Or you the fundamentals of economics, but I'll be glad to have a civil discussion if you can focus on the bill.
"Of course I bought the N'Sync CD! There's no way I was gonna buy the Backstreet Boys!" Yes, by now in this forum, we're familiar with the story of How VFish Voted Democratic One Time And OF COURSE That Alone Makes Him Not A Republican.
Q: When was the last time El Jefe crossed party lines to vote on principle? A: Never, because he doesn't have principles.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/the-health-care-reform-effort-part-deux.1304945/ Been there, done that. I understand both the economy and the bill thank you very much. I questioned your knowledge of the "fundamentals" because fundamentally, the Bill doesn't do much beyond extend health care insurance to people who can't afford it. The only "fundamental" flaw that you could possibly object to is if you have a basic objection to the idea that it is a nation's duty to ensure its citizens have access to quality Health Care - and I have no wish to debate that.
The goal of the bill is to extend coverage to the uninsured, the bill it self can't do that, And because the bill ignores basic laws of both economics and human nature it won't do that without heavy subsidies, which will drive the cost for those with insurance even higher. It is a vicious cycle. Throw in countless waivers and delays and an exchange that can stay up for more than 10 minutes and it is really hard to believe this program will ever be a success.
Right, just like Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security have all destroyed the economy, since they also rely on other people to pay more for people who can't afford it. Not to mention the MASSIVE, basic, economic factor that undoes any such "vicious cycle"...which happens to be a basic fundamental of the law, and a fundamental of insurance philosophy - and which you're ignoring. Either intentionally or because you just don't know. I have never understood you Republicans. You just launch attacks which just don't have any basis in reality, or utterly ignores basic math or economics. You should have stuck to the original idea - that no one has a right to quality healthcare.
I am not drinking the same kool aid as Vfish, but I do believe that the bill is fundamentally flawed in the mandate for private insurance.Nor do i believe ACA really accomplishes the goal you state. I think your stated goals are good and noble, but it is a flaw to include private insurers in that aim. If your aim is to provide health care for folks then do a VA type thing for the people at large. If your goal is to enrich private insurers then do ACA and then make it so a person can't even find out how much it costs, because of a deliberate choice made to hide that fact from the public at large.
1. I said I'd support subsidizing those that can't afford the premiums just a few pages back. 2. The programs you cited are deeply flawed and in need of reform. Perhaps we should fix them before ramping up an incredibly ill-conceived new program? 3. Where have I ignored basic math or economics? It seems you ar eaccusing me of your own failures. 4. We all have the right to quality healthcare, just like we all have the right to lobster dinners and quality cell phone service. I'm just asking who should pay for it and how much?
If Pelosi can't accept a CR that goes through 2013, and a Debt Raise to Feb/March with the only concession that Congress/WH and their staffs have to give up their subsidy, then she's completely insane. I'm sorry, I agree with her that getting rid of that employer subsidy is wildly unfair to the staffers and aides who are just trying to launch careers, but that's a deal that wouldn't affect basically all of America except Congress & the White House. Practically every true moderate in America understands that the GOP hugely overreached with this, and that party will have to deal with the consequences in the 2014 midterms. If that's all it takes to get us out of this situation, then freakin do it.
it makes compromise very difficult, as they don't want to be seen by their constituents to be compromising their principles.
Almost everyone elected has principles. They've also had educations that allow them to understand what debate and compromise means. There's a few that willfully ignore their educations. They're the problem.
No, they won't. You're overestimating the political memory of Americans and underestimating the Right's manipulation of the democratic process.
Reagan was principled, yet more than willing to compromise. Not so much with the current occupant of the White House. He doesn't even want to talk. Reagan even put it in words - "If you get 75% of what you are asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it".
Agreed. Although I'm befuddled why staffers are included in this. It should just be the members of Congress.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. Groucho Marx I like persons better than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything else in the world. Oscar Wilde You can't learn too soon that the most useful thing about a principle is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency. W. Somerset Maugham
yeah, I agree. I was only kidding. I don't mean to imply that a person with principles cannot compromise. only if one of your principles is not compromising.