• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1010 months ago

    Sounds like my retiree father-in-law who insists that Social Security isn’t a social service and should be the one exception to absolute abolition of all government services because they’re “communist.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Technically that’s true, because it changed the law where you can’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, but I’m guessing OP means he uses the marketplace thingy instead of having insurance provided by work.

      (Also, the affordable care act didn’t force you to have insurance, it was a tax penalty to not have insurance, but the 2018 tax act set that penalty to $0)

  • Iron Lynx
    link
    fedilink
    310 months ago

    “I did not expect the leopards to eat my face!” Said the woman who voted for The Leopards Eating Faces Party

    • Todd Bonzalez
      link
      fedilink
      2310 months ago

      Nah. Relying on the ACA, and voting for people who want to abolish it is a leopards eating faces situation.

      The guy in this meme is wrong because he’s not paying attention to the wider pressures of society, and the needs of the people he’s talking to, when those people just want a better system.

      He disagrees with the woman demanding better ethical practices from Apple because she uses an Apple product, but the reality is that it is difficult to navigate modern society without a smartphone, and there’s pretty much no brand that doesn’t have some ethical failings in their supply chain. It’s not hypocrisy to point out a systemic issue, and want to see it resolved, if your participation is unavoidable.

      He disagrees with the man wanting seatbelts for his car, because he bought a car without them. Wanting greater safety features for the machinery you regularly operate is pragmatic, not hypocritical. Seeing a problem and offering a solution is a productive thing to do.

      But relying on the ACA for access to healthcare, and then voting to have the ACA dismantled with absolutely no plan on how to replace it, essentially denying millions of Americans, including themselves, access to healthcare? That’s just fucking insane. There’s no call for a better system. There’s no suggestion for how to do things differently. Just a call to tear down a system that people rely on for their health.

      If you think that we ought to hear the Republicans out on their anti-Healthcare agenda, or that people who rely on the ACA aren’t voting against their own interests when they vote Republican, you’re not paying attention to what’s at stake.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        Wow. I’m so used to this comic being presented from a left perspective that I completely missed what explodicle was actually saying.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

        That’s irrelevant; I’m not asking for evidence or pretending to be polite… you jerk?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I supported the ACA (though would’ve preferred a public option), but the one time I actually needed to use it, was for my Dad when his private insurance from his job kicked him off after retirement, the rates and coverage seemed bad, like it was just such a hassle with no great benefits. It’s only when I realized my Dad could still get Tricare that I switched over to that and that was a million times better (even more reason for govt-funded healthcare). I have no idea why my Dad hadn’t been using it the whole time either, he probably wasted tens of thousands of dollars getting private insurance. I still think ACA is a step in the right direction, BUT public option still needs to happen, Fuck Joe Lieberman for blocking that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      510 months ago

      It’s only when I realized my Dad could still get Tricare that I switched over to that and that was a million times better (even more reason for govt-funded healthcare).

      One of the biggest flaws of the ACA is how it’s engineered to be worse than employee sponsored care. Can’t actually just open up Medicare For All or you’ll make the private insurance system sad.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The ACA is good when you actually reach out to a patient care “assister” for support. You can get rates WAY lower than advertised if you work with someone who can help navigate it. I think the program is actually tremendous, but it’s been made intentionally cumbersome and difficult to use by the folks trying to kill it. I’ve used it twice while out of work back in 2016 and again over the pandemic and had completely free plans that covered my “tier 3” prescriptions and specialist (rheumatology) appointments.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1010 months ago

    You can mathematically group the people in your life in such a way so that half of the people you know are stupider than the other half.
    I swear to fuckin’ god, man, politics make it real easy to tell who goes in which half. It’s not a perfect method, but it works at least 85% of the goddamned time.

  • Diplomjodler
    link
    fedilink
    2010 months ago

    But they’re only going to repeal Obamacare, not the Affordable Care Act!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    410 months ago

    Voting for a candidate with the expectation to stop needing a social benefit is definitely how someone with minimum political knowledge will vote.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5510 months ago

    “Social Security’s great for the old folks, but there’s no way it’ll be around when we’re old”

    Votes for the guy trying to destroy social security.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1810 months ago

      I mean, technically that’s correct, if they keep voting for the guy trying to destroy social security lol

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        Ronald Reagan was cutting advertising telling people that Social Security was going to go bankrupt in a generation back in 1961.

        Then he took office in 1980 (after he’d predicted bankruptcy) on the position and “fixed” SS by raising taxes on low income Americans and gutting their benefits. But the subsequent multi-trillion dollar trust fund didn’t satisfy SS scalds. They still insisted it was going bankrupt, so Republicans raised taxes and gutted benefits again under Clinton and Gingrich, while introducing alternative privatized savings programs (401k, IRA, etc).

        But that still didn’t satisfy scalds. They tried to privatize the program in 2005 under Bush Jr. That failed, but we still got an earful about how SS was going to fail in the next 20 years if we didn’t do something. So then Obama tried to pass another round of cuts and tax hikes in 2013, but Republicans killed that too. So then Trump claimed we were headed to a Fiscal Cliff in 2017, and tried to privatize SS, but Republicans refused to pass that either.

        At this point, we’ve passed repeated deadlines under which SS was supposedly going to fail. The 1970s, the 1980s, the 2000s, the 2020s… We’re still waiting on the Big Cliff in 2037, but since COVID killed several million people far sooner than expected, that’s thrown the math of significantly.

        I anticipate we will continue to hear people predicting the end of SS until Congress finally finds the majority they need to kill it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2110 months ago

    To be fair it’s not hypocritical to use service you’re entitled to and still be against it. After all, you paid for it with your taxes.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1910 months ago

      But voting against it to remove its benefit to others is the hypocrisy. For instance, a cousin of mine was on her parents’ insurance until the cutoff of 26 because of Obamacare and was all about getting rid of it. I would point out how she was only insured because of it (this was before her being 26 and booted off) and asked her what her next plan for being insured would be. Of course she didn’t think that far ahead and just said she would be 26 by the time anything changed so it wouldn’t matter.

      The party of grifters is aptly put.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      That’s a straw man here. The ACA didn’t require individuals to buy insurance. They’re getting it because they value it, not because their money was already taken.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1110 months ago

    To be fair, it’s a flawed argument.

    You can be against Google and Apple and still use a smartphone.

    You can be against a genocide being sponsored with your tax dollars and still work and pay tax.

    And yes, you can use the healthcare system that exists today and still want a different one tomorrow.

    Or do you think that advocates of universal healthcare are also hypocrites for using Obamacare?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1310 months ago

      Well, for almost a decade the GOP has had time to come up with their vision. They ran on “Repeal and Replace” in the 2016 cycle. But when it came time to vote to repeal, they still didn’t have a replace option.

      Prices didn’t go down when the 2018 tax cuts reduced corporate tax by about 30%, I doubt when the ACA gets repealed and insurance companies can drop the uninsurable people they will lower the prices for healthy Americans, because they are already anchored at the higher price.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        Well, for almost a decade the GOP has had time to come up with their vision.

        That’s only 6 days in Trump’s 2 weeks timeline

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        Look, I wouldn’t trust the GOP with my shit stained underwear.

        Of course they don’t have a better plan.

        But voters who vote for them are still voters.

        And falling for a false narrative doesn’t make them hypocrites.

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      3910 months ago

      You’re correct on all those, but OP was talking about people who praise the Affordable Care Act but vote for politicians who say they want to get rid of Obamacare. Those people aren’t using the system but want better, they are just ignorant that the two are the same thing.

      Now we absolutely could do better, but it’s better than what we had, and Republicans still want to get rid of it, even with less ties to Obama in name now. They truly hate people.

    • originalucifer
      link
      fedilink
      2410 months ago

      but the implication is that they are voting for the only party who doesnt want to expand healthcare or make it better in absolutely any way.

      even if they think the ACA is flawed and should be fixed, they are still not voting for the party to fix it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        In their mind, they are voting for the party that will fix it.

        You may disagree, as do I, but that’s what they think.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If I think cutting my brake lines will make my car go faster, I am, in fact, a moron directly failing to achieve my goal, NOT an intelligent being seeking alternative options…

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      1310 months ago

      None of those analogies are applicable here. It’s more like voting against building codes when you live on a fault line.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1910 months ago

    I’m not American, but this happens a lot more than you’d think.

    I live in Canada.

    A relative of a friend actually voted for a party called “the People’s party of Canada”, and one of their goals as a party was to eliminate subsidized housing. That relative of my friend… lived in subsidized housing and was not able to afford to have a home if not subsidized.

    They literally voted for a party that, if they had won, would have made them homeless.

    I don’t think that the PPC won a single district (giving them no seats in government); much to their benefit and their disappointment.

    Schools really need to teach critical thinking.