You can get bypass surgery for that. Which is the most expensive possible once in 20 year expense in heart disease.
Yes, that's what the ACA is doing and, no, our current system is not indentured servitude. The rest of your post is gibberish.
Maybe you could make a list of acceptable illnesses or accidents. Then hope they don't get something not on it.
The guy said he knew two people who could not get healthcare because they had HEART DISEASE and wanted to retire from their 200K that offers no health insurance or retirement benefits but couldn't. And also were not yet 65 years old which makes it even more unbelievable they cannot find health coverage. I'm just dealing with the facts at hand here.
It doesn't give people incentives not to work. It gives them freedom to choose what is best for them - these people that will leave the labor force are people who shouldn't be working there in the first place. They were there essentially by force because they had no other options. Sure - if the people were not working for the right reasons. A high labor force participation rate for the sake of it is a terrible idea. For example, dual-parent working families working because they want to is a great thing. Increasing the labor force participation rate by ensuring that families can only survive if both are working instead of spending time with their kids is a terrible thing. The purpose of life is not to work - it's to work enough to live. If people have worked their whole lives and saved and have the means to not work and enjoy the remainder of their life, they shouldn't be trapped in a job because its the only way to get health care despite not needing the job otherwise. The idea that our goal should be to have everyone work just for the hell of it is ridiculous.
You might want to reconsider what you're arguing about because you got the entire premise completely backwards.
No, gibberish is the kind of thing you hear from people who can't separate a change in labor supply from a change in labor demand. So then they're forced, rather than just admitting a very simple mistake, to invent some r****d theory about why health care needs to be latched to labor participation. That's some grade-A, uncut, 100% pure hydroponic Colombian gibberish, bro-daddy. I suggest you suppress your participation rate in this thread.
The premise of the person who wants to retire but cannot because they have no health benefits and then are slaves to their job?
The premise was that the person was staying in the job because it DID provide health care. Completely the opposite of whatever bizarre scenario you're arguing. If the job doesn't provide benefits, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW, it has nothing to do with agreeing with the law. One of my biggest problems with ACA - and one of the best things about McCain's flawed health proposal - was getting us away from employer-based insurance. As was noted in another post, the GOP was staunchly for changing this and disconnecting work from health care for this exact reason before it became a part of Obamacare.
Lots of mood affiliation by the liberals in this thread. If this was a conservative law, we'd be seeing the exact opposite. And by conservatives as well, to be fair.
Is this your new schtick - pretend to play it off like you're just messin' around? cool beans....I'd say, you're better than that, but heh....
Hilarious that the only way texx can respond to substantive articles is to try and disparage the source. TELLING
And the articles which you just brushed off as too biased to consider had quotes and other information as well. Of course, you presented quotes devoid of context and, when other posters pointed out the context of those comments, you simply ignored the responses. Your intellectual dishonesty is what has grown stale.
So you believe talkingpointsmemo, Daily Kos and thinkprogress are unbiased sources? You're really digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every additional reply.
No, they are very biased. I admit that. But I bet I can point out distortions, lies and half-truths in a Fox article faster than you can from one of those sites. They speak truth. I mean, it's not like TPM, Daily Kos or thinkprogress had to go to court to win the right to lie like Fox.
