archer wrote: Isn't that how this country was designed to run LOL? We elect representatives, they craft bills, and more often than not we get legislation that reflects more closely the goals of the election winners. When they go to far in one direction the electorate brings them back from the brink. I believe in the system and the democracy that we live by, and I also believe that if one party pushes the limits we the people will put the limits back on place. It has happened to both parties.
If the Republicans achieve a legislative majority then there will indeed be a lot of stuff I won't like and will think is wrong. Will I be graciously accepting... Get serious, but I sincerely hope that I will refrain from posting a dozen different threads a day just to say I disagree in a different way. We DO need to address our tax code and the entire fiscal ballgame at the federal level. If the Republicans want to jump into that quick sand I welcome it, they will undoubtedly screw it up, but that allows the Democrats to take over the next election and fix it to their liking.
Does that answer your question?
Speaking for myself if the answer is "Archer is a hypocrite" then I think you did.
Why is it so hard for you all to understand that it is not the ACA that i am defending, it isn't what it should be, it does have problems, what i am defending is the simple fact that we now have something on the books that addresses the mess that our health care system had become and we can work from there to make it better. Half of the complaints i am reading about the ACA are also true of our previous system, the one y'all seem to want to go back to. The other half are legitimate concerns and need to be addressed. But, without the ACA we wouldn't even be having the discussion.
archer wrote: Why is it so hard for you all to understand that it is not the ACA that i am defending, it isn't what it should be, it does have problems, what i am defending is the simple fact that we now have something on the books that addresses the mess that our health care system had become and we can work from there to make it better. Half of the complaints i am reading about the ACA are also true of our previous system, the one y'all seem to want to go back to. The other half are legitimate concerns and need to be addressed. But, without the ACA we wouldn't even be having the discussion.
I understand that you want some kind of change rather than no change. I'm saying that the ACA is fundamentally flawed at it's core. The best example is the $600,000 plus the government is spending on the website that doesn't work yet. So many tech experts have said this site could have been built for a tiny fraction of that amount. IMO, this is what you get with a massive government that can't do what the private sector can. It can't be efficient because there is far too much bureaucracy and no accountability to the bottom line. This should be addressed one small part at a time, as much as our politicians can bite off without choking.
The issue was 40 million plus uninsured... now it's the 40 million plus all the millions cancelled and many many more millions cancelled once the businesses get hit. They shoulld have focused on gettiing the poor insured first, on a much smaller scale. Then if they find a formula that worked, offer a product people wanted to buy instead of forcing them to buy.
I believe that at some point, the architects of the ACA and all the supporters will have to admit that they can't turn a Pinto into a Porcshe. They have to start over and build it the way a private business like Apple or Ebay did it, logically, efficiently, and not politically.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick, I'm OK with rebuilding it, I'm OK with anything from a to tweak to an overhaul, if that is what it takes. What I'm not OK with is scrapping it altogether and then waiting another decade before we address the problem again.
archer wrote: Rick, I'm OK with rebuilding it, I'm OK with anything from a to tweak to an overhaul, if that is what it takes. What I'm not OK with is scrapping it altogether and then waiting another decade before we address the problem again.
So do you agree with this major component of the law that was never told to us prior?
#1 If insurance company's don't get enough people to sign up, or the people they get are mostly sick and have very costly needs, which lead to insurance companies lossing money, the government (taxpayers) must then subsidize/bail them out.
If you don't agree with this hidden part of the law, how do you remove it and stilll expect the law to work? This was the carrot dagled in front of insurance companies to get them to go along... without it, what company in their right mind would agree to take on millions of pre-existing cases for the same cost as healthy people?
I always wondered how Obama and crew got insurance companies to climb aboard, now we are all finding out. This is more than just a crack in the foundation.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I may not agree with archer at all when it comes to this law, but I do appreciate her willingness to debate it.
