Democrats like to fancy themselves as the nice, compassionate people. Evidence for this belief is somewhat… lacking.
Kurt Eichenwald isn’t a random d-bag with a twitter account; he’s a very prominent Democrat Media Operative d-bag with a twitter account.
Peter Schiff makes some great points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IcJFMnyK3s&t=0s
To recap… Insurance is something that you pay a small-ish fee for, before you need it, and because you will probably not need it.
What people like Eichenwald want, isn’t medical insurance. What they want is: Tons of “free” medical care.
“Free” in scare quotes because nothing is free, in this life. The money (or, the real economic value) has to come from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere loses – because Eichenwald didn’t plan for his own future and thinks he is entitled to make others pay.
http://ipolitics.ca/2014/03/06/a-libertarian-answer-in-fort-mac-freedom-for-guns-gays-and-pot/
the modern Libertarian Party
“I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!”
Eichenwald (a little Eichman??) is a despicable excuse for a human being and an idiot on top of that. How is it that, after Hillary was handed her hat, that these morons cannot begin to contemplate the idea that they’re clueless. The more insane and incoherent their ravings become, the stronger Trump (who is cucking like crazy) becomes.
The House bill, from what I’ve read, doesn’t really change a lot and it’s obvious that O-care is failing (remembering that for the left, success is measured by control, not actual problem-solving).
The lefties have claimed that so-called conservative policies will kill millions a time or two (or a million) times too many. I don’t believe a word they say.
What’s his pre-existing condition? Retardation?
I have deleted my Disqus account that I used to post as a conservative. I have created a new that I use to “encourage” these wankers to be more outraged and outrageous. They are so stupid, they don’t even see how much there inaction actions (thank you Chelsea C) are actually hurting their cause.
Once again:
Insurance–any insurance; home, life, car, health, you name it–is nothing more than a financial shock absorber. It is intended to pay unexpected large expenses.
In the long run you should expect to pay more to the insurance company in premiums than you receive in benefits. If everyone got more in benefits than they paid in premiums, the insurance company goes out of business. It cannot produce money it does not have.
When you require an insurance company to accept someone with a pre-existing condition, you are expecting them to pay out to all those people more in benefits than they pay in premiums. It is no longer insurance, at that point, but a social program, which requires some to pay for the expenses of others.
By all rights, insurance companies should be able to refuse coverage to a pre-existing condition, for precisely the reason that such a client will cost them more than they pay. Making them pay higher premiums is a stop-gap measure, but they will still likely cost the insurance company more than they receive even in higher premiums.
In return, however, insurance companies must be prevented from cancelling the policy on any client they take on, provided they did not lie in the application, or begin behavior that increases their risk of developing a chronic illness (such as beginning to smoke).
In the long run, however, we need to get government OUT of the business of providing goods and services to those who cannot afford them. Such is the duty of charity, not government.
This fool was on the Tucker Carlson idiot beating show and he smugly tried to outTuck Tucker. He reduced himself quite handily to a steaming pile of flop sweat.
The Eichenwald type is fueled by high-octane superiority and an outsized sense of pious rectitude that may not be challenged. Those who try are mere maggots.
That is fine for the code speaking elite like Eichenwald who dwell in the rare-air cocktail circuit of fellow like-mined, self anointed sophisticates, but they are totally ill-equipped to deal with either facts or common sense.
Common sense, you see, is plebeian. We pea-brained conservatives listen to Tucker and we understand what he is saying immediately because it taps into extraordinarily “common” sense which is based on actual facts and our time-proven deep belief system.
When an Eichenwald speaks, he piously prattles in platitudes which would make a snake oil salesman blush. When his manure is parsed, he becomes intellectually dyslexic and is apt to ride off in all directions at once.
The best place an Eichenwald has found for expressing his views is as a “journalist” force feeding us what we “need” to know and steeped in his elitist opinion writing.
So long as Tucker Carlson can keep these fools coming in for an undressing, Carlson’s formula is literally “fool” proof.
The Eichenwald’s have something in common with the Never-Trumpsters. They both think that Trump is a stumble-bum as is evidenced by his “simplistic” speaking process. Simplistic speech patterns = simplistic mind.
Therefore, when The Donald draws crowds of 40,000 who whoop and holler at the simplistic things that the Simplistic Trump says, it means 40,000 simplistic morons have come for a dunce and idiot convention. That makes the Eichenwalds even more certain of their superiority and reinforces their belief that the social justice warriors have to save these people from themselves.
Whenever a liberal is challenged in his beliefs, the first reaction is to belittle. Failing that, many liberals start rat-a-tatting over the conversation like a Gatling gun on steroids until the cacophony is deafening and the time runs out. Occasionally, the rare liberal says that he will just have to disagree. (That is code for: I’m done.)
Meanwhile, a continual cry is heard for compromise. How do you compromise with a totalitarian who is convinced you are an idiot?
As I was taught back in the day when I was going to become a shady financial adviser, “Insurance is the assumption of risk.” That’s the practical definition. If you don’t want to assume the risk, then you can pay someone else to do it for you. Whether they will do it or not is generally up to them, according to certain laws and regulations. Forcing them to assume the risk throws everything upside down and, as stated, really becomes something other than insurance.
This is the problem with Social Security benefits. It was never designed as a pension someone could ever live off of. (Even pensions are usually designed to meet only a percentage of pre-retirement income which is somewhat less than 100%.) It was only designed as a fallback for those whose luck completely ran out and to keep them from essentially living on the streets. In that regard, it was set up as insurance. In less than 80 years after its creation, it became essentially a entitled pension with the expectation that it would meet more than 80% of an individual’s income needs. That’s an absurd proposition for people who have only had a fraction of their income invested in the plan, even with a generous allowance for what is non-existent growth. It is what requires the Ponzi scheme of having future workers fund benefits that they will never directly receive and what allows for a vast amount of skepticism from those workers about ever receiving benefits they have theoretically paid into.
So too is the ACA and its likely replacement more of the same. Insurance which isn’t insurance and beneficiaries which will receive far more payouts than they are likely to pay into the system. Meanwhile, those who are paying more than their fair share will someday want to collect on a payout. Who will fund that future payout will determine whether the eventual program is another version of Social Security which can limp along for a few decades, or a more immediate financial time bomb which will detonate sooner than later.