Hate them right back. They make it really easy.
But this isn’t a natural disaster. A natural disaster warning is not equally applicable to every state in the nation. Why duplicate your efforts fifty times over when you want to direct the entire nation to this federal service?
Teach a man to do his own appendectomy and he no longer needs to eat for a lifetime? I’ve heard better analogies.
Rick Perry doesn’t have to duplicate his efforts- he should just help educate Texans about their health care options, or at the very least not throw up roadblocks towards such attempts.
There are a myriad ways that signing up for Obamacare could make those who do so better off. One of the primary ways of cutting costs for the plans in the exchanges is to restrict the doctors that one may see. If the doctors that are on the plan are worse than those not on the plan, are rushed seeing patients, or are unavailable for appointments, signing up for Obamacare could make them worse off. Medicaid is similar in that it restricts costs by not paying for the best doctors and the results is that people on Medicaid have higher mortality than those who do not have insurance.
Since Obamacare provides subsidies for people to buy insurance the more people sign up the more expensive it is. If it is to expensive changes will have to be made to either cut subsidies or cut coverage. So people who sign up could find themselves with worse coverage than they could get privately.
Obamacare may prove to be so popular that it crowds out private insurance. Then once it proves too expensive it will be replacedby government run health care. Then going to the doctor will be like going to the DMV except you die at the end. Shouldn’t elected officials look out for constituents long term interests instead of merely what works short term.
I have a great alternative for Texans who don’t have insurance, magic beans. These beans will make sure you never get sick and will heal you if you get injured. Unfortunately magic does not come cheap and to afford them you will need the government to send me lots of money. If people think the government should not be sending me the money, does that mean they hate people, or have enough wisdom to beware people making outlandish claims?
I believe you are more representative of the anti-Obamacare sentiment than Bricker.
I think the OP was referring to the organization not the people.
And the point here is when the fisherman gets sick and his insurance is revoked or denied, or we then decided that it is better to tell the fisherman to ignore a condition he has and continue fishing and die early or cause more expense to others if he goes to the emergency room.
As much as he is maligned, Michael Moore’s point in the documentary Sicko was that while it was very cruel what is happening to the working poor, the focus of the documentary was that even the insured got a lousy deal in the old system.
This is an excellent point. I’d be curious how Bricker or any other “anti-dependency conservative” responds.
You can teach a man to fish and make him less dependent, but he still needs access to a fishing pole, and if he can’t afford to buy one, he’s still dependent on society for help. Likewise, people who can’t afford to get health insurance are still dependent.
The problem is that the Republicans remember the first part of this glurge (don’t give a fish) but forget the second part. The choice they give isn’t between giving a fish and teaching to fish, instead its between giving him a fish and just saying go out and fish, without giving him a fishing rod, or any instruction and fencing off the only river.
ETA: Ninjad by Happy Lendervedder
Every time I buy a book at Barnes & Noble I’m paying for all the shop lifted books as well, the same goes with my insurance premiums. The only fair solutions for responsible insurance holders is to let noninsurance holders die on the sidewalk (and just hope hospitals always get that right) or making sure everyone has insurance or pays a fine if they do not, which can go to supporting them when they are injured.
Politics aside, it’s insurance holders (statistically more pale in skin tone and wealthier) that are the ones really gaining here, it’s odd the GOP doesn’t see that.
The Affordable Care Ace is the “old system.” The only difference is that there is now some things that are mandated to be covered, and a whole huge slew of extra overhead crap that doctors have to do just to get paid (E-Records and P4P suck if you are a doctor). Oh, and if you make below a certain amount, you are going to get insurance subsidized.
So, instead of just subsidizing insurance costs for the poor directly, we now are roping everyone into the same system. It costs more for everyone to participate (insurance costs are rising, but the media says “not as much as we expected!”) in this system as we now have to add expensive options to the insurance coverage, such as pre-existing conditions and all of the other mandates, so the only people getting a good deal are the poor who get subsidies.
They shouldn’t have passed this horrible thing that was already causing disruptions to the Massachusetts health care system before we passed it. Single payer or even state-run medical care would have been preferable. But instead of looking for a health care plan that would actually work and convince people it would be better, Obama decided that his legacy had to be so complex and onerous that we are going to still be implementing it four years after he leaves the presidency.
Great. I love it when people don’t have to take responsibility for the stuff they do.
As for Rick Perry, what is he doing to prevent those 2.6 million people from getting onto the federal exchanges? If he’s just not advertising, well there’s no law or stipulation that requires he do that. It’s not like others (perhaps the Democrats that so despise him?) can’t advertise in Texas, either.
Is he actively preventing them from going and getting the federal exchange health care? If not, then I can’t see this claim as anything other than partisan bickering.
No.
Even a man who knows how to fish will die of scurvy, if fish is all he eats. This shows that you have interpreted the analogy too myopically.
“How to fish,” is properly analogized to “how to earn,” not 'how to perform your own medical care." Money can be exchanged for all manner of goods and services in our system. The man who fishes can certainly eat his fill of fish, and sell his catch to the market, earning gelt to buy vegetables, meat, and high speed internet access.
I don’t agree that this characterization is correct.
I don’t agree that’s happening here.
I have no idea what Perry’s motivation is, but Perry does not impress me as a deep thinker, so his objections may be no more solidly grounded than “Obama = bad.”
But the OP does not limit his excoriation to Perry. He inveighs against the entire GOP.
Nope, this is denying that these changes already took place from the old one:
And the CNN report is dealing with problems that are solvable, as it was pointed before, many in Massachusetts are in agreement with the changes.
The USA right is pretty consistent. A core belief is that if people who they don’t approve of participate in something that’s generally good, those peoples’ participation will make the generally good thing worse. They believe this about marriage, health insurance, voting, paying lower taxes… So they set out to make sure these good things exclude as many undesirables as possible. Sure, it may also exclude a few people they would not mind participating, but it’s worth it to keep that thing pure.
An allegedly scientific study showed that one value the USA right holds to, but not the USA left, is sanctity or purity. This might be the reason. This link has further links and a bit of explanation/summary of the study. Conservatives V Liberals ethicsdefined.org | Ethics Defined
So how are the Republicans teaching the uninsured to fish? At the very least they could hand out scalpels and a copies of do-it yourself appendectomies for dummies.
Huh? This puzzles me since the whole idea is to level the playing field so that everyone can and must purchase private insurance instead of crowding it out.
Seems to me that it levels the playing field and that those insurers who come up with the best balance between price and access to providers will win the most customers. Just as with any other capitalist endeavor.
Also, if you look at many European counties with single payer, universal coverage you will find it based on private medical insurance.
Bricker? What happens when there’s no fish left to catch? Teach them to hunt unicorn?