• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Focusing On Obamacare Was Wrong Says NY Senator

Atman

Member
I am a socialist (social democrat). We don't have a monopoly on expressing concern for the public good, we just have our own ideas on what it looks like. Eminent Domain is contrary to everything socialism supports.

I don't want to detract from your larger argument, though. Just a side note.
Haha no worries. I'm actually aligned with the socialist party in my country (Canadian New Democratic Party) so I assure you I by no means am trying to denigrate socialism as a whole.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Haha no worries. I'm actually aligned with the socialist party in my country (Canadian New Democratic Party) so I assure you I by no means am trying to denigrate socialism as a whole.
Does Canada have Eminent Domain (by any other name)?
 

Atman

Member
Yes, I believe it's referred to as expropriation up here. We're starting to derail the thread a little bit here though I think :p
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Here's one for you - I found it particularly interesting that the right (who constantly bemoan that Obama is some sort of Communist) has never raised an issue about this is this not the definition of socialism?


This is all you got? One cantankerous Texas farmette? But her argument is slightly disingenuous considering all the pipelines we have criss-crossing states now without a major spill ever.

United States Pipelines map - Crude Oil (petroleum) pipelines - Natural Gas pipelines - Products pipelines
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Could you site a couple of references where anyone is really up in arms over losing land for the pipeline? I know a couple of Indian tribes made a half hearted, self-serving attempt at making this an issue.
Why not go educate yourself on it? There are many people who are not happy about it. But why would heavily politicized media cover it from such a perspective? Heaven forbid we realize there are legitimate examples of Soviet Russia-like happenings going on in America.

Here's one for you - I found it particularly interesting that the right (who constantly bemoan that Obama is some sort of Communist) has never raised an issue about this is this not the definition of socialism?
No. This private property is being taken away and is being given to a private corporate entity for private economic gains. It is tyranny, it is favoring an oligarchy, there is nothing good about it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Hmmm, seems there are those that do not care to discuss the implications of Democrats turning on Obama and Obamacare. Guess they can't face the facts. However they seem to want to discuss the imminent domain issue. I think dust1n would enjoy your inputs on his issue:
The Dems caved to Republicans, forfeited what would have been better, and now everyone is slowly realizing the insurance companies pulled a fast one and that ultimately they benefit the most from the ACA. Personally, the ACA discussions make me sick as hardly anyone wants to acknowledge it as "Romneycare," which of itself is not originally Romney's idea, the Reps are obsessed, still, with completely repealing it and letting people who need insurance go without, while the Dems are rightfully kicking themselves in the *** for letting the ACA become so watered down.
It's a very good opportunity to take a few pages from Marx to point out this is how the Bourgeoisie gets the Proletariat to support them, by replacing a system with little support in a way that gives minimal benefits to the Proletariat while furthering the causes and deepening the rule of the Bourgeois. We get the new conditions that offer hardly any real benefit from the new system, while the ruling class enjoys even greater power.
 

Atman

Member
This is all you got? One cantankerous Texas farmette? But her argument is slightly disingenuous considering all the pipelines we have criss-crossing states now without a major spill ever.
You're characterization of the farmette in question as being "cantakerous" and her argument as being "disingenous" doesn't change the fact that her private property is being confiscated by the government for the benefit of the so-called "public good" (in reality for the benefit of an already wealthy corporation). Now to clarify I have no particular opinion on the Keystone Pipeline, I simply noted that I find it curious that the political right in your country, that constantly bemoans the introduction of social programs as being an affront towards freedom, has nothing to say about the seizing of private property for the sake of corporate benefit.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The Dems caved to Republicans, forfeited what would have been better, and now everyone is slowly realizing the insurance companies pulled a fast one and that ultimately they benefit the most from the ACA. Personally, the ACA discussions make me sick as hardly anyone wants to acknowledge it as "Romneycare," which of itself is not originally Romney's idea, the Reps are obsessed, still, with completely repealing it and letting people who need insurance go without, while the Dems are rightfully kicking themselves in the *** for letting the ACA become so watered down.
It's a very good opportunity to take a few pages from Marx to point out this is how the Bourgeoisie gets the Proletariat to support them, by replacing a system with little support in a way that gives minimal benefits to the Proletariat while furthering the causes and deepening the rule of the Bourgeois. We get the new conditions that offer hardly any real benefit from the new system, while the ruling class enjoys even greater power.

Let's take a look at your assertions one at a time.
The Dems caved to Republicans, forfeited what would have been better, and now everyone is slowly realizing the insurance companies pulled a fast one and that ultimately they benefit the most from the ACA.
False. The Democrats passed the ACA with ZERO votes from Republicans. Therefore how can you say they "caved" to Republicans. The leftest majority within the Democratic Congress had to construct the bill in a manner that those within the majority party would accept. Thus in your thinking it would be that the far left of the Democratic party caved to the centrist coalition of the Democratic party. Sure the insurance companies were in favor of this law. The Democrats insured that these companies would increase their customer base and be supported by taxpayer money. Why wouldn't they be in favor of it, it was a win win situation for them; they couldn't lose money. Therefore wasn't the Democrats in bed with the insurance companies?
the Reps are obsessed, still, with completely repealing it and letting people who need insurance go without, while the Dems are rightfully kicking themselves in the *** for letting the ACA become so watered down.
I will admit that there are those within the Republican party that are obsessed with just repealing Obamacare without offering an alternative. Yet there are those within the Republican and Democratic party that see that the ACA, as written, is a drag on the economy and hurts the middle class the most. These members of Congress are willing to look at various sections of the ACA and offer up changes, such as the medical device tax. However, no major changes will be passed until the court cases wind their way through the court system Of which the biggest concerns the subsidies issue that will be heard by the Supreme Court.
It's a very good opportunity to take a few pages from Marx to point out this is how the Bourgeoisie gets the Proletariat to support them, by replacing a system with little support in a way that gives minimal benefits to the Proletariat while furthering the causes and deepening the rule of the Bourgeois. We get the new conditions that offer hardly any real benefit from the new system, while the ruling class enjoys even greater power.
Rhetoric without substance or fact does noting to address the problems facing the middle class in their desire to insure that they have adequate and affordable healthcare. Which according to data says that they are losing in the both areas. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/u...rdable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0
What Senator Schumer was pointing out was that they, the Democrats, focused on helping the lower income individuals and ignored the middle class. What they should have been doing is looking how to increase the opportunity for job and income growth for the middle class which would indirectly help those in the lower income group.

The Democratic party is now becoming somewhat divided when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race. Those that support Hillary for president see that the Obama policies will hurt her chances if he, Obama, continues pandering to his base and forgoing all others. One only has to look at the 2014 races to see that politicians wanted nothing to do with Obama and saw him as an albatross around their neck. See: Obama's Agenda Threatens to Divide the Democratic Party - NationalJournal.com
 

Midnight Rain

Well-Known Member
The affordable care act has done more harm than good in my personal opinion. It COULD have done more good than harm but the implementation of the law was so messy and costly that it ends up being terrible.

List of things that Obamacare has done that is good.
1) You cannot be denied ins because of pre-existing conditions.
2) A slender few people fall into the Goldilocks zone of subsidies for healthcare.
3) Requires businesses of certain sizes to provide semi-affordable health ins options to workers.

And now we can look at each one.
1) Could have been done in a law that would have passed both Reb and Dem without overhauling the whole thing.
2) It only affects a small number of people and hurts pretty much everyone else.
3) A lot of businesses are able to get around this anyway. And they only have to provide it within the boundary of a single ins plan. I think its 8% of your income (before taxes) is the max they can charge you for your portion of the premium. But that wouldn't include the premium for your wife, husband or children. So if you are a family of 4 then you could end up paying more than 20% of your income prior to taxes in health insurance premiums without a subsidy from the government.

Things it should have done, promised to do but then they bailed on
1) A public option. WHY they took it out I don't know. I don't know of anyone who was arguing against it that actually mattered. In fact it was the Senate that took it out. The HOR passed it.
2) Expanding medicaid. They left it to the states which of course didn't foot the bill and screwed a huge number of people.
3) Made healthcare cheaper. They didn't. They simply didn't.

Some things that have harmed individuals.
1) people have lost health ins.
2) People have had to switch health insurance and change doctors
3) INDIVIDUAL MANDATES THAT PUNISHES PEOPLE FOR NOT BUYING A PRIVATE PRODUCT! I get the need for insurance but its like putting a mandate that if we didn't buy a car and put car insurance on it we would get dinged an ever increasing amount over the next few years.
4) SUPER HIGH DEDUCTIBLES AND PREMIUMS. Overall the plans we have that are NOT subsidized are even more expensive because they have buffered the cost of taking care of people with pre-existing conditions.
5) Delayed the only single payer system to have ever passed on any level of government till at least 2017. Green Mountain Care is a Vermont single payer system that was passed in 2011 but CANNOT get up and going till at the earliest 2017 because of legal battles and complications with the ACA. This could, if successful, be the first step to each state and potentially a Federal single payer system. But it is getting curb stomped into the ground by this mess of an attempt that was highjacked if not originally constructed by health insurance companies to force us to buy products from them. I mean it worked for the oil companies so why not? Except its not disguised in our general taxes and spent in the budget but forced on us through mandates.

A single payer system either on the state or federal level would be cheaper and more effective. That is my personal favorite choice. But something that would have been easier to pass and less destructive would have been a public option. It still would have sucked and it wouldn't be as effective as a single payer system but it would be a million and a half times better than our current ****hole.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You're characterization of the farmette in question as being "cantakerous" and her argument as being "disingenous" doesn't change the fact that her private property is being confiscated by the government for the benefit of the so-called "public good" (in reality for the benefit of an already wealthy corporation). Now to clarify I have no particular opinion on the Keystone Pipeline, I simply noted that I find it curious that the political right in your country, that constantly bemoans the introduction of social programs as being an affront towards freedom, has nothing to say about the seizing of private property for the sake of corporate benefit.


We have become a "Corporatocracy"......

While it is satire...the movie "Ideocracy" touched on this years ago. It explored the dumbing down of America though various media formats and the utter collapse of the political systems to Corporate America.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The affordable care act has done more harm than good in my personal opinion. It COULD have done more good than harm but the implementation of the law was so messy and costly that it ends up being terrible...


Every major piece of legislation over the last century (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) had significant problems at first, but as time went on adjustments made each of these programs acceptable to the point whereas even most on the right will certainly collect on the first two if they live long enough). If the R's were more serious than political, they would make it clear that they wish to work with the D's and make some needed adjustments. But, no, that would be showing that they would be "cooperating with the enemy"-- a mortal sin with the R's nowadays.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
False. The Democrats passed the ACA with ZERO votes from Republicans. Therefore how can you say they "caved" to Republicans. The leftest majority within the Democratic Congress had to construct the bill in a manner that those within the majority party would accept. Thus in your thinking it would be that the far left of the Democratic party caved to the centrist coalition of the Democratic party. Sure the insurance companies were in favor of this law. The Democrats insured that these companies would increase their customer base and be supported by taxpayer money. Why wouldn't they be in favor of it, it was a win win situation for them; they couldn't lose money. Therefore wasn't the Democrats in bed with the insurance companies?
Midnight Rain summed it up:
Things it should have done, promised to do but then they bailed on
1) A public option. WHY they took it out I don't know. I don't know of anyone who was arguing against it that actually mattered. In fact it was the Senate that took it out. The HOR passed it.
2) Expanding medicaid. They left it to the states which of course didn't foot the bill and screwed a huge number of people.
3) Made healthcare cheaper. They didn't. They simply didn't.
Republicans did not want these, and as debates moved on, these things were adjusted or dropped altogether, even though they would have been a better option, just to get the Rs moving along with it.

Every major piece of legislation over the last century (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) had significant problems at first, but as time went on adjustments made each of these programs acceptable to the point whereas even most on the right will certainly collect on the first two if they live long enough). If the R's were more serious than political, they would make it clear that they wish to work with the D's and make some needed adjustments. But, no, that would be showing that they would be "cooperating with the enemy"-- a mortal sin with the R's nowadays.
I would think their "must stop Obama" rhetoric would have killed them since it inherently implies they do not want to cooperate and they are not interested in compromise. Yet on they go accusing Obama of not wanting to play along, even though Obama has extended invitation after invitation, and you have some Rs claiming compromise is when the Ds yield to Conservative ideology. It's pathetic that we elect people who don't get along, indeed to the point that even kindergarteners are expected to get along with others better than what we see coming from our politicians.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Republicans did not want these, and as debates moved on, these things were adjusted or dropped altogether, even though they would have been a better option, just to get the Rs moving along with it.

It seems you do not understand or care not to understand. The Democrats did NOT need the Republican to pass "their" bill; they needed the moderate Democrats to go along with something they knew that the American public did not want.

I would think their "must stop Obama" rhetoric would have killed them since it inherently implies they do not want to cooperate and they are not interested in compromise. Yet on they go accusing Obama of not wanting to play along, even though Obama has extended invitation after invitation, and you have some Rs claiming compromise is when the Ds yield to Conservative ideology. It's pathetic that we elect people who don't get along, indeed to the point that even kindergarteners are expected to get along with others better than what we see coming from our politicians.

Again you do not seem to understand or care to understand. Those of us that are conservatives are not against Obama, per se, but against the policies that he advocates. He appears to invite discussion with the Republicans but only as long as he can advance his philosophy. The opinion of many is that Obama can not be trusted to live-up to agreements. He is willing to use Executive Orders to override Congressional law when he can not get his agenda through Congress. Let's see how he will react when the Republicans have control of Congress.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again ... do not seem to understand or care to understand. Those of us that are conservatives are not against Obama, per se, but against the policies that he advocates.


Nonsense, as so many of the attacks on the Obama's have been very personal, as we just saw again over the weekend. Even the criticisms from Boehner and McConnell at times were very personal. Tom Brokaw, as I previously posted before, stated that he has never seen such personal attacks against any president since he's been reporting the news.

He is willing to use Executive Orders to override Congressional law when he can not get his agenda through Congress.
An executive order cannot override "Congressional law", and if the R's actually felt that the e.o. was unconstitutional, they could fast-track through to the SCOTUS. Instead, they're suing, which takes much longer, and they are undoubtedly doing that to try to say they;re doing something versus nothing. The reality is that it's just political kabuki theatre.

Another reality is that the R's have been in position to vote on the immigration plan passed by the Senate almost two years ago that had some R support, and there appears to be enough votes in the House to get it approved, but Boehner won't allow it. Why? Because the R's are caught in a Catch 22 and they know it. If they go along with any pathway to citizenship, their conservative base will disown them and then "primary" them; but if the don't, the Hispanic vote is even more lost.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?

Nonsense, as so many of the attacks on the Obama's have been very personal, as we just saw again over the weekend. Even the criticisms from Boehner and McConnell at times were very personal. Tom Brokaw, as I previously posted before, stated that he has never seen such personal attacks against any president since he's been reporting the news.


Could you list one or two for us?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
He is willing to use Executive Orders to override Congressional law when he can not get his agenda through Congress. Let's see how he will react when the Republicans have control of Congress.
Did you have these same feelings with Bush? He used more executive orders than Obama.
The opinion of many is that Obama can not be trusted to live-up to agreements.
He's a politician. He's no more or less trustable than the last guy and the next guy.
Again you do not seem to understand or care to understand.
I understand that little children will get along better, and make greater efforts to get along with others than what our politicians are capable of.
Those of us that are conservatives are not against Obama, per se, but against the policies that he advocates.
Then you are against him. Its become a R rally cry that "we must stop Obama."
The Democrats did NOT need the Republican to pass "their" bill; they needed the moderate Democrats to go along with something they knew that the American public did not want.
Conservatives do not count as the American public. Many of those who do make up the American public did want it, and are satisfied with it. The American public is very divided about it, much like they are very divided about many things.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Did you have these same feelings with Bush? He used more executive orders than Obama
.
I disagree with any President that uses Executive Orders to go around Congress.
So, which of the Executive Orders that President G.W. Bush issued do you say went around Congress
Executive Orders Issued by President George W. Bush
He's a politician. He's no more or less trustable than the last guy and the next guy.
Non valid argument
I understand that little children will get along better, and make greater efforts to get along with others than what our politicians are capable of.
Non valid argument....opinion
Then you are against him. Its become a R rally cry that "we must stop Obama."
Well if you are saying that I am against Obama for who or what he is vice his agenda then you are wrong. Would you rather hear "we are against the agenda put forward by Obama and those that support his agenda"? Thus stop Obama's agenda"
Conservatives do not count as the American public. Many of those who do make up the American public did want it, and are satisfied with it. The American public is very divided about it, much like they are very divided about many things.
Did you just say that Conservatives do not count as American Citizens? It sure reads that way. I think you better reorder your thinking. I do not know what media source you are using, maybe MSNBC? But the facts are that an increasing number of the US public does not support the ACA. The support for Obamacare is at a historical low at 37%
Gallup: 'New numerical low' for Obamacare - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO
But if you do not like the source how about the Huffington Post
Obamacare Is More Unpopular Than Ever, Poll Shows
Yes, many people approve of certain provisions of Obamacare, but an overall satisfaction is negative.
However the Obama media can spin things to make it look like the people support Obamacare
Even in Romney states, more want to keep Obamacare than repeal it - The Washington Post
,You will notice that the poll is based on keep or repeal Obamacare., not repeal and replace or remove sections, keep others, and modify other sections. Yes people like certain aspects of Obamacare but as an overall healthcare system they think it is wrong.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Did you just say that Conservatives do not count as American Citizens? It sure reads that way. I think you better reorder your thinking. I do not know what media source you are using, maybe MSNBC?
I see you aren't completely reading what I wrote again. Nor do you seem to take in anything that indicates my political and social stances.
As for your polls, current opinion and approval does not match what it was as it was being debated years ago. And if most people just do not want an overhaul of the system, why did ending pre-existing conditions have, and retain, such massive popularity? If it is generally so unwanted, why has it consistently remained a national issue for decades?
 
Top