Obamacare
Quote: terapinedTypical FREE media
Media should have the freedom to report the news how they see it.
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with anything you said, except for one thing. The media SWEARS that they are unbiased and objective. If they just came out and said "Yeah we're liberal", then there would be no issue.
But they don't. And conservatives will keep calling them out on it.
Quote: EvenBobMy wife is irate. She went to her chiropractor last week
for her usual appointment and he gave her a form to fill
out first. It was asking all kinds of intrusive questions,
like her age, weight, blood pressure, drugs she takes,
education level, marriage status, all kinds of stuff. But
what really got her going were the race and religion
questions.
What race was she, what was her religious affiliation.
What was her ethnicity. In other words, if she put down
white for race, where were her 'people' from. Poland?
Russia? England? If Asian, are you Chinese, Vietmese,
etc. My wife works for an incurance company and they
can't ask any of these type of questions.
She gave the form back and said she wouldn't do it. Thats
when the nurse said it was an Obamacare form and she
has to fill it out, if she doesn't they can refuse to treat her.
So she did it, gritting her teeth. The doctor told her he can
get in big trouble if everybody doesn't fill out these forms.
He said its their way of tracking everybody, of getting every
person in the country into the 'system' and pigeonholing
them. He hates it, but what can he do.
Welcome to Socialism, and this is just the start.
Ridiculous
Quote: Maverick17I believe nothing in this quote, other than you like subsidized insurance for no other reason than someone "needs" the subsidy.
So you agree with the same person who called this idea:
WONDERFUL!!
And Obamacare is not how "insurance works." If Obamacare is how "insurance works" why would America "need" Obamacare?
Ingnorance.
Ignorance is not knowing that European healthcare systems, which are universal, are much better than the American system. 1) People have longer life spans; 2) People receive more efficient treatment; 3) Healthcare costs decrease. When you get your masters in public administration, you can tell me I am wrong. America has a slight edge in bio-tech available for the rich and over-insured. The pathology in America is that everyone thinks they are just temporarily not rich.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou know, I wouldn't have a problem with anything you said, except for one thing. The media SWEARS that they are unbiased and objective. If they just came out and said "Yeah we're liberal", then there would be no issue.
But they don't. And conservatives will keep calling them out on it.
Didn't you get the AZduffman memo? According to AZ, conservatives are supposed to ignore the media they think slants to the left.
NYT, Wash Post, cmon, they believe they are unbiased. I actually believe they are unbiased. You believe they are biased.
The majority of the readers of both papers believe they are unbiased but the NYT and Wash Post is supposed to cater to how you view them. lol
Its like Bill O'reilly, he certainly believes he is not putting spin on anything."You are entering the no spin zone" LOL. The little bits I have seen, its all SPIN.
I might watch Bill if he was honest and announced that you are entering the spin zone.
The no spin zone is Google news, just links to all the news stories of the day without commentary from google,
Quote: AZDuffmanHaven't you noticed? More and more are ignoring them. Fair and Balanced FNC now has over half the cable news market. Lamestream outfits are losing market share and cutting costs just to survive.
The Lib news has people like Martin Bashir and
Alex Baldwin as their spokespeople, how can they fail.
Quote: terapinedAccording to AZ, conservatives are supposed to ignore the media they think slants to the left.
NYT, Wash Post, cmon, they believe they are unbiased. I actually believe they are unbiased. You believe they are biased.
The majority of the readers of both papers believe they are unbiased but the NYT and Wash Post is supposed to cater to how you view them. lol
Its like Bill O'reilly, he certainly believes he is not putting spin on anything."You are entering the no spin zone" LOL. The little bits I have seen, its all SPIN.
I might watch Bill if he was honest and announced that you are entering the spin zone.
The no spin zone is Google news, just links to all the news stories of the day without commentary from google,
According to terapined, liberals are supposed to ignore the media they think slants to the right.
Fox News, cmon, they believe they are unbiased. I actually believe they are unbiased. You believe they are biased.
The majority of the viewers of Fox News believe they are unbiased but Fox News is supposed to cater to how you view them. lol
Its like Chris Matthews, he certainly believes he is not putting his spin on anything. LOL. The little bits I have seen, its all SPIN.
I might watch Chris if he was honest and announced that you are entering the Hardball spin zone.
The No spin zone is like the Drudge Report, just links to all the news stories of the day without commentary from Drudge
Quote: Beethoven9thAccording to terapined, liberals are supposed to ignore the media they think slants to the right.
Fox News, cmon, they believe they are unbiased. I actually believe they are unbiased. You believe they are biased.
The majority of the viewers of Fox News believe they are unbiased but Fox News is supposed to cater to how you view them. lol
Its like Chris Matthews, he certainly believes he is not putting his spin on anything. LOL. The little bits I have seen, its all SPIN.
I might watch Chris if he was honest and announced that you are entering the Hardball spin zone.
The No spin zone is like the Drudge Report, just links to all the news stories of the day without commentary from Drudge
Actually, according to terapined, you should ignore all media that slants left or right. Thats why when I channel surf, I peek at Foxnews and MSNBC but never really watch either network. I get my news from the internet, google news, and simply click on any story that interests me.
Bill slants right, Chris slants left, thats why I watch neither.
I trust google not to filter the news. I dont trust Drudge to provide me with unfiltered news.
If its in the news, google will link it. If its in the news and Drudge likes the slant, he'll put it at the top of his page. Drudge is a human that picks the story to headline his page due to his slant. Google simpy links the most popular news stories, there is no human deciding what story to lead with.
This is pretty informative, but the truth may not be acceptable to some viewers.
http://youtu.be/94eGEiQQ0k0
Quote: terapinedBill slants right, Chris slants left, thats why I watch neither.
Among Fox hosts, Bill does tend to slant a bit to the right. He is nowhere near Hannity, who I have stopped watching because his show just doesn't interest me these days.
Chris does not "slant" to the left--he is on the left. Juan Williams slants to the left...Rachel Maddow is on the left.
I think that is the difference that some lose comparing MSNBC and Fox--Fox does slant to the right. MSNBC is on the left.
OK, then you need to start taking your own advice and ditch the New Yuck Times and Washington pOst.Quote: terapinedActually, according to terapined, you should ignore all media that slants left or right.
Seriously, where have you been the whole time we've had discussions on media bias? Look at the coverage "inexperienced" Sarah Palin got in 2008, yet she actually had MORE executive experience than Obama (who had NONE). Anyone who thinks that the mainstream media is unbiased clearly has their head in the sand.
The non-partisan Pew Research Center even did a study on media coverage in the final week of the 2012 campaign. Obama's coverage was +10% positive, while Romney's coverage in that same time period was -17% negative.
Report: Obama Coverage Turned More Favorable In Final Week Of Election
Hell, I even linked to an article that touches on media bias in a previous post, yet you obviously ignored it.
You do know that Google is run by people who are just as political as Drudge, right? They donate heavily to Democrats.Quote: terapinedDrudge is a human that picks the story to headline his page due to his slant. Google simpy links the most popular news stories, there is no human deciding what story to lead with.
Keep your head in the sand, bro!
Quote: terapinedActually, according to terapined, you should ignore all media that slants left or right. Thats why when I channel surf, I peek at Foxnews and MSNBC but never really watch either network. I get my news from the internet, google news, and simply click on any story that interests me.
Bill slants right, Chris slants left, thats why I watch neither.
I trust google not to filter the news. I dont trust Drudge to provie me with unfiltered news.
If its in the news, google will link it. If its in the news and Drudge likes the slant, he'll put it at the top of his page. Drudge is a human that picks the story to headline his page due to his slant. Google simpy links the most popular news stories, there is no human deciding what story to lead with.
You need to engage in the "Odiousgambit Research Assurance Model" (Trademark, Copyright, All Rights Reserved) we've developed in our gun thread over on DT. There's not a source that's completely unbiased, so if you want truly unbiased news, you have to read them all. Before I go off on a rant, I always try to confirm through several sources spanning all slants. HuffPo, NYT, some Fox, some Blaze, whatever. Start at the far left and go all the way to the far right.
It helps weed out the deep b.s. and get to the core more easily. It also helps from freaking out over satire ;)
Quote: BizzyBIgnorance is not knowing that European healthcare systems, which are universal, are much better than the American system. 1) People have longer life spans
A silly and superficial way to measure a health care system. There are multiple ways to die that have no relation to what kind of health insurance you have.
Quote:2) People receive more efficient treatment
And a restaurant that serves all meals the same way no matter what the customer wants will be more efficient. But is it better for the customer?
Quote:3) Healthcare costs decrease.
In exchange for longer wait times and less choice in care.
Quote: BizzyBIgnorance is not knowing that European healthcare systems, which are universal, are much better than the American system. 1) People have longer life spans; 2) People receive more efficient treatment; 3) Healthcare costs decrease. When you get your masters in public administration, you can tell me I am wrong. America has a slight edge in bio-tech available for the rich and over-insured. The pathology in America is that everyone thinks they are just temporarily not rich.
The European systems, with the US propping them up in various subtle ways, currently work significantly better than the American system for the populations as a whole. That doesn't mean it will work here, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that Obamacare is a good idea, nor does it mitigate the willful myopia shown by s2dbaker and others. How about you keep mum about your masters a bit and deal with the lines of people finding out how little they must have liked their insurance at the reception window.
(Bragging about his masters, trotting out left-wing catchphrases like sage wisdom - bet you he hasn't changed out of his robe yet. Someone's in for a fun time.)
Quote: terapinedIts so facinating that conservatives are so interested in the media that they perceive as slanted left. Why not simply ignore.
Foxnews is slanted right so I simply ignore.
Speaking of "willful myopia"...
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, then you need to start taking your own advice and ditch the New Yuck Times and Washington pOst.
Seriously, where have you been the whole time we've had discussions on media bias? Look at the coverage "inexperienced" Sarah Palin got in 2008, yet she actually had MORE executive experience than Obama (who had NONE). Anyone who thinks that the mainstream media is unbiased clearly has their head in the sand.
The non-partisan Pew Research Center even did a study on media coverage in the final week of the 2012 campaign. Obama's coverage was +10% positive, while Romney's coverage in that same time period was -17% negative.
Report: Obama Coverage Turned More Favorable In Final Week Of Election
Hell, I even linked to an article that touches on media bias in a previous post, yet you obviously ignored it.
You do know that Google is run by people who are just as political as Drudge, right? They donate heavily to Democrats.
Keep your head in the sand, bro!
Your view is NYT and Washpost are biased. My opinion is they are unbiased when reporting the news. We have a difference of opinion.
If I think a source is unbiased, I will read some articles. Or should I not think for myself and take your word and not read? I choose to think for myself.
Expereience dont mean jack if you are dumb. Mayor of Toronto has a lot of expereience and he's dumb.
Of course Obama got better press, he's the imcumbent. He can do something presidential and get good coverage, Romney cant do anything presidential, well, because he aint the Pres.
I ignore alot of news. In fact with so much news out there, I probabbly just read a tiny tiny slight fraction of whats availible. Information in the information age, it is what it is which is too much. Sure google is run by people but the news links are all automated. They link what is out there, Drudge picks and chooses what story his web site leads with.
So CNN and MSNBC may be losing market share. That's because America is aging, and aging Americans don't know how to change the channel. I'm kidding, of course.
Um...no. I just gave you a link to a non-partisan Pew Research Survey. I take it you think that Pew Research is right wing too? lolQuote: terapinedYour view is NYT and Washpost are biased. My opinion is they are unbiased when reporting the news. We have a difference of opinion.
HUH?!? So you have your mind made up BEFORE you read the article??? Haha! Figures. ;)Quote: terapinedIf I think a source is unbiased, I will read some articles.
Oh brother, you're starting to sound like s2dbaker now. So incumbents are supposed to get better press??Quote: terapinedOf course Obama got better press, he's the imcumbent.
Looks like you yourself just PROVED that the media is biased because they NEVER gave incumbent George W. Bush any good press in his 2nd term. (I'm waiting to hear what excuse you come up for this one)
Serious? So you publicly admit this, yet you can conclude that the "tiny tiny slight fraction" you do read is unbiased??? *facepalm*Quote: terapinedI ignore alot of news. In fact with so much news out there, I probabbly just read a tiny tiny slight fraction of whats availible.
And so do the New York Times and Washington Post. DUH!Quote: terapinedDrudge picks and chooses what story his web site leads with.
Quote: terapined
Your view is NYT and Washpost are biased. My opinion is they are unbiased when reporting the news. We have a difference of opinion.
If I think a source is unbiased, I will read some articles. Or should I not think for myself and take your word and not read? I choose to think for myself.
Expereience dont mean jack if you are dumb. Mayor of Toronto has a lot of expereience and he's dumb.
Of course Obama got better press, he's the imcumbent. He can do something presidential and get good coverage, Romney cant do anything presidential, well, because he aint the Pres.
I ignore alot of news. In fact with so much news out there, I probabbly just read a tiny tiny slight fraction of whats availible. Information in the information age, it is what it is which is too much. Sure google is run by people but the news links are all automated. They link what is out there, Drudge picks and chooses what story his web site leads with.
As much as I want to agree with you, I feel that large news outlets are biased left. The demographics of its readers (mostly metropolitan readers) are usually bent left. This leads to reporting that leans to the editorial content of the paper, which will lean left to satisfy its readers. That said, its reporting is usually far more intelligent than what you find on WND, Snopes, or even FNC. The editorial lean and it's effect on its news division isn't nearly as obvious at the Times or the Post but it's there. Stories have to go through a selection process and that's subject to the publisher and the editors.
I always look at the quality of the research and the number of sources when figuring out what to believe.
Quote: BizzyBIgnorance is not knowing that European healthcare systems, which are universal, are much better than the American system. 1) People have longer life spans; 2) People receive more efficient treatment; 3) Healthcare costs decrease. When you get your masters in public administration, you can tell me I am wrong. America has a slight edge in bio-tech available for the rich and over-insured. The pathology in America is that everyone thinks they are just temporarily not rich.
There are several excuses that I keep hearing, some of which are true. But an 87% increase in health costs over 10 years is really inexcusable.
Lifestyle is worse than countries with socialized medicine. True. But I attribute a great deal of that to:
(1) the incredible wage gap between rich and poor and a weak welfare system which encourages poor eating
(2) lack of prevention because only the government will promote wealth while the health industry has no motivation in doing so
(3) large ethnic and racial diversity leading to poorer outcomes
Malpractice costs are much higher. True, but the costs have been steady over the last few years and is not contributing to year-over-year increases
Defensive medicine costs are much higher. True. To avoid lawsuits, physicians will order a battery of tests that are unnecessary.
Technology costs are much higher. True, but they are higher everywhere.
The quality of life indicators across the board in countries with socialized medicine are higher than the USA. Health outcomes are generally better. Still, in the USA, if you are insured and can afford the premiums (or your employers can), you get the Cadillac. But over 10 years, health insurance costs have gone up on average by about $350/ capita / year. That means that a family of 4 has to come up with an extra $1,000 - $1,500 per year, every year to keep up with premiums (if they are paying). Or a company with 250 employees that provides health insurance that includes family care would have to come up with an extra $250,000 of profit each year to keep up. That Cadillac that cost $48,780 in 2000 costs $84,170 now.
Is the Cadillac still worth it?
Name one MSNBC show with straight news.Quote: boymimboFoxNews primetime yields around 2.3 million viewers to CNNs 300k and MSNBC's 600k.
With maturity comes experience and even in many cases knowledge and/or wisdom.Quote: boymimboSo CNN and MSNBC may be losing market share. That's because America is aging, and aging Americans don't know how to change the channel. I'm kidding, of course.
Just include -foxnews in your searches and all the crud will be filtered right out.Quote: rxwineI don't know what online FOX or MSNBC offers but Google News allows you to take news from both if that's what you want. I get FOX links there whether I want them or not. But I never used the customize feature.
Malpractice--In America, one third of the sum goes to the lawyer. Another one quarter goes to administrative fees. You get 40% of what you sue for, so you sue for more than twice as much as you would in Europe. If you lose, the doctor still had to pay to defend himself. This causes malpractice insurance to soar. This causes physicians to charge more and leads to the biggest contributor to healthcare costs of them all: defensive medicine.
In Europe, you lose, you pay the doc's attorney. You win, your attorney is more limited to what he can be paid. Defensive medicine makes no sense, because it would increase taxes.
Techology--America lets healthcare providers charge whatever they want for services, except when thru a government program. European governments set the prices. So we pay double, on average.
Quote: boymimboThere are several excuses that I keep hearing, some of which are true. But an 87% increase in health costs over 10 years is really inexcusable.
Lifestyle is worse than countries with socialized medicine. True. But I attribute a great deal of that to:
(1) the incredible wage gap between rich and poor and a weak welfare system which encourages poor eating
(2) lack of prevention because only the government will promote wealth while the health industry has no motivation in doing so
(3) large ethnic and racial diversity leading to poorer outcomes
Malpractice costs are much higher. True, but the costs have been steady over the last few years and is not contributing to year-over-year increases
Defensive medicine costs are much higher. True. To avoid lawsuits, physicians will order a battery of tests that are unnecessary.
Technology costs are much higher. True, but they are higher everywhere.
The quality of life indicators across the board in countries with socialized medicine are higher than the USA. Health outcomes are generally better. Still, in the USA, if you are insured and can afford the premiums (or your employers can), you get the Cadillac. But over 10 years, health insurance costs have gone up on average by about $350/ capita / year. That means that a family of 4 has to come up with an extra $1,000 - $1,500 per year, every year to keep up with premiums (if they are paying). Or a company with 250 employees that provides health insurance that includes family care would have to come up with an extra $250,000 of profit each year to keep up. That Cadillac that cost $48,780 in 2000 costs $84,170 now.
Is the Cadillac still worth it?
I am not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Malpractice--In America, one third of the sum goes to the lawyer. Another one quarter goes to administrative fees. You get 40% of what you sue for, so you sue for more than twice as much as you would in Europe. If you lose, the doctor still had to pay to defend himself. This causes malpractice insurance to soar. This causes physicians to charge more and leads to the biggest contributor to healthcare costs of them all: defensive medicine.
In Europe, you lose, you pay the doc's attorney. You win, your attorney is more limited to what he can be paid. Defensive medicine makes no sense, because it would increase taxes.
Techology--America lets healthcare providers charge whatever they want for services, except when thru a government program. European governments set the prices. So we pay double, on average.
Quote: 24BingoThe European systems, with the US propping them up in various subtle ways, currently work significantly better than the American system for the populations as a whole. That doesn't mean it will work here, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that Obamacare is a good idea, nor does it mitigate the willful myopia shown by s2dbaker and others. How about you keep mum about your masters a bit and deal with the lines of people finding out how little they must have liked their insurance at the reception window.
(Bragging about his masters, trotting out left-wing catchphrases like sage wisdom - bet you he hasn't changed out of his robe yet. Someone's in for a fun time.)
Speaking of "willful myopia"...
So you admit that the European system works better. But that's not good enough because it's only 'for the population as a whole'? LOL. Youre a friggin genius. Forget about a masters, do you have a high school diploma?
So if the european system works 'currently', why is our system so great...and why is obamacare not a step toward the european style? How exactly will it get worse? The CBO projects the plan saves money. I have not once heard someone strongly against this plan rationally explain what is wrong with it. I am not for Obamacare, I am completely indifferent. I may slightly prefer that it not exist because I only care about my circumstances; I will have to wait and see. But it seems like the uninformed and the racists are on the side of hating it because they never have reasoning behind their statements. These are the people politicians are pandering to with their nonsensical attempts to repeal the plan repeatedly, knowing they will fail, but doing it anyway, to show they are just as stupid and useless as their base.
The US will never be on a European system simply because the US is not in Europe. A single-payer system in the US will still be a US system with US baggage, among which is the fact that part of medical suppliers' global business model is a giant tap beneath Lady L's stola. It's for similar reasons Obamacare has been such a disaster - the idea was presented to the people as if it existed in a vacuum, but all it did was add a new layer of bureaucracy to a realm of society that would already have made Justinian's head explode, and with the tax credit (because, after all, that's what SCOTUS called it) being an insufficient incentive, failing at its aims by an unwillingness to even consider the causes beyond "hey - Europe is doing okay!" and an ideological loathing of the idea that any two states' issues should differ.
Quote: 24BingoThe US will never be on a European system simply because the US is not in Europe. A single-payer system in the US will still be a US system with US baggage, among which is the fact that part of medical suppliers' global business model is a giant tap beneath Lady L's stola. It's for similar reasons Obamacare has been such a disaster - the idea was presented to the people as if it existed in a vacuum, but all it did was add a new layer of bureaucracy to a realm of society that would already have made Justinian's head explode, and with the tax credit (because, after all, that's what SCOTUS called it) being an insufficient incentive, failing at its aims by an unwillingness to even consider the causes beyond "hey - Europe is doing okay!"
Twins born today will never be twins born tomorrow. What is your point? What unique 'baggage' does the U.S. have that Europe or Canada lacks? The most closely related countries to the U.S. in the world are the United Kingdom and Canada. I said RATIONAL argument. I am not following you. Obviously, people knew that a government program would be implmented by the government. Other than that, what new layer of bureaucracy are you talking about (or are you actually referring to that?)? The IRS is the key agency, and other agencies will help. And Obamacare is a tax. Subsidies are tax credits. Unlike other tax credits, they are reflected directly in the price. An incentive for what? To comply with the law? The penalty is more than a sufficient incentive after year 1. You have no idea what you are going on about. You have it in your head that it's bad. You're either in that group of 15-30% of people who simply think it's bad because Obama is black, and come up with any other insane set of ideas to justify their derision, or you're not.
Why would Justinian oppose an expanded bureaucracy? Why wouldn't the state of politics before Obama (people dressing in suits and not raping women) not make his head explode? Why does this statement, probably intended to appear intelligent, make any sense whatsoever?
These don't even need responses:
Quote: BizzyBWhat unique 'baggage' does the U.S. have that Europe or Canada lacks?
Quote: BizzyBObviously, people knew that a government program would be implmented by the government. Other than that, what new layer of beauracray are you talking about (or are you actually referring to that?)?
Quote: BizzyBYou're either in that group of 15-30% of people who simply think it's bad because Obama is black, and come up with any other insane set of ideas to justify their derision, or you're not.
I think we need to talk to the "beauracrats" who gave you your master's.
This comment, though could use a reply:
Quote: BizzyBAnd Obamacare is a tax. Subsidies are tax credits. Unlike other tax credits, they are reflected directly in the price. An incentive for what? To comply with the law? The penalty is more than a sufficient incentive after year 1.
The theory behind the decision in Sebelius is that you're not actually "complying" with the law, you're taking advantage of a new tax credit, deducted from a tax rate increased by it. That's the credit I was referring to, not the subsidies. (Actually going over the decision, it looks like that's not quite right, but the point is that it's been ruled a question of a higher or lower taxrate, not so much compliance or noncompliance.) I see no reason it should be any more an incentive in the future than it is now - "pay higher tax, or buy health insurance" - if you're not buying health insurance in the first year of the penalty, why would you in the second?
I love this line of "it's a law - don't attack the law - obey the law!" as if the fact that it's on the books makes it suddenly unassailable. Newflash: we have a legislative branch for a reason. There's no finish line.
Quote: BizzyBTwins born today will never be twins born tomorrow. What is your point? What unique 'baggage' does the U.S. have that Europe or Canada lacks? The most closely related countries to the U.S. in the world are the United Kingdom and Canada. I said RATIONAL argument. I am not following you. Obviously, people knew that a government program would be implmented by the government. Other than that, what new layer of bureaucracy are you talking about (or are you actually referring to that?)? The IRS is the key agency, and other agencies will help. And Obamacare is a tax. Subsidies are tax credits. Unlike other tax credits, they are reflected directly in the price. An incentive for what? To comply with the law? The penalty is more than a sufficient incentive after year 1. You have no idea what you are going on about. You have it in your head that it's bad. You're either in that group of 15-30% of people who simply think it's bad because Obama is black, and come up with any other insane set of ideas to justify their derision, or you're not.
Why would Justinian oppose an expanded bureaucracy? Why wouldn't the state of politics before Obama (people dressing in suits and not raping women) not make his head explode? Why does this statement, probably intended to appear intelligent, make any sense whatsoever?
People who cannot make a rational, well thought out defense of their point view resort to CHANGING THE SUBJECT, IGNORING FACTS and CALLING NAMES. Your sweeping statement about people disagreeing with Obama because he is black lets us all know you have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation. If someone disagrees with you THEY ARE RACIST. Brilliant point!!!!
http://capitolcityproject.com/non-partisan-group-paid-1-million-produce-positive-obamacare-stories-close-obama-administration-tied-enroll-america/
So...the lies that the President told were part of a strategy; they weren't an accident. The idea was to deceive those who don't pay attention into thinking that everything would be just fine...
Okay, I realize that there are always going to be political strategies; I just don't think telling an outright lie to your constituents is the correct way to treat them. He lied to keep the Presidency. How proud you must be!!
...and s2dbaker says: "We won"..."We won"...
Quote: BizzyBYou're either in that group of 15-30% of people who simply think it's bad because Obama is black, and come up with any other insane set of ideas to justify their derision, or you're not.
Prove that number. Produce evidence. Just because people write things does not make them true.
Is there some percentage that feel that way? Yes, just like there is some percentage of people in every race with a race problem. I doubt is anywhere close to the 15% you toss out like it is a fact and, if it was 30%, there is no way he could have been elected.
Quote: 24BingoI love this line of "it's a law - don't attack the law - obey the law!" as if the fact that it's on the books makes it suddenly unassailable. Newflash: we have a legislative branch for a reason. There's no finish line.
Think of some of the laws that have been attacked...that needed to be attacked...and have been changed.
We can debate all day long about healthcare reform and what will/won't work, but Obamacare/ACA is not a good, well-written law. Will it benefit some? Of course it will!! Will it work? It does not appear like it can be successful as written. For example, you can't have a penalty that is only a penalty if you are getting a tax refund. Surely we know that people can adjust withholding to avoid a refund--look how many do that already...
America won.Quote: RonC...and s2dbaker says: "We won"..."We won"...
Quote: s2dbakerAmerica won.
You really don't get it, do you? America could possibly have won with a good law that worked well. America lost because the President, while holding a clear majority in both houses, did not take the time to craft a law with those folks that will work well. Things that happen in the dark don't often look good in the light...same thing happens when either party does something that isn't even fully defined as they do it.
Are there things in the law that will work? Could be. Are there things in the law that are not good? Yes, and the President is not really working hard to do that.
America did not win. America was cheated by a President who felt it was okay to lie about his signature law.
Somehow that is okay with you. I don't get it. Do you like being cheated and lied to?
Thank you :)Quote: 24BingoJesus, "America won"? You're increasingly coming off as a character.
--Do you mind that the "win" (as you define it; the jury is still out in reality) came because of a calculated set of lies?
--How will the millions and millions of young people needed to prop up the program be assessed into it rather than simply not paying the penalty for non-enrollment?
--Have you really taken a couple of medical situations, and their costs under both programs, into account when comparing your current policy and your new one?
--What can be done to fix Obamacare?
As you define them? Not at allQuote: RonCOkay, Mr. "America Won"...would you mind answering some questions?
--Do you mind that the "win" (as you define it; the jury is still out in reality) came because of a calculated set of lies?
They will sign up.Quote: RonC--How will the millions and millions of young people needed to prop up the program be assessed into it rather than simply not paying the penalty for non-enrollment?
NoQuote: RonC--Have you really taken a couple of medical situations, and their costs under both programs, into account when comparing your current policy and your new one?
Give it a public option.Quote: RonC--What can be done to fix Obamacare?
And if they don't, as they haven't for the last couple of months??????Quote: RonCHow will the millions and millions of young people needed to prop up the program be assessed into it rather than simply not paying the penalty for non-enrollment?
Quote: s2dbakerThey will sign up.
Then we shall commence with the executions.Quote: SanchoPanzaAnd if they don't, as they haven't for the last couple of months??????
Seriously though, young people are not signing up now because they don't think that they have to. Put yourself in their shoes. If you were 25 and healthy, why would you sign up for health insurance today that wouldn't kick in until January 1st when you've been given until March 31 to do so? I know that I would put it off until the last minute, especially given all the bad press about the website. I'm not worried about the demographics yet. People who need insurance are going to sign up first and the rest will come along as required. Enrollment is going well when compared to the history of Romneycare in Massachusetts.
Quote: RonCYou really don't get it, do you?
Quote: 24BingoJesus, "America won"? You're increasingly coming off as a character.
s2dbaker is almost like a cartoon in his blind support for Obamacare. This woman with kidney cancer is losing her health insurance because of Obamacare:
Woman Battling Kidney Cancer Losing Company Health Plan Due To Obamacare
Apparently, guys like s2dbaker think she "won". *facepalm*
Lack of Doctors May Worsen as Millions Join Medicaid Rolls
I bet s2dbaker thinks these next victims of Obamacare "won" as well.
Yes.Quote: KeyserIs there anyone here that actually believes that Obamacare is a good thing?
But I don't actually believe that you're sincere. I suspect that you're just being a contrarian, posturing, and attempting to defend your party.
Is there anyone here, other than S2baker, that can actually defend the plan with real facts? All of my friends that are doctors or working in the medical field say that it's awful as well. The only people defending it tend to know very little about it, or they're simply posturing and attempting to defend the democratic party and the president.
couple weeks ago. They're in the dark about how much they
get paid under Obamacare, nobody has contacted them about
anything. They all agree this won't work and can't work. The
quality of care will go down drastically and the costs will go
up drastically.
Quote: KeyserIs there anyone here that actually believes that Obamacare is a good thing?
Yes, but I have no interest in defending it here. Giving s2dbaker moral support . Just had to pipe in due to ganging up on him and tag teaming him.
Thanks for the support but as you know, I'm on solid ground. The people who oppose it here are low-information Fox News watchers. They don't have anything of value to add but they are here so I may as well poke fun at them. Maybe I'll resurrect the Kenyan Birth Certificate thread, that always brings out the hilarious yet stupid.Quote: terapinedYes, but I have no interest in defending it here. Giving s2dbaker moral support . Just had to pipe in due to ganging up on him and tag teaming him.
Yup, this law makes real good sense.
Quote: s2dbakerAs you define them? Not at all.
When Ron said "calculated set of lies", I assume he also meant the disinformation and lies from elected Republicans over the last couple years concerning the ACA.
OR is it possible elected Republicans have all been fair and balanced?
....
Quote: rxwineWhen Ron said "calculated set of lies", I assume he also meant the disinformation and lies from elected Republicans over the last couple years concerning the ACA.
OR is it possible elected Republicans have all been fair and balanced?
....
I don't think that matters, rx. When the president boldly lies, then lies again trying to cover up the first lie, nothing can ever come close to such treachery. And if some Repubs are guilty of any misinformation, it has been few and far between. Watching the likes of Nanci Pelosi actually go in front of cameras and either lie for the pres. or look totally dumb, has more than made up for any slip ups by conservatives (and really, I can't recall a thing they've said that was not true about this disastrous law).
