Warrior General Games

Originally posted by krisdaschwab912
Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but a lifetime of drug abuse might be stopped if a person who is suffering from addiction can freely walk into a hospital, get some medications and a detox, and walk out the door. Certainly cheaper than having a bunch of trips to the ER for a stomach pumping.

We should be focusing on preventative care, not reacting to shit when it hits the fan.

Also, personal responsibility has nothing to do with paying egregious hospital bills, especially when insurance companies don't understand their own responsibilities as a health care insurance provider.

A lifetime of drugs can be prevented by never starting.

I would argue that such programs only foster a more accepting environment where more people experiment and become users and abusers.

Preventative care like criminalizing drug activity?

Originally posted by Cowpoker
Screw his state, leaving your citizens exposed to take some imaginary stand against a policy. People are not your political play toys.

That's not an accurate assertion, cowpoker. ACA has some very onerous requirements for States in terms of their budget. Not only that, but they purposely structured those requirements to only kick in years down the road so the assholes running things now could appear like heroes by implementing it and kick the consequences down the road to their successors.

The ACA is an extremely manipulative piece of legislation (but only Repubs are "despicable," apparently). States that rejected it arguably did the responsible thing.


Originally posted by Cowpoker
why do we need a sign up for anything to help people ? There shouldn't be a deadline

Once again, the ACA is not about Care or helping people. It is about insurance. That is how insurance works. There are forms and deadlines.

Originally posted by Corndog
It's really easy to say you don't believe in safety nets when you're standing on the ground.

Yeah, the guy who has been self-employed for his entire adult life has NEVER taken any risks.

Originally posted by Sapper06
I think that if I don't agree with a law, I shouldn't have to obey it.

I think that my morality should make it legally OK to do anything I want, and that at the same time, my morality should apply to punishing or rewarding others for their actions.

I don't understand anyone would not think exactly like me, and it angers and confuses me.

Guess my name.

Earl Johnson?

Originally posted by foofighter24
Yeah, the guy who has been self-employed for his entire adult life has NEVER taken any risks.

Not sure what taking risks has to do with not being able to afford surgery to prevent yourself from going blind.

Originally posted by foofighter24
A lifetime of drugs can be prevented by never starting.

I would argue that such programs only foster a more accepting environment where more people experiment and become users and abusers.

Preventative care like criminalizing drug activity?

I was referring to preventative health care in a general sense, i.e. breast/prostate cancer screenings, education about ways to improve your chances of longevity, etc.

Drug activity is already heavily criminalized. How's that working out for us?

Originally posted by krisdaschwab912

To a certain extent, I don't see the problem with that. In practice, that would probably be a nightmare, though.


I, for one, cannot wait to stand in line for my government rations.

Originally posted by foofighter24
A lifetime of drugs can be prevented by never starting.

I would argue that such programs only foster a more accepting environment where more people experiment and become users and abusers.

Preventative care like criminalizing drug activity?

Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were in full troll mode this morning.

Carry on.

Originally posted by krisdaschwab912
I was referring to preventative health care in a general sense, i.e. breast/prostate cancer screenings, education about ways to improve your chances of longevity, etc.

Drug activity is already heavily criminalized. How's that working out for us?

There is a school of thought that much of that preventative health care is a budget busting waste.

Maybe it is working better than the alternative.

Originally posted by foofighter24
Because they are different things?

Why don't we extend it to food and housing, based on that logic?

Youve never heard of housing subsidies or food stamps? Really?

Originally posted by Corndog
Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were in full troll mode this morning.

Carry on.

Food truck is doing really well, so my confidence is on point.

Originally posted by foofighter24
There is a school of thought that much of that preventative health care is a budget busting waste.
That school of thought would be wrong. Why would it be more expensive to have a test or two run on you than it would be to remove malignant tumors that could have been prevented or caught much earlier in the game?

Originally posted by foofighter24
Wow, that is some sort of fantasy you have going on there.

Or truth. You do know that the individual mandate was created by republicans in response to universal health care right? If you don't believe me google it.

Originally posted by krisdaschwab912

That school of thought would be wrong. Why would it be more expensive to have a test or two run on you than it would be to remove malignant tumors that could have been prevented or caught much earlier in the game?

no no no, you see, since there have been individuals who have gone to a doctor every year for a check up and never had anything wrong, that proves that, as a whole, preventative care is more expensive

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Once again, the ACA is not about Care or helping people. It is about insurance. That is how insurance works. There are forms and deadlines.

I get that but if you are going to reject a plan as ill conceived as it is, as a state you had better have plan B to cover the problem.

My favorite analogy (my favorite because it is mine and it makes sense in my head and applies to many political situations) is having a neighborhood that is in danger of flooding. Some want every home owner to own an emergency boat, some want to buy helicopters and some want to kick money in to a fund to rent boats as needed. If the majority decides to buy helicopters and you are against it because it costs to much and is inefficient, you had better have your own plan when the water rises instead of allowing your family to drown because "dammit, I don't want to ride on that helicopter"

I'm on record in GLB for saying the ACA will be the most devastating piece of legislation that I have seen in my lifetime.