I would hazard a guess that people tend to self-identify as conservative if they are moderately conservative, but that only relatively hardcore, left-wing folks would identify as liberals.
Elsewhere, IIRC, registered Democrats still outnumber registered Republicans by more than 20 million.
So there is a huge chunk of America that is “non-self-identifying-as-liberal” liberal.
You’re right - it isn’t. It’s not affordable and it doesn’t improve the quality of the people’s lives who lost their good insurance plan and had to settle for a more expensive, POS insurance plan.
But being called a “Socialist” has new gravitas these days ������
I am not sure how many people’s lives have been improved or saved through medical intervention because of “Celle qui fut la belle heaulmiere.” Would you say that number is greater or less than that of the ACA?
I do find it amusing that you use the phrase “fatally so”, for something that has saved lives.
I did not expect the ACa to be a great work of art, just that it would help to provide insurance for people who could not afford it, or were otherwise denied coverage. For instance, I could afford it, but due to preexisting conditions, (sciatica) I could not get it. (Well, not entirely true, I could get a policy that cost more than my policy under ACA does now [and I do not qualify for a subsidy], but did not cover anything to do with my spine or joints, even if they were in no way related to my sciatica.)
It was rushed, it was imperfect, and it was full of mistakes, just like just about any other first draft legislation is.
It certainly could use some updating. It could use some fixes. I could use a complete overhaul, even.
Did the republicans ever work with the democrats on improving it? Or did they just make it as hard as possible to pass, and ensured that it would be completely impossible to update?
So, you are correct in the Obama was a bit too cavalier in promoting the ACA. He did claim that if you liked your doctor or your plan, then you could keep them. He should not have made that promise without making it illegal for doctors to move or retire, and made it impossible for them to die. He should have made it illegal for any insurance company to change or drop their plans, or to change the doctors or other services that are covered by their plans. And he should have pointed out that there were many insurance plans out there that you may have liked, because they were cheap, but you only liked them because you had never put a claim into them, and did not discover that, while cheap, it was still a complete waste of money that you would never get back.
Not to hijack the thread, but I think the high insurance premiums are one of the strongest arguments for single-payer health care that there is. Either way, you’re going to have to pay thousands of dollars into a system - be it private insurance or a government-run single-payer system. So why not just abandon ACA and go full single payer instead? You’d simply be paying the same thousands of dollars, but into a different system instead, and one that could potentially work much better.
So “truth” = “for some it’s true but not for everyone”. That’s a funny definition of truth. Does gravity also work for most people and not for some?
I was one of the of the ones who did not get to keep the doctor I had had since the late early 90s.
But “Truth”! Because Obama said so.
Man, if that bothers you, you really must hate our President-Elect.
Yes, but for a promise to be true it has to be true for everyone to whom it was given.
Suppose the US government promises that it will abide by the First Amendment, but then suspends freedom of religion for Muslims, and then says, “Muslims account for only 2% of the population. Our promise of freedom of religion still held true for 98% of Americans.”
Kinda like LGBT segment of populace is under 4 % yet other 96 % has to adhere to their whims …
…of not brutalizing them and accepting that they exist?
Statistically speaking, nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape.
Right – I was only responding to the degrees of accuracy assertion.
What “whims” are we adhering to? My life seems completely unaffected by civil rights afforded to LGBT people.
Fair enough, clearly it’d be a hijack and I didn’t mean to bring it up as its own debate point.
My broader point is true - about twice as many people favor the ACA (in its entirety) as support “Obamacare”
The same sort of smear campaign has been run against the term “liberal” and so you would expect people to underreport on it.
Teaching GAY History in Californiia Elementary & Middle Schools… Transgender bathroom allowance , over saturation in media & pop culture … Forced acceptance reguardless of religious reservations or personal reservations , degradation of ones variety of morality …
Most people agree with the requirement that pre-existing conditions not be a factor in denying a person insurance coverage. Is that “free stuff”?
What’s “gay history”? Is that real history, acknowledging that gay people have been a part of it?
Trans people have been using bathrooms for as long as bathrooms have existed.
Could you expand on this? What level of gay “saturation” in media and pop culture do you find acceptable, and at what level is it too high for you?
What “forced acceptance”? Individuals are free to personally accept or reject homosexuality as they choose. And what “degradation”? What morality is degraded by the existence of gay people?
I’m off the fence. This is all over the place with no attempt to course correct by the OP. Lacking substance and more like pot shots does not fare well in GD.
Moved from Great Debates to The Pit.
[/moderating]
I’d agree that there is a huge chunk of “not self-identifying-as-liberal” liberals, but I suspect they’re more likely to be on the left end of the spectrum and prefer the label “progressive.” Hard-right people are usually happy to be called conservatives, hard-left people mostly don’t like being called liberals.
As in, acknowledging that some people in history have been gay? So what? I remember back when conservatives claimed to stand for being honest about historical accuracy.
[QUOTE=Donpeyote]
Transgender bathroom allowance
[/quote]
As in, letting people use whatever bathroom they feel is appropriate for their gender identification, without demanding to inspect what’s in their underwear or on their birth certificate? So what? I remember back when conservatives claimed to stand for keeping government intrusion out of the lives of people just minding their own business.
[QUOTE=Donpeyote]
over saturation in media & pop culture …
[/quote]
As in, letting audiences make their own decisions about supporting entertainment with gay performers and/or gay fictional characters? So what? I remember back when conservatives claimed to stand for consumer freedoms and noninterference with market forces.
[QUOTE=Donpeyote]
Forced acceptance reguardless of religious reservations or personal reservations
[/quote]
“Forced acceptance” of what? The equal civil rights of all people, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity? Yeah, I have no problem with the law “forcing acceptance” of those fundamental rights.
[QUOTE=Donpeyote]
degradation of ones variety of morality …
[/QUOTE]
How does that work, exactly? How does the existence of civil rights for LGBTQ people “degrade” anybody else’s morality?