Thanks for confirming that results don't and the reality is you think only with your heart. You want to will cost and quality benefits from a bloated Federal Bureaucracy because you are very naïve and gullible.Originally Posted by Threegoofs
Thanks for confirming that results don't and the reality is you think only with your heart. You want to will cost and quality benefits from a bloated Federal Bureaucracy because you are very naïve and gullible.
Well, since it's a long term (6 months - 2 years) residential rehab center (that's the primary function), almost all of them. They come off the streets or from jail/prison mostly. On the VA side (another 80 men or so) we take homeless veterans, for any reason. About 80% of them have a substance abuse issue, most of them related to an underlying mental health problem (about 70% of the addicted have dual mental illness/addiction diagnoses).
And I don't see their addiction issues as mitigating the act of charity, as your phrasing suggests. But beyond that we require non-disabled residents to work as part of the rehab, and they're in jobs that the non-addicted often fill. The point is their lack of insurance is because they are working poor, not that they are addicted.
I do not see the addiction issues as mitigating the act of charity either. However it is pertinent information. It is likely the reason that many, if not all of them are poor. Just as many (not all) of the millions who claimed they could not afford health insurance prior to obamacare put themselves in that situation by making poor decisions. And the picture in your link showing numerous people showing up begging to see a doctor was not the fault of a broken healthcare system before or since Obamacare.
What?
Ideology by its nature ignores reason.
Have you ever even read a political science text?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How, after five and a half years, have you not even accidentally found out anything about this law? This level of cluelessness was inexcusable in 2009; at this point it's just mind-boggling.
Horse ****.
One example:
two years of welfare in the form of "unemployment benefits". "liberals" which you are not, around the world were funding retraining programs...and they came out of the Obama bummer years ahead of your messiah.
There are no liberals in the United States, there are varying degrees of conservatives and a bunch of uneducated socialists willing to sell their vote for personal comforts.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No, it doesn't ignore reason. Or at least it doesn't have to. For example, Kant was a hyper-rational ideologue. He believed that he reasoned out a set of abstract principles that trump pragmatic reality. Same with Hobbes. Etc.
What it ignores, to the extent that it can, is factual, practical, matters. It can't totally ignore those either though, since it ultimately needs to implement its principles in reality.
Because liberalism is all about intent, intent to better serve people, intent that never leads to solving a problem but rather creating more and bigger problems along with more people dependent. What happens when ACA fails? Single Payer? Yes, now isn't that great, Medicare and Medicaid on steroids. Brilliant and typical liberal/socialist incremental approach. Why don't you just admit who you are?
That just isn't remotely true. As a matter of fact, Obama is beating the other western European countries by the widest margin any president in modern times has:
gdp relative to nato
At this point, it isn't even very controversial how we pulled that off- we went with a liberal response to the recession and Europe went with a conservative response. We stimulated the economy and they rolled out austerity. Austerity is exactly the wrong response to a recession.
Again, I get that conservatives assume liberal policies don't work, but factually, it is clear that they do. That's why the experts, in this case economists, overwhelmingly agree with the liberals.
First of all, we have millions of jobs that pay poverty wages. If you want to claim that making better decisions can eliminate poverty level jobs and poverty, there is no evidence for that at all. Jane makes better decisions and gets a better job than Walmart cashier. Fantastic! Someone will take her place. And, what? Anyone sitting in that chair taking your money doesn't get healthcare?
Second, yes, it's sort of a given that many of the poor made bad decisions that got them there. And so they don't get healthcare? And should die for lack of care? I don't think you're suggesting that, so other than blaming them for their condition, I'm not sure what the point is.
Others are poor because they live in poor areas, with crap schools, are functionally illiterate, maybe made a decent living as manufacturing workers or miners etc. until the plant moved to China and have few options, are disabled, mentally or physically, etc.
And what you said about the picture is they all had access to Medicaid or Medicare and so didn't need to get in line at 1am, camp out, to get seen by a doctor or dentist. You were wrong about that. If not, why did they do it? Because camping out all night is fun? And that we have RAM in Kentucky is evidence of a healthcare system that works as intended? Perhaps to you, not to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote