Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

sendero

(28,552 posts)

8. Wasn't the ACA ...

Reply to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:57 AM

Dec 2013

..... based on a Heritage proposal?

Fact is, you cannot wait until you are 60 and needing care to start paying into the system. It's really not a difficult concept but it is easily spun for the challenged of intelligence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In The Philadelphia Inquirer is an 'article' called 'Obamacare: A bad deal for young people' [View all] onehandle Dec 2013 OP

That sure isn't our families experience OKNancy Dec 2013 #1

Right wing crapaganda (R) to pollute American brainpans Berlum Dec 2013 #2

I am relatively certain that some of their assumptions are false. Mass Dec 2013 #3

Heritage Foundation? GoldenOldie Dec 2013 #4

Independence Blue Cross Freddie Dec 2013 #5

They can afford to play both sides of the coin. onehandle Dec 2013 #6

Looking forward to it Freddie Dec 2013 #17

Actually, they are correct, that's the point of the mandate... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #7

This is pure ProSense Dec 2013 #9

Yeah, but that's crap Prosense, and you know it... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #12

No, it's not "crap." The Heritage Foundation is spewing crap ProSense Dec 2013 #13

Then there is nothing to worry about and we don't need any mandates. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #16

What does that have to do with the fact that the OP is nonsense? ProSense Dec 2013 #19

As I said, it's not, but that's okay. I am not interested in debating the self-evident. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #24

A tax-funded single-payer system would do exactly the same thing. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #10

The NHS is funded through general taxation. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #14

Not with a progressive income tax it wouldn't, since older workers are wealthier, and earn more. Romulox Dec 2013 #15

I think quite a few DUers would dispute your "older=wealthier" theory. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #29

It's statistically true, even as there are many individual exceptions. Romulox Dec 2013 #31

Another reason ProSense Dec 2013 #23

That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #27

There you go again ProSense Dec 2013 #30

+1 mmonk Dec 2013 #34

Wasn't the ACA ... sendero Dec 2013 #8

Krugman explained ProSense Dec 2013 #11

Was that after Krugman recently explained his support for the Trans Pacific Partnership? Romulox Dec 2013 #21

You're knocking Krugman and agreeing with BS from the Heritage Foundation? ProSense Dec 2013 #26

Nonsense. Obamacare ("Romneycare") is *also* from the Heritage Foundation. YOU agree with them. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #28

Yes it was solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #18

Yes, and almost exactly in the form it was enacted--e.g. no drug reimportation, no public option. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #20

The idea that the youngest workers could bail out the healthcare industry is bizarre, to begin with. Romulox Dec 2013 #22

that's my paper and here's the funny part: PCIntern Dec 2013 #25

Your posting this here why? Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #32

Welcome to ignore. onehandle Dec 2013 #33

How immature of you Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #35

Of course it is... hughee99 Dec 2013 #36