The Affordable HealthCare Decision

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:49 pm

fredsheldon wrote:...Do you really trust Insurance Companies more today than your own government?

Y E S !

without question.

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:25 pm

joshh wrote:What about his first two books? "The Way Things Ought To Be" attempted to tell us that if Clinton was elected, the world would basically end. "See I Told You So" tried to convince us that the world did end. Complete works of fiction.

That doesn't actually bother me. What bothers me about him is that he loudly and repeatedly said drug addicts should be executed. That continued until he was until he was arrested on felony narcotic charges

And the Limbaugh mystique rumbles on. Where else would one find works of fiction linked to truthfulness? [Oh my goodness! Was Herman Melville 'lying' about Moby Dick? ]

And "...said drug addicts should be executed"? Why do I think that is not true, out of context?

But if he did, and actually meant what you infer, was he stating a fact?

It is interesting. I listen to some blowhards mainly because they are interesting. Good or bad. Like, when a Liberal lies, it is simply some Conservative's fault. Let's 'move on'. But when Rush opines, it's a lie, or a fiction. (True, but a lie. Huh?)

Fascinating.

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:52 pm

Obamacare was designed to fail and be but a step toward a completely socialized single - payer system.

skou · Post by **skou** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:01 pm

keakap wrote:He probably was right. He usually is. But what I find most fascinating about Rush Limbaugh is that whether right or wrong in his opinions (Key Word "opinions") he has never, repeat NEVER been caught lying. America haters have been trying for decades to catch him at it, and failed completely.

And, on this we disagree!

No, he never came right out and said, "I'm an oxycontin addict," but I heard him rail against "drug infested, hippy-dippy, FM, rock-n-roller types."

He may have not been "saying" a lie, but without a doubt, he was LIVING a lie!

And, until he was convicted, I was a dedicated "ditto-head."

steve

BigSky · Post by **BigSky** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:22 pm

heathicus wrote:Obamacare was designed to fail and be but a step toward a completely socialized single - payer system.

That sounds ominous but I don't know what it would mean for the system to become "single payer".

Would there still be doctors, hospitals and nursing homes. Would they still practice medicine.

In my beginning it was a single payer system; he was my father. How would this new single payer system be different.

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:37 pm

"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system."

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:43 pm

The effect of that "affordable" health care act that I believe is, now and in the future, going to be a drag on the economy is the 30 hour workweek minimum. Many workers are already receiving a 29 hr. week from their employers. This removes the necessity of the employer paying for health care.

BigSky · Post by **BigSky** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:29 pm

charlese wrote:The effect of that "affordable" health care act that I believe is, now and in the future, going to be a drag on the economy is the 30 hour workweek minimum. Many workers are already receiving a 29 hr. week from their employers. This removes the necessity of the employer paying for health care.

You make a very important point. I never even thought about the incentive being offered to the employers to eliminate/reduce full-time employees as a way of reducing their costs.

No full-time employees = no health insurance requirements = under employment = hard times for everyone

fredsheldon · Post by **fredsheldon** » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:00 pm

You guys got too much free time on your hands. You need to start turning bowls or something to get your minds off of things that you can't change and once it's fully implemented probably will wonder why all the fuss anyway.

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:36 am

fredsheldon wrote:You guys got too much free time on your hands. You need to start turning bowls or something to get your minds off of things that you can't change and once it's fully implemented probably will wonder why all the fuss anyway.

I wish we could give thumbs up on here. That comment would get both of mine.

And I'll put my two cents in here...I disagree with the plan and having been a financial analyst for an insurance company I see where the nuts and bolts of the plan's foundation can't work. But it's all academic because I already have good health insurance at work and we are self-insured...the only way it can affect me is if health care costs start rising faster than they already have been. I wonder how many others are in the same boat as me...no personal impact but morally opposed.

Shopsmith Forums

The Affordable HealthCare Decision

Was the Affordable Health Care Decison Good or Bad?