He should have called it Romneycare so no one would have given a fuck.
[QUOTE=Badballer;47072916]He should have called it Romneycare so no one would have given a fuck.[/QUOTE]
rmoney*
Why is it called Obamacare? So weird that name has stuck.
[QUOTE=kenji;47073057]Why is it called Obamacare? So weird that name has stuck.[/QUOTE]
Afaik it was always called Affordable Care but because Republicans always named it Obamacare because that apparently made it sound less well-meaning or whatever, combine that with how vehemently Obama campaigned and fought for it and people took it up and called it Obamacare. Also it's more catchy.
[QUOTE=Badballer;47072916]He should have called it Romneycare so no one would have given a fuck.[/QUOTE]
Didn't Romney basically pass a healthcare system extremely similar to Obamacare in his home state? Do these people just not pay attention to what actually happens if they don't think or like that it's happened?
[QUOTE=woolio1;47073389]Didn't Romney basically pass a healthcare system extremely similar to Obamacare in his home state? Do these people just not pay attention to what actually happens if they don't think or like that it's happened?[/QUOTE]
A common misconception...
His state passed a bill mandating those who could purchase insurance- do so. That doesn't make it equal to obamacare.
Obamacare sucks, we get that. But have an alternative ready before you kill it.
[QUOTE=Mr.Moustachio;47072267]Why does anyone vote republican[/QUOTE]
Because a lot of people vote based on party lines instead of issues. It's kind of scary hearing how many people identify with either side without knowing a single god damned thing that party actually stands for. And, of course, they get quite pissy indeed when you point out that their chosen party opposes their own views on issues they hold near and dear to their hearts and that their votes are in direct opposition to the changes they'd like to see in the country.
A lot of it is hereditary, especially with Republican voters. They'll vote red because their parents voted red, who voted red because theirs voted red, etc etc.
rip my health insurance
I still get to be covered under my fathers health care plan which is fantastic because of it, I don't know what I'll do without it
[quote] It was the 56th time the House has voted to junk the law known as Obamacare since Congress passed it in 2010.[/quote]
If at first you dont succeed, try 55 more times. Fucking ridiculous. All this is going to do is end up in a veto and the republicans dont have enough votes to overturn that.
You know Im not entirely against National Healthcare.
But I think we can all agree Obamacare has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
Kinda wish they were trying to fix it rather than scrap it entirely. But that would require cooperation.
[QUOTE=TestECull;47074065]Because a lot of people vote based on party lines instead of issues. It's kind of scary hearing how many people identify with either side without knowing a single god damned thing that party actually stands for. And, of course, they get quite pissy indeed when you point out that their chosen party opposes their own views on issues they hold near and dear to their hearts and that their votes are in direct opposition to the changes they'd like to see in the country.
A lot of it is hereditary, especially with Republican voters. They'll vote red because their parents voted red, who voted red because theirs voted red, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
What's even worse is when the voters are in a position where the other party is basically built around their ideologies, but they still find ways to agree with the party they support. My dad's an extremely progressive man who has an in-progress Ph.D in Wildlife and Natural Resources, and despite an extensive preservation background, he'll still claim that government regulation for national parks, environmental protection regulation, etc., is entirely worthless because the Reds oppose it.
I'm a Centrist, myself. I usually vote independent/third, because the Republican party right now seems way too focused on corporate interests over the interests of its voters, and the Democrats are too spineless to act on any of their decent ideas.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;47072073]I wonder what it would be like if a conservative american politician started posting here
"wow imagine helping the lowers rofl realtalk tho fuck off and stop being poor already"[/QUOTE]
I think Bootstrap Bill got banned though. (can't even remember his username, something about "I worked HVAC when I was 14 which normally requires a certification and minimum 2 years of trade school to even get started in BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER YOU'RE ALL JUST LAZY AND WANT TO STAY POOR WHILE YOU ALL ENVY MY BMW WHICH I BOUGHT TO SEPARATE MYSELF FROM YOU WORMS" or something along those lines)
party like rock just made the hot thing! Aww yeah, go Republicans, lets get neolithic up in this bitch!
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47074206]If at first you dont succeed, try 55 more times. Fucking ridiculous. All this is going to do is end up in a veto and the republicans dont have enough votes to overturn that.[/QUOTE]
Senate doesn't have enough votes to break filibuster
They have on paper enough votes to pass but not to break a filibuster so..guess what happens next?
[QUOTE=Mr.Moustachio;47072267]Why does anyone vote republican[/QUOTE]
Lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47075480]Lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if your choice was between the Republicans and the Tea Party. But that's not really saying much.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47075480]Lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
I guess that depends on what you consider evil. Welfare systems for the poor, free community college, free healthcare, better education, better transportation, access to women's health services, and better immigration hardly seem evil... just expensive.
So, I guess if saving money and marketing the US as a business haven to rake in more money for the government is a good thing, then the liberals are evil. But then one would be right in asking why you were supporting corporate interests over your own if you didn't have a stake in it.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47075480]Lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
No, this is objectively untrue.
[QUOTE=draugur;47075497]Yeah, if your choice was between the Republicans and the Tea Party. But that's not really saying much.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with a lot of Republican policies, but the alternative is much worse. I simply cannot vote for someone who has an extremely naive and border-line extremist foreign policy, opposes civilian gun ownership, increases regulation of our lives and abandons our allies.
I'm pretty moderate and don't want to see a purely conservative or liberal world. I want our country to have a better government, not necessarily bigger or smaller. I am open to healthcare reform and increasing protections on the rights of workers. I also support lgbt rights and abortion, but not at the expense of gun owners.
I am also fundamentally opposed to both foreign policy mindsets, the liberal "America is bad, we should completely ignore the world and mind our own business" and the conservative "America is perfect and intervention is always justified." The fact is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that there are plenty of instances where intervention is justified, and there are plenty of instances where intervention isn't.
Given that the economy, foreign policy and civil liberties are the most important issues to me, I usually vote Republican.
It's amusing how people often really like socialism if you don't tell them it's socialism.
-ism words are a toxin in today's society. They immediately warp civil discourse into tribal allegiances that should never have existed in the first place.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47075789]It's amusing how people often really like socialism if you don't tell them it's socialism.
-ism words are a toxin in today's society. They immediately warp civil discourse into tribal allegiances that should never have existed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Public healthcare is in no way socialism.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47075550]I disagree with a lot of Republican policies, but the alternative is much worse. I simply cannot vote for someone who has an extremely naive and border-line extremist foreign policy, opposes civilian gun ownership, increases regulation of our lives and abandons our allies.
I'm pretty moderate and don't want to see a purely conservative or liberal world. I want our country to have a better government, not necessarily bigger or smaller. I am open to healthcare reform and increasing protections on the rights of workers. I also support lgbt rights and abortion, but not at the expense of gun owners.
I am also fundamentally opposed to both foreign policy mindsets, the liberal "America is bad, we should completely ignore the world and mind our own business" and the conservative "America is perfect and intervention is always justified." The fact is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that there are plenty of instances where intervention is justified, and there are plenty of instances where intervention isn't.
Given that the economy, foreign policy and civil liberties are the most important issues to me, I usually vote Republican.[/QUOTE]
I love how it's ok to reduce my (and my friends and family's) quality of life so that some people can have their precious guns locked up in their closets.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47075832]Public healthcare is in no way socialism.[/QUOTE]
It is. Socialist in principle of it being funded by everyone for everyone.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47076093]It is. Socialist in principle of it being funded by everyone for everyone.[/QUOTE]
And I fucking love the idea of it.
[QUOTE=Levithan;47076057]I love how it's ok to reduce my (and my friends and family's) quality of life so that some people can have their precious guns locked up in their closets.[/QUOTE]
At the end of the day, barring some exceptions (disabled people, etc.), you are responsible for your own quality of life. I also listed a more reasons for why I vote for Republicans other than gun ownership.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47076292]At the end of the day, barring some exceptions (disabled people, etc.), you are responsible for your own quality of life. I also listed a more reasons for why I vote for Republicans other than gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so tell me how being denied over a thousand federal rights and benefits (marriage) is a quality-of-life matter that I'm responsible for? Is it my fault for wanting to marry someone of the same sex? Am I responsible for my sexual identity (and you best be very careful with this one)?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47076334]Okay, so tell me how being denied over a thousand federal rights and benefits (marriage) is a quality-of-life matter that I'm responsible for? Is it my fault for wanting to marry someone of the same sex? Am I responsible for my sexual identity (and you best be very careful with this one)?[/QUOTE]
I said "barring some exceptions." Getting a few tax breaks and legal privileges is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. I have always supported gay marriage and it looks like the issue is about to end soon with the upcoming Supreme Court ruling anyway. If it ever comes to a vote in Congress, I'll write a letter to my congressman and senators, urging them to vote in favor legalizing gay marriage.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47076093]It is. Socialist in principle of it being funded by everyone for everyone.[/QUOTE]
True but this is one of the times where socialism is a good idea, it benefits more people than it holds back by far. I can't imagine living in a world where every hospital trip is a worry about costs, everyone deserves good healthcare in an age where we can provide it so readily.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47076093]It is. Socialist in principle of it being funded by everyone for everyone.[/QUOTE]
If public healthcare systems are socialist, then shit, private healthcare schemes might as well be socialist as well. What's the difference? Each involve groups of people contributing to a pool of funds (via taxes for public healthcare, the Medicare levy specifically in Australia, insurance premiums for private healthcare, and possibly co-payments for both public and private), and members of that group of contributors can claim medical expenses on their healthcare plan, whether the healthcare covers only a proportion or all of the costs. One scheme is operated by the government, one by the market.
The only difference really is that the market alternative purposefully aims to create a financial profit, but that's not to say the government scheme can't either. The public doesn't actually directly own either scheme, but can indirectly control each one through public elections for government schemes or being a shareholder for private schemes.
[editline]5th February 2015[/editline]
I would hardly call paying a 2% levy on my taxable income, so Medicare can cover a fixed amount of each medical expense which I claim, as socialist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.