Thread: Shutdown

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Serious question, Is there data that backs up your comments?

Which ones? That people voted for Democrats? Support for the ACA? Health Tracking Poll: Exploring the Public’s Views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

There's been a slight loss of support in recent months, but when the law passed, you can see a clear support for the law. We have elections coming up, and if that has swung, you can expect to see the party makeup of congress change, an then the law could change.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No, my point was why the right have never cared to address the healthcare problem in America. It leads me to believe they are not sincere about the issue. Was any comprehensive healthcare legislation brought forward during the tenures of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II?

Which seems odd to me. My experience in a truly socialized system is that it is VERY nice for the financially well off. Those who can afford private insurance here get serious VIP treatment. Everyone else gets pretty good service.


Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No, my point was why the right have never cared to address the healthcare problem in America. It leads me to believe they are not sincere about the issue. Was any comprehensive healthcare legislation brought forward during the tenures of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II?

or Clinton?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

or Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...e_plan_of_1993

I see your link, and raise you a quote from it. Clinton couldn't even get his own party on board.

However, "even with Mitchell’s bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill...

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No, my point was why the right have never cared to address the healthcare problem in America. It leads me to believe they are not sincere about the issue. Was any comprehensive healthcare legislation brought forward during the tenures of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II?

Was comprehensive healthcare legislation absolutely needed during the tenures of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? Or is that a question you would refuse to ask? I'm not sure you understand the history of health care reform in the United States. That or you have a very one sided view of it. It seems we only remember the things the media focuses on eh?

Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. He also signed COBRA into law. Pretty sure he cared.

George Bush Senior wanted to fundamentally change the Medicaid program to allow any American who did not qualify for Medicaid but made too little income to afford their own insurance to buy into the program and pay low premiums to stay on it. Unfortunately he was not re-elected. Bill Clinton did not pursue continued development of that legislation.

George W Bush did more to support AIDS research and victims of AIDS around the world than perhaps any other world leader in history. He instituted PEPFAR, which single handedly changed AIDS from a death sentence to a treatable disease. He also proposed legislation that would give Americans the choice to keep their private health insurance after retirement, with Medicare helping pay for the cost of the premium. This would save the government money and give older Americans more choices of coverage. The Democrats killed that legislation, insisting that any prescription law HAD to include every single senior as a mandatory item, when only 25% of seniors had no prescription coverage.

Republicans also created the SCHIP program in 1997, and did a lot of other things through history to reform health care.

So, like maybe you need to read a book on the subject or something.

Ah, Cobra, what I have to use because with my preexisting condition, I can't insurance with anyone else who will actually supply insurance that will cover my doctor visits, meds, etc. So, I pay $500 and some change a month. It's lovely. It still saved me some money when I was on meds (that I am phasing off of now) that would have cost $3k a month otherwise, but...yeah. I'm hoping things will change with the new marketplace since I'd like to give my asshole a day off.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I see your link, and raise you a quote from it. Clinton couldn't even get his own party on board.

Just admit you were wrong and stop there. Legislation was forwarded which showed a sincere interest in changing the status quo. And it's magnified by the fact that Democratic senators were opposed because of how politically sensitive it was and still is.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Just admit you were wrong and stop there. Legislation was forwarded which showed a sincere interest in changing the status quo. And it's magnified by the fact that Democratic senators were opposed because of how politically sensitive it was and still is.

With that kind of spinning technique, you really should be working for the Obama Administration. Or are you already?

LOL