Basically, yes. And what's wrong with that?
the wonderful democratic plan called the healthcare act is aimed a gutting the lesser middle class and forcing them to to enjoy the dubious ability to feed themselves as the truly poor while painting us as traitors because we are not going to enjoy getting fucked.Could you try re-writing that sentence into two or three, then maybe it would become parsable? (If it means what I *think* it might mean, it's laughably wrong; but why argue against that if it isn't perhaps even what you were trying to say.)
The rich don't care, they can afford healthcare so the legislation doesn't affect them at all.Duh, Sancta Simplicitas! This is wrong in at least two ways:
1) Then why are the financial backers behind the Republicans still pumping such a lot of dough into campaigns against it? They obviously have some reason, even if you don't know what that is.
2) Of course they care; until now that middle class you mention has got its health insurance from its employers, i.e, the upper class. If the middle class gets an alternative health insurance provider, the upper class won't have the middle class in as much of a grip on the balls as it has until now.
It is the people on fixed incomes that watch their monthly premiums go from $338 to $1140.Debunked by others already. (Not just in this thread, by the way, but in others last week, last month, the month before that, and I don't know how often before. Couldn't you try to acquire the decency not to repeat already-debunked "arguments" like a broken bloody record, please? Thank you.)
Now if that is the best plan that the American left has to "keep less of my money going to Larry Ellison" then fuck them.Sigh... Again, wrong; this time in at least three ways:
1) No, this is their plan to allow poor and sick people to get some health insurance. That's what this is all about, you know. (The name "Affordable Healthcare Act" might be a clue to anyone who isn't stoked up to the gills on right-wing propaganda.)
2) As per the other #2 above, the less of a grip Larry Ellison has on your balls, the more of a chance you'll have at keeping some of your hard-earned dosh out of his grubby little mitts.
3) Even if it helps absolutely zero in keeping your cash from Larry, at least it doesn't actively give him *more* of it, which is what any competing scheme he comes up with will inevitably aim for, so it's still better.
Ergo: No, (assuming your "them" means the Democrats), it's NOT a case of "fuck them" -- at least not as much as the Republicans.
Your only point seems to be "rich people! rich people!"In short, yes. And is there anything wrong with that? No!
There are basically two kinds of people in the world: Rich people and poor people (and people who can't count to three, like me). They have fundamentally opposed interests: Rich people are those who own money, real estate, and corporations. It is in their interest that ever more money go to those who already own money, real estate, or corporations. Poor people don't already have a lot of money. It is in their interest that some reasonable share of society's resources also go to those who do not already have a lot. (Yeah, somebody might have come up with this observation before me. That still doesn't make it wrong.)
ARE _Y_O_U_ "rich people!"? If not, then why are you so hell-bent on defending _their_ interests, to the clear and present detriment of _your own_ interests? Isn't that just... stupid?
