On Dave Ramsey’s radio show, he recently cited “math” as a premise for an argument against the Affordable Care Act, and even supports the terrorist attack that is the government shutdown and threat of generation-destroying default on the public debt. I’m sure he also supports the coronation of Eric Cantor as the new House Dictator.
Here’s the video. Try not to wretch as you watch someone who calls himself a Christian advocate for the death of the sick and the poor:
He hates the impoverished.
Mr. Math is not taking into account that we still pay for his “people that live off the government that we all pay for” who cannot afford to pay when they go to the ER when they are so sick that they now have to be treated by the ER because they couldn’t afford to go to a doctor for preventative treatment of a basic illness that balloons into something much worse, all because they didn’t have insurance. The hospitals have to raise what they charge, which gets passed onto insurance companies, who have to raise rates on everyone else, or other individuals without health insurance, who now have to pay more when going to the hospital in an emergency for the treatment of a normally preventable illness. That’s what happens under the pre-ACA system. Sounds a lot like what he is describing as the system under the ACA, except he is ignoring that preventative treatment is far less expensive than a trip to the ER and many repeated hospital stays.
I am surprised that this guy claims to be a Christian, when he is advocating that our society should leave all of the sick people out to die so that everyone else’s premiums will be lower, even though collecting money from people who will get preventative treatment and not end up in the ER is less expensive than waiting for them to end up in the ER and be unable to pay for it.
Jesus, the evil Jewish Middle Eastern liberal socialist, would never have advocated this.
His example is misleading.
His example is a 500 pound individual with diabetes and three heart attacks. I don’t see too many 500 pound people who are able to even stand up, let alone work. We’re already paying for them with Medicaid and such, and will continue to. That person isn’t going to go out and all of a sudden buy health insurance. Unless he is advocating that we eliminate Medicaid and let all of those people die, like in a third-world county, then his example doesn’t fit his narrative.
Maybe he should have used me as the example. I worked for a small company that didn’t offer health insurance. I was repeatedly rejected for ANY kind of coverage through private insurance, even high risk. I’m not one of Paul Ryan’s freeloaders, but my healthcare costs would be astronomical without insurance. Now everyone else would be subsidizing ME… even though I am now covered by a group plan by another employer… which means that everyone else is subsidizing ME… what was his point again?
Conservatives are arguing that costs will go up, and are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure they do.
Oh right, that the employer’s cost is going to go up regardless, but only if the conservative effort to sabotage the law by taking the socially irresponsible action of telling young people to opt-out actually works, which will cause everyone else’s costs to go up.
Republican Uncle Sam wants YOU to make sure the working poor suffer and die from preventable illness.
Republican Uncle Sam wants YOU to make sure that society suffers so that rich people can make more money.
Republican Uncle Sam wants YOU to get sick so he can kick you in the face after you support his dangerous policies, then continue to support them, even though they go against your own interests.
His hateful message about the working poor doesn’t acknowledge that they don’t make a living wage, and can barely afford to survive.
What about all of the people who work full-time but still live in poverty? What would happen if employers paid a living wage? Would those employees not have to receive government assistance just to survive? Wouldn’t that broaden the tax base? Would they be able to afford health insurance, even if the unethical, socially irresponsible, and morally repugnant employers who make millions or billions in profits decide to cut their hours to avoid having to pay for health insurance?
Republican socialism is anything that isn’t privatized profits and socialized losses.
I’m not sure how regulating the health insurance market counts as socialism. Republican socialism, perhaps, since the real definition of socialism doesn’t fit his fictional concept. Private insurers are still the ones selling the policies AND making the profits, and there were already government regulations before the ACA, albeit weak and pro-business. I don’t know how anyone can say that this is the “government takeover of healthcare” when private insurers still sell plans for profit, and more than half of the states refused the Medicaid expansion, further advocating for the death of the sick and poor.
Yes, there is mandatory gun ownership.
It looks like a whole lot of conservatives are extremely happy about government-forced gun ownership. That isn’t tyranny at all, and neither is the appointment of a Republican House Overlord who makes sure that the government remains closed, no matter what the majority of the House wants. The gun ownership argument falls flat because no one in any position of authority ever suggested that guns should be banned with a federal law. Suggestions like that are for Alex Jones to make.