had a chance to do anything yet but they were already there to protest him when he did.
My stbx fundie husband hates Obama and everything he stands for, he doesn't like Obama care because it would require people to have health insurance, but in the same breath will complain about people using the ER for healthcare and HE has to pay for it because they don't. Go figure.
If George W had proposed the exact same idea the teaparty would have been dancing in the streets over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 26, 2011 9:55:56 GMT -5
Silly, don't you know, the system already works fine for them...screw anybody else
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Sept 26, 2011 9:56:51 GMT -5
*headdesk forever*
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 26, 2011 9:58:42 GMT -5
If George W had proposed the exact same idea the teaparty would have been dancing in the streets over it. If Dubya had passed it it would have been hailed as a triumph for requiring people to be personally responsible for their health care. But since Obama proposed it it is condemned for requiring people to be personally responsible for their health care. I find it to be an odd disconnect that the people railing against this, the people cheering the idea that those who can not care for themselves should be left to die, are the SAME GODDAMN PEOPLE who flew back to Washington to try to pass laws forcing Terri Schaivo's husband to keep her on a feeding tube.... |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 26, 2011 9:58:53 GMT -5
My stbx fundie husband hates Obama and everything he stands for, he doesn't like Obama care because it would require people to have health insurance, but in the same breath will complain about people using the ER for healthcare and HE has to pay for it because they don't. Go figure. It's really funny when they suggest low-cost healthcare clinics, but god forbid they put their money where their mouth is... |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 26, 2011 11:20:39 GMT -5
As I recall states are allowed to opt out.. IF they can come up with a plan that still covers as many if not more people then the federal plan does.
Two states that I know of have tried that. Ironically both using Democrat plans: Connecticut and Vermont.
Vermont has so far been the only one to actually pass a bill and try to get a waiver.
For all their talk about how bad the plan is, cons can't come up with anything better.
|
|
|
|
Post by carole on Sept 26, 2011 11:36:35 GMT -5
If George W had proposed the exact same idea the teaparty would have been dancing in the streets over it. If Dubya had passed it it would have been hailed as a triumph for requiring people to be personally responsible for their health care. But since Obama proposed it it is condemned for requiring people to be personally responsible for their health care. I find it to be an odd disconnect that the people railing against this, the people cheering the idea that those who can not care for themselves should be left to die, are the SAME GODDAMN PEOPLE who flew back to Washington to try to pass laws forcing Terri Schaivo's husband to keep her on a feeding tube.... To be conservative requires the ability to hold two entirely opposite and conflicting opinions in your head at the same time and think that it makes sense. . . . . |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Sept 26, 2011 11:37:48 GMT -5
Booley, it's not that cons can't do anything better. Romney has already done something similar. It's that they won't. Well, maybe they can't, but not because they are unable. Hell, I'm sure any three of us here could hammer out a plan where a stripped down, bare bones version of Medicare/Medicaid is available to all, with supplemental plans for those who feel they need more and can afford it. It's not hard. It would require perhaps raising taxes. But really, that's not the hard part. But for two years now they have been screaming at the top of their collective lunges and with their last breaths (so to speak) they have been demonizing social health care. They see themselves as being unable to do any better. I see it as kind of similar to what former governor Bob Erlich went through trying to get slot machines passed in Maryland. The MD. democrat controlled legislator stopped him at every turn. But less than a year after o'Malley (democrat) was elected, the slots went up.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 26, 2011 11:53:45 GMT -5
Booley, it's not that cons can't do anything better. Romney has already done something similar. It's that they won't. Well, maybe they can't, but not because they are unable. Hell, I'm sure any three of us here could hammer out a plan where a stripped down, bare bones version of Medicare/Medicaid is available to all, with supplemental plans for those who feel they need more and can afford it. It's not hard. It would require perhaps raising taxes. But really, that's not the hard part. But for two years now they have been screaming at the top of their collective lunges and with their last breaths (so to speak) they have been demonizing social health care. They see themselves as being unable to do any better. .... They won't because they can't. Yes Romney did come up with a plan. and much of that plan is what became Obama's HCR. And how much credit did Romney get for doing what he did in Massachusetts? As I recall he's had to recant like a Gay Liberal heavy metal head at a church revival. And it's not as if coming up with their own plan couldnt' help them. IF a republican governor came up with a health care plan, stamped a "free market" sticker on it (doesn't matter if it had anything to do with the free market or not) and then complained that Obama was not giving him the waiver the way Vermont seems to be having trouble getting theirs, it would benefit the GOP greatly. It would reinforce their meme that Obama is forcing his plan on everybody and that the GOP can do better. But they wont' because they can't because their own ideology stops them. Any such plan, if it worked, would certainly mean less money for the companies that do insurance, pharma and hospitals. Not to mention they are opposed to medicare/medicaid on principle. The peons at the bottom may be confused but the guys at the top of the GOP pyramid understand and like the old status quo just fine. Which means they won't come up with anything better whether they are in power or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Sept 26, 2011 12:12:58 GMT -5
A lot of them seem to honestly believe the current system is just fine the way it is. he's had to recant like a Gay Liberal heavy metal head at a church revival. ;D |
|
queenofhearts
Junior Member
Another atheist transgirl with too many opinions and not enough money
Posts: 70
|
Post by queenofhearts on Sept 26, 2011 17:34:17 GMT -5
And to quote Bill Maher, in 25 years these nuts will be shouting at us to "Keep our government hands off their Obamacare."
|
|
