(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.