So we'll assume yes, she now pays nothing, can't be refused, but somehow in your mind she's in a worse position than spending $500 per month and having no security that she won't be refused next month by a corporation that fights her on every penny they have to pay out.

No, the VA is NOT the same thing as 'single payer'....it's a separate medical system designed solely for veterans and their specific range of issues, which is consistently intentionally severely under funded by the same people who claim to have nothing but love for the military because 'national debt'...but that doesn't matter when the issue is wasting $billions-trillions on unwanted military equipment.

So, you wish to completely disband the military, Interstate Highway department, police, homeland security, interstate communications, internet, electricity, and water systems because relying on the government is a bad thing, eh? No? You socialist commie!

Obviously your last statement is completely wrong, that was the point of and reason for the ACA, and even it fails to cover everyone. The only way to cover everyone is to actually cover everyone.

You once again completely ignore your previous failed argument and move on to your next argument when called out. That's getting old, and is indicative of your having absolutely no strength of your convictions IMO. I'm not sure why you say these things if you can't stand behind any of them.

Wait...please explain how your sisters situation not working out? She was paying $500 a month, now she pays nothing and CAN'T be refused if her policy lapses (which now can't happen). If Medicare doesn't cover everything her original plan did, she could buy a supplemental plan that would for way less than $500 a month.
I agree there are winners and losers in the plan, but that sounds like a winner to me.
Every gripe I've ever heard about the ACA would have been solved 100% by a single payer system for all, Obama's original plan. Too bad that failed to be even considered.

I can't speak to Canada's system, but I can weigh in on Medicare quality of care. My Grandmother, the woman who raised me, was diagnosed with lung cancer in her early 70's. Since I was helping to take care of her at the time, I got to see what I have to look forward to in my later life.

Consistently we had to wait for treatments to be approved and she was often delayed for patients that were not on Medicare. Additionally, every single therapy or quality of life aid was scrutinized beyond belief.

As an example, the doctor gave her a prescription for an oxygen tank and delivery system after they removed part of her lung that was not responding to chemo. Medicare refused to cover it without an 'oxygen saturation level test'. This 'test' was horrible. She had to try to breathe without the machine for multiple minutes, struggling and gasping for air. It was fucking brutal to watch, but the people that Medicare sent to verify didn't give a shit. They basically told me that if her saturation wasn't low enough after 15 minutes, she couldn't be covered for the machine. I couldn't take it, so I told them to fuck off out of her house and paid out of my own pocket for the rental.

These are just some examples, there were others before she died that made it quite clear that Medicare is not quality care. It's basically the bare minimum they have to give you to keep you alive. So this video comparing Canada's care to Medicare doesn't reassure me in the slightest and it's almost certainly an unfair comparison to their system. I can tell you I am dreading making the swap to Medicare in 20-25 years, let alone being forced into something similar sooner. As far as ACA, I don't really care. It's probably good for people who don't have good jobs or who are unemployed, but I will be more than happy to hang onto my extremely good insurance provided through my employment.

It always seemed to me that, if 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are 'guarantees' in America, health care should be free, otherwise only those with money get the former, while those without money may lose all 3 because of their uncared for health issues. That never seemed to be the intent of our system to me, and also does not seem moral or humane, and certainly isn't 'Christian'. It's not even financially sound, it's cheaper by far to take care of everyone properly rather than the system we have now under the ACA, which is better than before ACA.

There's quite a wait time for elective surgery in America too, I can't fathom why that's an issue for some people about single payer systems...if you count the time it takes to get pre-authorization from your insurance company, Canada is probably faster than America even on elective surgeries, and certainly far cheaper.

What I recall was him saying single payer was what he preferred, but he totally caved in and we got the ACA (like most programs, misnamed) which is an insurance industry hand out IMO.
Since it's not 'evolving', there is no 'end game' as I understand the term. It is what it is, flawed but better than the nothing we had, but far worse than single payer... like most of the rest of the first world has.
I wish we had, or were moving towards single payer, it's FAR cheaper, simpler, and eliminates the needless health insurance industry. The rich can always buy better care if they like, but everyone will have basic minimum care and not use the most expensive ways to get it (like emergency rooms they don't pay for). Seems proper and intelligent to me, but what does a newt know?

I'm only analyzing your statement(s), not you.

So, you can't argue against my points, so you change your argument?
You said we are sliding into socialism...I showed you that's wrong and now you say 'sliding to more government' is the same thing. They are not.

You are listening to talking heads. The republicans may promise to 'undo what was done' but in reality they don't do that (they don't really even try, they just try to look like they are, how many 'votes' to 'repeal' the ACA?) but instead increase their control at every turn.

1) Wow! A point we agree on!
2) Um...so you want to say the minimal wall street regulations were 'screwing corporations' and removing them is 'unscrewing them'? Well, lets just leave it at 'I totally disagree' that going back to reasonable rules (rules the republicans removed before, causing the insanity in the market for 25 years) is 'screwing business', it's forcing business to not screw everyone else by fraud.
3) If the government IS in charge of the program (and it is, because states failed miserably to do it themselves) there should be reasonable 'rules' on how to do it. Those 'rules' in this case should be determined by nutritionists, not politicians. Catchup is not a vegetable. It's really just one more swipe at the Obamas for no logical reason in my eyes.
4) It's hilarious that when it's for something you like, you are all pro-federal power to override the states/local laws, but when it's not (like a federal lunch program) they shouldn't be involved.
Socialism and corporatism are the reverse of each other. I should not have to be the one to teach you that.
We disagree as to which party is running faster towards 'oligarchy'. We disagree because you think Faux actually shows NEWS, but they ONLY have propaganda on Faux, not news, not reporting, only editorializing. Those who watch Faux are consistently less informed than those who watch NOTHING. Repeatedly proven fact.

Both parties have failed, so you think we should go for the crazed, farther right splinter party...you know the Naz....oh...sorry...I got confused....teabagger party. They might not all be lynching nuts, but most certainly are. I've seen and talked to them, and walked through rallies. It's not a myth.
Because they were not registered republicans does not make them either democrat or independent, most of them just think the republicans don't go far enough to the right...kind of like a certain German party from the 30's I can mention.

EDIT: I guess since it's OK for the republicans to off hand legislate against the known wishes and vote of the people because they 'control the laws in DC', you would have no problem with Obama using executive powers to bypass congress and to line veto the budget to remove all the superfluous BS the republicans added to it? The president has that power and can executive order and line item veto all day long...but you would be having a fit if he did, no?

#birthcertificate
#Benghazi
#guessthenextscandal
(or to say it another way, I don't think this will gain traction outside the far-right)

I'm curious @blankfist, are you irate at the Republicans for not telling you what was really in the bill they had the opportunity to read (but you did not)? You expect this from the democrats, so they only lived up to expectations, no? The republicans could have made this point long before the vote on ACA, but instead opted to claim Grandma was going to be sent to the death panels and other nonsense.
And, I must think those who are surprised in any way either missed or misunderstood the supreme court decision last time the ACA was defended, when they said the ACA was legal BECAUSE it is a tax. Anyone who was in the dark should have understood at that point, they made it clear. That's why I don't think this is likely to gain traction, it's not news, it's just rehashing 5 year old politics in the hope that most people don't recall what happened back then and will be angry about it again. That's how I see it.

I do agree, the climate that makes misrepresentation of what's actually in a bill is terrible for everyone. It would be much better if we could bar lawyers from holding any high public office/representative position, as many founding fathers wanted. Then bills might be written in clear language (by all sides). Good luck getting that though.


EDIT: Wanted to downvote the intent of the video, but wanted to upvote the funny song....so I'll just not vote.

Apparently there's yet another Gruber video. (There could be a Gruber Film Festival!)

("OMG!") Fox gets flack for, you know, exposing Democrats like Pelosi, but it's she who now claims that she doesn't know who Gruber is, despite invoking him many times in the campaigning for the bill's passage.

At least Gruber tells the truth about ACA just being another tax on "the people."

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

That's the truth also about, "tax the rich," or "tax corporations." Corporations will just pass on the cost to "consumers." Tax anyone always means tax "the people." But the masses of "the American voter," like voters anywhere it seems, or at least the "progressive ones," for whatever reason don't understand that. There is no "free" government service. No "free" education. No "free" housing. Someone will pay for it and more likely than not those at the bottom will pay for it.

EDIT:
There's at least 7 Gruber videos now.

"It’s one thing for Americans to suspect that their President lies to them. It’s quite another to hear a key Obama adviser boast of it." (Videosift pundits disagree, of course.)

From the Washington Post :

"Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"Then, after Obamacare passed, his administration cynically turned around and argued before the Supreme Court that it was in fact a tax. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, “why do you keep saying tax?,” drawing peals of laughter."

"The reason he called it a tax is because — as Jonathan Gruber now admits — members of the Obama team knew all along that it was a tax. They intentionally deceived Americans about it because if they had called it a tax, Obamacare would never have become law."

* * *

All of these videos, of course, make little difference to the partisan Democrats, not unlike partisan Republicans when they get exposed. But they do make a difference with the "independents" who decide elections: the ones who can vote one way or the other. So the Democrats can expect for this to continue until the next election.

Good things to know: The "anti- commandeering doctrine."
Know the laws of the land.

Yes, the Retardicans were spouting so many lies about it that this turned out to be true, you had no chance of telling what was actually IN the bill (without reading it) until those liars were 'silenced' by it passing...but it didn't happen that way...they never stopped the lies, just started shouting new ones louder.
That had NOTHING to do with it passing, it was about public opinion, which had been swayed by lies, mostly republican lies.

EDIT: I have a solution to this that satisfies everyone...the Republicans just need to pass Single Payer health care to replace ACA, then they can get rid of "Obamacare", save face, AND do the right thing at the same time. Won't happen, but it could solve all the political BS and get us a health care system that works for all.

-cue downvote

This idea that anything in ACA was 'hidden' is insane. Do people really not remember that far back? Do they not recall the GOP saying all these things then? I certainly do, along with tons of other insanity like 'death panels will be killing grandma'.
Also...WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? ACA WAS NOT VOTED ON BY THE CITIZENS, it was voted on by CONGRESS, so 'tricking' or 'fooling' the public about it could have no impact at all on the vote for it, which was totally along party lines and not based on a 'popular vote' as I recall.
Total red herring here. Not a smoking gun. (cue downvotes)

*promote

Pelosi came out today and denied knowing Gruber and denied he has anything to do with the ACA, which is all a complete lie. Man, progressives are really showing their hands in their final dissent into political obscurity in America. So.... What did I miss?

@Trancecoach @dag @blankfist @enoch @VoodooV @ChaosEngine

Not that I approve of his behavior if it is in fact true that Trancecoach downvoted Enochs videos out of spite (I think that is wrong)...but the same thing happened to me and nobody cared. I don't think the issue is the rules, I think the issue is that Trancecoach isnt popular with some people and they want to get rid of him.

As far as the video is concerned, I think it is amazing..even msnbc played it on Morning Joe. It may serve to turn the public against the ACA even further and may give the republicans more political capital..but ultimately, as Enoch hinted at, the game is being played on a deeper level. Yet, It is not the elites we need to worry about. It's a spiritual war that is going on and everyone is a loser when they play this game:

Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

So are you saying that hospitals (to avoid free riders) should turn away the critically ill until their insurer agrees to cover them or they pay up-front? Or are you saying the ways to avoid paying for ACA be removed?

I think I've mentioned it before but I live in Australia.

Hobby Lobby has no objection of 16 forms birth control methods and gladly provides for its employees under the ACA act. They only object to 4, which these cause the demise of the fertilized egg.

To say this a serious blow to woman's right is bunk.

To say once again Men ( 5 to 4 men ) deciding women rights is bunk.
( men decided Roe V Wade)

If you want to prevent getting pregnant, Hobby Lobby has no issue with that.

If you want to murder, don't expect Hobby Lobby to pay for it.

Let's just fire the Supreme Court and put this funnyman in since he is obviously wiser and knows the law so much better, being from....wherever the fuck foreign country he's from.

Also, where does the gov't get off telling companies what they have to offer in the way of medical insurance? Oh...it's the ACA. That makes it legit.