OK. You gonna explain to all those people refused Medicaid how no doctor is better than…well, what? Really, what is wrong with these people, what with leeches and mud so freely available? Are they so absorbed in their selfish petty problems that they can’t be bothered to worry about a bunch of nuns?
OK. so you got an infected toe. If you could see a plain old doctor, you’d be fine. But, suck it up, loser, if you had made better choices, you wouldn’t be sharpening your son’s Boy Scout hatchet.
People are hurting, have been for years, and we did squat all about it. But if they are our people, why wouldn’t we help them? And if they are not our people, who’s people are they?
We’re judging the tradeoff between mandates like the contraception mandate vs. better access to better doctors. You’re trying to compare it to people not having insurance at all.
Contraception stops new life being created which will cost (someone) a bunch of money later. Thus, they save the medical system money. The medical treatments you mention save someone’s life - which means they fail to die and instead will get sick again later, costing more money to fix them up, and so on until they actually die.
An expensive treatment for any disease would probably bankrupt the medical system.
That’s already been taken care of. The really good stuff isn’t covered by anything but gold and platinum plans. I’m talking pretty basic stuff here, like chemo, blood transfusions, and broken bones.
Right. I think my personal political bent could be described as “near-commie liberal”, and you are obviously a “mainstream conservative”, and we can both agree that the birth control is a good idea. My pointing out that the “fucking stupid” people tend to be people you as a conservative don’t want to see more of is also another point. I used to live in a neighborhood with lots of rich kids. When some of them were dumb and got pregnant they had a large support network to take care of those children.
The smaller the network, the less likely it is to include the best doctors and hospitals. The network is small because the insurer didn’t offer much in terms of payment rates.
Or, alternatively, the less likely to include hospitals painted brown. Or doctors who’s first name is Fred. And how are we to measure which doctors and hospitals are the “best”? By insinuation, you suggest it is those that charge the most. Ain’t necessarily so.
Do you favor repeal? With all your bellyaching and carping, you haven’t been all that explicit. Is that what you want? Are you going to explain to all the people who can now go to a doctor when previously they had to wait until they were desperately ill how much better off they are thanks to Republicans? That’s not shooting yourself in the foot, that’s stuffing a hand grenade up your Nixon and pulling the pin.
You got kids? I got kids, how about you? You rather take your sick kid to the doctor before things get to an emergency room level, or would you prefer a stern lecture from Judge Judy about personal responsibility?
So, I ask you straight out: you want repeal, or no?
It’s a valid point. You don’t always get what you pay for. But looking at a large group of service providers in any profession, the ones most in demand charge the highest prices. There exist doctors who only the rich see. Maybe they really suck, but I doubt it. Same goes for lawyers. Who’d you rather have, public counsel or the guys who represent the rich and famous?
I do favor repeal, very much so. Although I recognize that any replacement will include many of the elements of ACA, like the insurance reforms and the Medicaid expansion.
But you don’t have a replacement. You want to replace “Yes!” with “Maybe, sorta kinda, we’ll have to see”.
Would you buy that? “No, you can’t go to the doctor, but we’ll work on that, we’ll come up with a plan that allows insurance companies to bone you whenever they feel like it, and make oodles of cash, but will improve service and save money. Trust us…”
Gonna go for single payer? Oh, noes, noes! Not the briar patch! Anything but the briar patch!
Any chance I can nominate you for Supreme Strategic Decider for the Republican Party? You da Man!
Except for that fact that the earliest possible chance to actually put any replacement into effect would be after the 2016 election, if a Republican wins, and if both houses are in Republican control, due to that pesky veto thing. So you are not replacing the ACA now, you’ll be trying to replace the ACA several years into it. You keep saying that the sign up numbers now won’t be too hard to grandfather or figure out a solution for, but we’re only a few months into the implementation now. What are those numbers going to look like years into the future? You need to play this as a long game if you really want to change it. It ain’t gonna happen any time soon if it ever is.
There’s a small chance they could pass it over OBama’s veto in 2015. Depends on how bad the Democrats get creamed and how many scurry for cover by supporting the GOP alternative.
Congress can pass Iran sanctions at any time over Obama’s veto, I’m sure they can pass a health care bill if motivated enough.
Now the contraception mandate, that won’t even require action. That’s going away as soon as SCOTUS hears the case.
Very well. You’re wrong for a quite large number of reasons.
First, you seem to think that the annual cost of ‘the pill’ is $600. It’s actually about $8 per month. (There are other forms of birth control that are more expensive.)
Second, you seem to think that birth control is not currently available for free. But it is. Any woman (or man) can go to a Planned Parenthood clinic or a thousand other sources and get free birth control. This has been true for decades.
Third, you seem to think that conservatives are opposed to this. Perhaps some are, but I’ve never heard anyone say that he or she is opposed to it. (The question that’s drawing a lot of publicity during Pres. Obama’s fight against the Little Sisters of the Poor and other organizations is whether employers should be forced to pay for their employees’ birth control, but obviously that has no effect on whether free birth control is available.
Fourth, in your OP you list groups that conservatives supposedly “don’t want to see breeding”. Where’s your evidence that conservatives don’t want to see these groups breeding?
Which would mean little. Planned Parenthood gets enough money without needing federal dollars. Plus the absence of federal funding would increase private donations dramatically.
