Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obamacare

March 12, 2014

Obamacare is a big joke, nobody can afford it, even the Washington politicians don’t want it....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

Scott36

Mar-14-14 10:15 AM

The compassion for Fellow Americans, not to mention concern for their Health is simply astounding in this area.-Scott

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Mar-14-14 9:40 AM

USABorn: So, By your comment you don't think people who couldn't afford yesterday's premiums shouldn't be allowed to buy health insurance under the ACA,right? "Romneycare" was used only for ONE state (70 pages?)but, the "ACA" covers an added 49 states plus D.C.so I would think they might, just might need to use more PAPER,only a guess!Your last sentence,I really don't understand.Buy healthcare and you loose your healthcare and job? "Stay healthy brother!"

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Mar-13-14 8:01 PM

MECURY2 - 11:32 AM

"Maybe President Obama should have called it "Romneycare"like they do in Mass."

Dumbamacare is a bill of almost 3,000 pages plus many thousands more in new rules and regulations. Millions have lost their insurance AND millions have and will lose their jobs because of it.

Romneycare was 70 pages and didn't end up costing everyone in Mass their healthcare or their jobs!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 6:48 PM

I’ve enjoyed our exchanges this afternoon. Especially since it’s too cold and windy for my usual walk.-underwood

As have I. The examples of food,& drink, are from the far left. Property Rights, are a topic of their own, & I just get the feeling we would probably be on the same page. Have a Nice, Peaceful evening-Scott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-13-14 6:33 PM

Scott36, I fail to see how people pursuing happiness in their own way harms others/society as long as they don’t infringe upon other’s rights to do the same in the process. We have courts and the rule of law to determine those gray areas of whose rights are being infringed upon.

There are all sorts of rules and regulations that violate such things as property rights. Now what we eat and drink are targeted for controls. These are only a couple of examples, there are plenty more.

I’ve enjoyed our exchanges this afternoon. Especially since it’s too cold and windy for my usual walk.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 4:35 PM

Scott36, who’s to decide what’s best for the vast majority. I’d rather see individuals free to decide what’s best for themselves. Now don’t fall back on the argument some use about some taking advantage of others.-underwood

A fair question, certain things should be self evident--Shelter, food, clothing, Healthcare, etc. For people to have "Complete/Total" control of what is best for THEM, may harm others/society, as a whole in the process. To your next point(I am not supposed to fall back on) Who decides upon the rules of when fraud, force, etc. have been crossed?? There are valid points of different degrees of each. IMHO, in most of these cases, in both things I have touched on, it is a "consensus" of the people. It's called a civilized society.-Scott

P.S.- You seem sincere in your posts, so I am curious, what freedoms of "choosing for yourself" do you wish you could change??

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-13-14 3:36 PM

“Life is not easy, or fair. But, IMHO what is best for the vast majority is what should be taken into account.”

Scott36, who’s to decide what’s best for the vast majority. I’d rather see individuals free to decide what’s best for themselves. Now don’t fall back on the argument some use about some taking advantage of others. Using force or fraud to infringe on the rights of others is and should be against the law and that includes polluting our environment.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 3:00 PM

Mr. Underwood, For whatever it is worth, your last post(IMO)was a good one. The reason I asked, is that I have had very similar conversations in the past with some, whom would like to "selectively" do away with certain(in their mind evil)things. One example is the EPA. Usually they get quite angry when possible ramifications(grey areas)of such actions are pointed out. Life is not easy, or fair. But, IMHO what is best for the vast majority is what should be taken into account. This is not to suggest that these choices are perfect. Too often I see people wanting things that are catered to a very slim group, I happen to feel that this is usually-IMO-not to the betterment of society as a whole- Scott

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-13-14 2:15 PM

Scott36, I cooperate and assist others because I believe it’s the proper thing to do and it makes me feel good about myself. It’s also the sensible thing to do because any of us can find ourselves in a position where we need some kind of assistance from time to time.

Communism is just one of the governmental expressions of collectivism. That’s not saying all collectivist thinkers are communists, but all communists are collectivists.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 1:45 PM

underwood,

Please excuse the "deflection" comment, as I posted, I see you responded. A fairly black/white view-good. At least as I read your response, you are not attaching it to "Communism". Simply you are with the group, or alone.

. I don’t think that any of us ought to accept any kind of intellectual or philosophical package deal.-underwood

Pick, & choose is fine, as long as one does not expect the entire world to adhere to their choices.-Scott

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 1:36 PM

If it’s forced it’s not cooperation.-underwood

Nice deflection on which definition you prefer. I am curious with this statement however. Exactly what would you like to be "unforced" to cooperate with?? Keep in mind, that with which you "free" yourself from may have unseen consequences, e.g.-if you object to helping the "poor", then the "rich" should be bound to the same thing--Quite possibly affecting a lot of jobs(maybe even yours!!)-Scott

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-13-14 1:30 PM

Scott36, Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture).

Ayn Rand is only one of many that support individualism. I don’t think that any of us ought to accept any kind of intellectual or philosophical package deal.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-13-14 1:21 PM

As I’ve said many times, we’re hard wired to cooperate with one another or we’d have never survived as a species.There’s nothing in individualism that says we shouldn’t cooperate. The difference folks with a collectivist mentality can’t seem to fathom is whether it’s voluntary or forced. If it’s forced it’s not cooperation.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-13-14 1:08 PM

Like the lazy inner city men quote from Paul Ryan. He is in hot water over that one.

The right doesn't ascribe to helping another you are suppose to help and do for yourself.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 11:51 AM

What ever happen to 'PEOPLE' helping 'PEOPLE',is this now wrong?-MERCURY2

Ayn Rand.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Mar-13-14 11:36 AM

What ever happen to 'PEOPLE' helping 'PEOPLE',is this now wrong?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-13-14 11:34 AM

Collectivism for Phil is anything a liberal likes. He believes strongly in individualism which means no government support to any one person and especially group. If it interferes with you doing for yourself it is collectivism to him.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Mar-13-14 11:32 AM

Maybe President Obama should have called it "Romneycare"like they do in Mass.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-13-14 10:18 AM

Underwood,

which definition of "collectivism" are you using, I find at least 2, with differing meanings.-Scott

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-13-14 8:22 AM

And if we follow the conservative/libertarian principles we would care for no one and only be concern with protecting wealth.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-12-14 7:44 PM

As long as we’re going to base our government upon collectivist principles, we should take care of anybody that needs help as long as there’s any wealth left to continue doing it.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-12-14 7:44 PM

As long as we’re going to base our government upon collectivist principles, we should take care of anybody that needs help as long as there’s any wealth left to continue doing it.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Mar-12-14 6:59 PM

Why should anyone support something they believe is wrong and is likely to keep our economy from ever returning to what it was prior to its being forced upon us?-underwood

What is your definition of wrong?? Strictly money, or trying to create something that would help people in their quest for medical attention??-Scott

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-12-14 5:51 PM

If you have a job that offers health insurance and you become too sick to work, should you lose your coverage?

If you are a college student covered by your parent's health insurance and get to sick to continue your schooling, should you lose your coverage because you are no longer a student?

If you have a job that offers health insurance and you wife has a preexisting condition, if you change jobs, should your wife's condition no longer be covered?

Mock the ACA all you want, it't far from perfect and the GOP sure doesn't want to make it better, but it's better than what we had before.

The GOP plan for health care is just like promise of hydrogen power, it's the way of the future and always will be.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Mar-12-14 5:33 PM

Why should anyone support something they believe is wrong and is likely to keep our economy from ever returning to what it was prior to its being forced upon us?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web