Enslavement-to-the-Health-Care-Sector Act of 2010

B

bootsie

Member
People who were for ObamaCare probably won't like this one. People who weren't will probably love it. The Unintimidated Press published its take on the subject saying it makes all Americans slaves to the health care sector and branding the legislation as the "Enslavement-to-the-Health-Care-Sector Act of 2010." This piece will get your blood boiling:

http://www.unintimidatedpress.com/slaves.htm
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i liked the article AND was glad to see patient protection and affordable care act pass too, so your qualifier of 'probably' was well needed. your article pointed out a lot of what is broken with our system that still needs fixing. sure, it took a few shots at obama and i would disagree with the terminology 'enslavement', but whatever.

welcome to the board.
 
B

bootsie

Member
UncleBuck said:
i liked the article AND was glad to see patient protection and affordable care act pass too, so your qualifier of 'probably' was well needed. your article pointed out a lot of what is broken with our system that still needs fixing. sure, it took a few shots at obama and i would disagree with the terminology 'enslavement', but whatever.

welcome to the board.
Click to expand...
It probably would've been better if the government hadn't done anything at all. I think this legislation will really come back to haunt the Congress. After all, like the article said, it's really just a piece of legislation that was written by special interests. Thanks for the opinion.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
bootsie said:
It probably would've been better if the government hadn't done anything at all.
Click to expand...
and i can see how you would think that seeing as how the need to post an article like this one brought you out of 14 months of lurking.

i like that children with pre-existing conditions can not be denied insurance. i like that insurers can not drop you if you get sick anymore. i like that preventative care is easier and cheaper to obtain now. i like that insurers will have to put 85% into actual health care eventually, instead of administrative costs (ie diligently dropping and denying those seen as less profitable).

i hate that this does not address much more important issues, but i can't hate a bill for what's not in it. i like what is in it, and think further steps need to be taken.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
No one seems to care that it is officially called HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM...it never was about "care"
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
It makes no difference...the official language of the bill was never "health care reform bill" it was always "health insurance reform" that's all I was trying to say.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
It makes no difference...the official language of the bill was never "health care reform bill" it was always "health insurance reform" that's all I was trying to say.
Click to expand...
the official language of the bill, let me repeat, reads: patient protection and affordable care act.

colloquially (look that up if you have to), it was known as many things: obamacare, messiahcare, health reform, health insurance reform, health care reform, health care overhaul....

:confused:
 
B

bootsie

Member
UncleBuck said:
and i can see how you would think that seeing as how the need to post an article like this one brought you out of 14 months of lurking.

i like that children with pre-existing conditions can not be denied insurance. i like that insurers can not drop you if you get sick anymore. i like that preventative care is easier and cheaper to obtain now. i like that insurers will have to put 85% into actual health care eventually, instead of administrative costs (ie diligently dropping and denying those seen as less profitable).

i hate that this does not address much more important issues, but i can't hate a bill for what's not in it. i like what is in it, and think further steps need to be taken.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if people stated their political affiliation up front. I'm a registered independent and have never belonged to any political party. You don't have to state yours because you're obviuosly a democrat.

That said, pay someone else to pay your doctor for you. Pay your doctor for the extra costs generated by having someone else pay him for you. Then pay your doctor for whatever it was he did for you. Yup, genius stuff!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Slavery can be a matter of degrees. When a person is clearly enslaved, as in shackled etc. people readily recognize it. What is sad is when people don't recognize the level of slavery that presently exists. Wherein they are prevented from owning themselves, their labor and their property. People that want to make other peaceful people comply with their wishes under the threat of force are promoting a form of slavery. Rationalizations abound, but an unwarranted and unwanted intervention into another persons life must be defined as a form of slavery.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
bootsie said:
It would be nice if people stated their political affiliation up front. I'm a registered independent and have never belonged to any political party. You don't have to state yours because you're obviuosly a democrat.

That said, pay someone else to pay your doctor for you. Pay your doctor for the extra costs generated by having someone else pay him for you. Then pay your doctor for whatever it was he did for you. Yup, genius stuff!
Click to expand...
You have no real clue do you? Who do you think is paying Dr's for most medical care now? Insurers that negotiate huge discounts. There are no extra costs associated because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as far as your doctor getting paid. In fact, had the bill moved us to a single payer system, the cost of filing and paperwork would have gone down, but Republicans would have been screaming "Socialism" even louder than they do now!

Bootsie, what facts do you know about this act? Facts, not talking points...
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Slavery can be a matter of degrees. When a person is clearly enslaved, as in shackled etc. people readily recognize it. What is sad is when people don't recognize the level of slavery that presently exists. Wherein they are prevented from owning themselves, their labor and their property. People that want to make other peaceful people comply with their wishes under the threat of force are promoting a form of slavery. Rationalizations abound, but an unwarranted and unwanted intervention into another persons life must be defined as a form of slavery.
Click to expand...
Then it must be terrible for you to be 'forced' to carry automobile insurance or to have to pay taxes or obey your state statutes. That argument is very weak. In fact the portion about owning your own labor almost sounds like socialism.

The reason people are required to have insurance is to increase the rolls and reduce the risk pools. Millions of people do not take coverage and when they have an emergency, other's end up paying the dead beat's hospital bills with taxes. Why should I foot your carelessness or misfortune? Had you opted for the coverage, no one else would have to cover lack of responsibility.

I would hardly call being self responsible a form of slavery....

We all had to sign up for the draft, we all pay taxes and we do so for the betterment of our country. I suggest that maintaining your own insurance keeps the cost down for others. While the bill isn't perfect, it was action taken towards a problem that is only going to get worse. The Republicans were in on the drafting early on, decided it didn't fit their constituent's and they bailed and started spreading rumors. They wanted to start over fresh, from square one. After having done nothing to shore up health care while they were in power, except for the multi trillion dollar prescription plan giveaway in an election term.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Serapis said:
Then it must be terrible for you to be 'forced' to carry automobile insurance or to have to pay taxes or obey your state statutes. That argument is very weak. In fact the portion about owning your own labor almost sounds like socialism.

The reason people are required to have insurance is to increase the rolls and reduce the risk pools. Millions of people do not take coverage and when they have an emergency, other's end up paying the dead beat's hospital bills with taxes. Why should I foot your carelessness or misfortune? Had you opted for the coverage, no one else would have to cover lack of responsibility.

I would hardly call being self responsible a form of slavery....

We all had to sign up for the draft, we all pay taxes and we do so for the betterment of our country. I suggest that maintaining your own insurance keeps the cost down for others. While the bill isn't perfect, it was action taken towards a problem that is only going to get worse. The Republicans were in on the drafting early on, decided it didn't fit their constituent's and they bailed and started spreading rumors. They wanted to start over fresh, from square one. After having done nothing to shore up health care while they were in power, except for the multi trillion dollar prescription plan giveaway in an election term.
Click to expand...
I'm not forced to carry auto insurance, and wouldn't do it if I was forced against my will. You offer rationalizations of other instances where freedom of choice has been denied to justify making a person purchase something they may not want. I have no problem if you and your friends want to collaborate on something as long as you don't make everybody else particpate.

Are you okay with individuals excercising control over their own lives as long as they leave others alone or do you think
that is unacceptable?

Self responsible is not slavery, I agree, but that is not what I said. Being self responsible means being capable of making your own choices and living with the consequences. You use "self responsible" to bolster your argument, erroneously I think.

When people are "required" to do something under the threat of force that they wouldn't ordinarily do what do you call it, if it isn't a form of slavery?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the official language of the bill, let me repeat, reads: patient protection and affordable care act.

colloquially (look that up if you have to), it was known as many things: obamacare, messiahcare, health reform, health insurance reform, health care reform, health care overhaul....

:confused:
Click to expand...
Not the name...get over it - you were right once....that's about it.
 
Mindmelted

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
And no one addresses the fact that all the millions of people with out health insurance can not afford it.

Do you actually think these people don't want health insurance(They can't afford it!!!!)

Now they are going to be fined for not being able to afford it.

Typical government BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
 
ky|e

ky|e

Active Member
Well put. exactly how I would have worded it.
UncleBuck said:
and i can see how you would think that seeing as how the need to post an article like this one brought you out of 14 months of lurking.

i like that children with pre-existing conditions can not be denied insurance. i like that insurers can not drop you if you get sick anymore. i like that preventative care is easier and cheaper to obtain now. i like that insurers will have to put 85% into actual health care eventually, instead of administrative costs (ie diligently dropping and denying those seen as less profitable).

i hate that this does not address much more important issues, but i can't hate a bill for what's not in it. i like what is in it, and think further steps need to be taken.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top