Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, at least I can safely judge the writer of the article is woefully ignorant (or willfully deceitful, which is probably worse), which makes me less inclined to be interested in the opinion of the author.

You would need an employment contract for at least 2 years to be eligible for public health care in Finland (Finnish Lapland included). I don't ...[text shortened]... or some time), but you'd have to be prepared to pay significantly more taxes in order to use it.

I suppose becoming a citizen would be hard to do there. There are lots of debates about lots of things in the US, but I really think moving to a socialist country is far better than what is in store for us here. Eventually though the rest of the world will suffer the same fate, so might as well resist if necessary now. Are ya comming over to join us?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, at least I can safely judge the writer of the article is woefully ignorant (or willfully deceitful, which is probably worse), which makes me less inclined to be interested in the opinion of the author.

You would need an employment contract for at least 2 years to be eligible for public health care in Finland (Finnish Lapland included). I don't ...[text shortened]... or some time), but you'd have to be prepared to pay significantly more taxes in order to use it.

I also wish that more people here held the president of the United States to as high a standard as they claim they do in their references.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm interested to hear your opinion on my OP. The ACA is liberal ideology put into practice. In my opinion, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many more liberal promises (promises that Baby Boomers made to themselves on the labor of their grandchildren; disgusting) will unravel as they are recognized as simply unaffordable.

Am I incorrect? What's your opinion?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This. There are many liberal beliefs which have nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare. Not all of them are bad. Prison reform for one, legalization of marijuana for another.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ok then...what liberal tenets do you believe have been damaged (however temporarily) by the ACA?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ok then...what liberal tenets do you believe have been damaged (however temporarily) by the ACA?

Liberals wanted the public option or a single-payer system. The ACA was the only "compromise" that could get squeezed past the Republican filibustering. Liberal tenets have therefore not been damaged.

You don't "know thy enemy" very well, which is why your brand of ranting is especially poignant.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
In the ACA, we see the goals of the American liberal project writ large: big government, confiscation of private wealth, government control, centralized planning, government knowing what's best for individuals. Modern liberalism has exposed itself. Are Americans finally understanding liberalism for what it is and what it wants? It would seem so. Th ...[text shortened]... as either Party has been since Nixon.

Does the ACA herald the end of Liberalism in America?

I think the only thing that has been damaged is that people do not
trust our President's word, and many of the people who backed him
as he lied to the American public. I also think many people now realize
that he does not have a clue half the time, because no one bothers to
tell him anything.
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast
Liberals wanted the public option or a single-payer system. The ACA was the only "compromise" that could get squeezed past the Republican filibustering. Liberal tenets have therefore not been damaged.

You don't "know thy enemy" very well, which is why your brand of ranting is especially poignant.

Your attempt to revise history is very charming; however as I stated previously, Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for two years and failed to produce anything of note, related to health care or otherwise. I'll also note for your benefit that the ACA was passed without a single Republican vote. This highlights not Republican obstructionism, but Democrat inability to govern and understand that sweeping legislation of the magnitude of the ACA has always been and must always be enacted in a bipartisan manner.

Has not Republican obstructionism, given the extremely poor quality of the substance of the law and the extremely poor quality of the law's execution, been justified? Does not Republican obstructionism seem more like heroism today? Can not Republicans claim they were trying to protect Americans from this foolhardy and ill-conceived legislation, and the President and Party that were its genesis?

I maintain that the ACA has exposed the limits of Big Government, has only started to show the harm that can be done by the government to private markets, has exposed the harm done by the liberal thinking that government knows what's best for individuals, has laid bare liberal arrogance, and has seriously undermined public confidence in government (well, that along with the fact that Obama knowingly and deliberately lied to the American public thirty times, and then lied about his lies, which, if I had not heard with my own ears, I would never have believed).