Obamacare
Quote: s2dbakerThanks 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.
Actually thats a blatant lie. I have been in healthcare for 35 years and see the retail chains putting freezes on full time hires to avoid the extra cost to them of obamacare. Forcing people to buy the insurance on their own from the "website" on top of making part time wages.
I see that theinfrastructure of healthcare has not been bolstered over the last 2 years meaning, millions of people added to the doctors offices, clinics and hospitals
will tax the system without a doubt. MAKING DOCTORS VISITS SHORTER.....making time the MD has to spend reviewing your case and making a decison...shorter.....making you victim to errors of omission or errors of oversight or errors of being rushed.
I see people having to get different MDs even though they have had a single md for 20 years. Severing continuity of care also leads to errors and inferior care.
you new doctor wont have the time to catch up on your complex chart and catch all the nuances of your case. People are not robots...there are varying complexities within each patients case. Start all over witha new MD or a new set of MDs like general practionioner, cardiologist, urologist....allof whom were working together on your health....and now a whole new set of MDs get to have your case. Good luck witht hat.
I see people paying less for premiums and more for deductables and copays leading to a net larger outlay of money by the end of the year. This situationn hurts the low income people that voted for obama. Healtcare in the workplace is charged the same for the 8 dollar an hour cashier and the 80,000 a year manager. So if the cashier has to pay an extra 500 a year in deductables for herself and her children...its a bbigger burden than for the store manager. So f we all pay more so that everyone can enjoy healthcare..well then the lower income people are getting screwed.
and most of all I see people feeling they were lied to....Knowing they were lied to....when obama said that with his plan, people who liked their insurance and their doctors could keep them
Like govt intervention in forcing instittions to give home loans to unqualified people caused a catostaphic effect on the housing and mortgage markets....govt intervention in the Healthcare system will cripple the economy with a workforce filled with part time people eho have no disposible income....and will dumb down the healthcare system. Its already happening. We will feel the full effect to the economy in a year.
this comes not from a low info viewer of fox...but from someone with 35 years experience and glad I have been able to participate in healthcare for the majority of my career before it went in the toilet.
It sure looks to me like it does. You just buzzed through a lot of Fox News talking points. But that's okay. Now, you'll have access to better healthcare insurance at lower prices whether you like Obama or not. You'll just have to suffer.Quote: LarrySthis comes not from a low info viewer of fox..
Quote: RonCProve 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.
"A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows that a majority of likely Republican presidential primary voters are "birthers"--they believe that President Obama was born in another country.
According to PPP's survey, 51 percent of likely 2012 GOP primary voters believe that President Obama was born in another country (which would make him ineligible for the presidency)."
So sorry I made the giant leap in assuming all birthers are racists. Yeah, I know, it's a giant stretch. I guess they could just be mentally ill or retarded. I then took another shortcut and just assumed exactly 50% of people are republicans. Well, obviously a ton of people don't even vote so yeah, I was pretty lazy in my statement. But according to my logic and the article I randomly polled, the number of racists of who hate Obama for no other reason than being black is 25.5% (of voters).
Your parenthetical aside caught my interest as a challenge. But rather than listing things that some have said, I thought I would ask you a question and see what your answer is.Quote: tournamentking(and really, I can't recall a thing they've said that was not true about this disastrous law).
Do you think that Obamacare is going to literally kill women, children and seniors?
Quote: BizzyB"A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows that a majority of likely Republican presidential primary voters are "birthers"--they believe that President Obama was born in another country.
According to PPP's survey, 51 percent of likely 2012 GOP primary voters believe that President Obama was born in another country (which would make him ineligible for the presidency)."
So sorry I made the giant leap in assuming all birthers are racists. Yeah, I know, it's a giant stretch. I guess they could just be mentally ill or retarded. I then took another shortcut and just assumed exactly 50% of people are republicans. Well, obviously a ton of people don't even vote so yeah, I was pretty lazy in my statement. But according to my logic and the article I randomly polled, the number of racists of who hate Obama for no other reason than being black is 25.5% (of voters).
"PPP...a Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis."
(3) a b Bialik, Carl (November 6, 2008). "Polls Foresaw Future, Which Looks Tough for Polling". The Wall Street Journal. pp. A16. Retrieved March 12, 2012.
(4) Easley, Jonathan (7 November 2012). "Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012". The Hill. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
(5) Silver, Nate (June 22, 2012). "Calculating ‘House Effects’ of Polling Firms". New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
Quote: RonCThink 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...
What? The poor are exempt. If you are not poor, you cannot evade the tax by adjusting your wittholding to avoid a refund. You would owe the penalty. Any black people here who think it's bad? Any lawyers? Anyone with an advanced degree? No. I did see a competent argument put forth by someone who said something about their company will make people part-time and make them buy their own insurance, or something along those lines. This guy had experience, you know, having a job. I'm starting to doubt whether most of you do.
Quote: anonimuss"PPP...a Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis."
(3) a b Bialik, Carl (November 6, 2008). "Polls Foresaw Future, Which Looks Tough for Polling". The Wall Street Journal. pp. A16. Retrieved March 12, 2012.
(4) Easley, Jonathan (7 November 2012). "Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012". The Hill. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
(5) Silver, Nate (June 22, 2012). "Calculating ‘House Effects’ of Polling Firms". New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
Oh my god. I pulled it randomly, not because it was a liberal-conspiracy company. Why don't you change your name to ILOVEFOXNEWS? You look up a neutral poll then! Before looking at that poll, my knowledge was that 30% of republicans, during the election, were birthers. That's 15% racist voters. Now my point is clear, and it has nothing to do with PPP polling company. There is no explanation for the birther movement, other than pure racism. And I'm not really against racism. People are not getting it. I'm indifferent. I just, don't agree with nonsense.
Quote: tournamentking(and really, I can't recall a thing they've said that was not true about this disastrous law).
Got these off politifact. But have to go through 130 pages to find more which I'm not going to bother with.
Quote:"Hidden" in the healthcare.gov code is language that means users "waive any reasonable right to privacy of your personal information."
Joe Barton is a Republican congressman from Texas
The "president has given 1,100 special waivers to his friends" for Obamacare
Mick Mulvaney was elected in November, 2010, as the new US Congressman for South Carolina's 5th District. Mulvaney grew up in the Carolina
In a "sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges."
Jeb Hensarling is a U.S. representative from Texas and chairman of the House Republican
Says "President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception" to Obamacare
Ted Cruz
The IRS is going to be "in charge" of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets."
Michell Bachmann
Quote: BizzyBQuote: anonimuss"PPP...a Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis."
(3) a b Bialik, Carl (November 6, 2008). "Polls Foresaw Future, Which Looks Tough for Polling". The Wall Street Journal. pp. A16. Retrieved March 12, 2012.
(4) Easley, Jonathan (7 November 2012). "Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012". The Hill. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
(5) Silver, Nate (June 22, 2012). "Calculating ‘House Effects’ of Polling Firms". New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
Oh my god. I pulled it randomly, not because it was a liberal-conspiracy company. Why don't you change your name to ILOVEFOXNEWS? You look up a neutral poll then! Before looking at that poll, my knowledge was that 30% of republicans, during the election, were birthers. That's 15% racist voters. Now my point is clear, and it has nothing to do with PPP polling company. There is no explanation for the birther movement, other than pure racism.
So, you on welfare? Food stamps? Both? LOL. You use a liberal poll for your "facts" then say it has nothing to do with PPP. You really are an obama voter.
Quote: rxwineGot these off politifact. But have to go through 130 pages to find more which I'm not going to bother with.
Utter nonsense
Quote: anonimussQuote: BizzyBQuote: anonimuss"PPP...a Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis."
(3) a b Bialik, Carl (November 6, 2008). "Polls Foresaw Future, Which Looks Tough for Polling". The Wall Street Journal. pp. A16. Retrieved March 12, 2012.
(4) Easley, Jonathan (7 November 2012). "Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012". The Hill. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
(5) Silver, Nate (June 22, 2012). "Calculating ‘House Effects’ of Polling Firms". New York Times. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
Oh my god. I pulled it randomly, not because it was a liberal-conspiracy company. Why don't you change your name to ILOVEFOXNEWS? You look up a neutral poll then! Before looking at that poll, my knowledge was that 30% of republicans, during the election, were birthers. That's 15% racist voters. Now my point is clear, and it has nothing to do with PPP polling company. There is no explanation for the birther movement, other than pure racism.
So, you on welfare? Food stamps? Both? LOL. You use a liberal poll for your "facts" then say it has nothing to do with PPP. You really are an obama voter.
ur all braindead, do you not see that? that's why the law passes regardless of what you want. You think welfare is bad? You have no idea what impact it has on the economy because you don't understand economics. Welfare lowers prices. If we never had welfare, wouldn't save you any money. And you would probably need welfare.
Quote: RonCYou 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?
Bush lied about WMDs and started a war. I never heard much complaining about that. Democrats don't whine as much. Obama passes Romneycare, and Republicans can't stop making up accusations to fling at him. Romney says 'what a terrible idea. He cheated, he lied (obama, not romney?)! About what? He said you can keep your plan. And he didn't mention that you can't keep it if your insurance company eliminates the plan, which will happen about 1% of the time to plans that really suck anyway? Yeah that was sort of common sense, but ok so horrible.
Quote: LarrySActually thats a blatant lie. I have been in healthcare for 35 years and see the retail chains putting freezes on full time hires to avoid the extra cost to them of obamacare. Forcing people to buy the insurance on their own from the "website" on top of making part time wages.
I see that theinfrastructure of healthcare has not been bolstered over the last 2 years meaning, millions of people added to the doctors offices, clinics and hospitals
will tax the system without a doubt. MAKING DOCTORS VISITS SHORTER.....making time the MD has to spend reviewing your case and making a decison...shorter.....making you victim to errors of omission or errors of oversight or errors of being rushed.
I see people having to get different MDs even though they have had a single md for 20 years. Severing continuity of care also leads to errors and inferior care.
you new doctor wont have the time to catch up on your complex chart and catch all the nuances of your case. People are not robots...there are varying complexities within each patients case. Start all over witha new MD or a new set of MDs like general practionioner, cardiologist, urologist....allof whom were working together on your health....and now a whole new set of MDs get to have your case. Good luck witht hat.
I see people paying less for premiums and more for deductables and copays leading to a net larger outlay of money by the end of the year. This situationn hurts the low income people that voted for obama. Healtcare in the workplace is charged the same for the 8 dollar an hour cashier and the 80,000 a year manager. So if the cashier has to pay an extra 500 a year in deductables for herself and her children...its a bbigger burden than for the store manager. So f we all pay more so that everyone can enjoy healthcare..well then the lower income people are getting screwed.
and most of all I see people feeling they were lied to....Knowing they were lied to....when obama said that with his plan, people who liked their insurance and their doctors could keep them
Like govt intervention in forcing instittions to give home loans to unqualified people caused a catostaphic effect on the housing and mortgage markets....govt intervention in the Healthcare system will cripple the economy with a workforce filled with part time people eho have no disposible income....and will dumb down the healthcare system. Its already happening. We will feel the full effect to the economy in a year.
this comes not from a low info viewer of fox...but from someone with 35 years experience and glad I have been able to participate in healthcare for the majority of my career before it went in the toilet.
Companies have been avoiding hiring employees full time for a long time now to avoid the high cost of benefits which approach $5/hour/EE. Pay someone $30K and have them work 30 hours a week with no medical benefits. What's the solution to escalating health costs. This happened before ObamaCare and will continue to happen.
With healthcare costs going up 87% over the last 10 years and continual mergers in the insurance and hospital industries, you have to ask yourself the question "why hasn't the infrastucture improved". Are the companies not reinvesting in their capital by improving infrastructure in order to become more efficient? Or are they just increasing shareholder value and CEO pay?
You complain about Obamacare sucking and talk about the worsening of health care in your 35 years of experience while costs have been escalating, yet the proposed solution by the right is to trash Obamacare and go back to the way it was. AZ is the only one on this thread with interesting ideas, while everyone else continues to tow a "do nothing" line.
With or without Obamacare, companies will avoid hiring full time people and/or shift the burden of the benefits to the employees which reduces either the competitiveness of the company or the wealth of the worker. With or without ObamaCare, costs will continue to rise unless efficiencies and real competition occurs. With or without ObamaCare, because health care doesn't focus on prevention, costs will continue to rise because people are getting sick when they could have sought and received preventative care.
I'm not for ObamaCare. I've said it's a POS since it was signed. That's because the law falls short everywhere and fails to achieve what America needs: to lower health care costs and to provide a vehicle to lower cost care to all.
Quote: BizzyBur all braindead,
Three-day suspension.
I find it difficult to believe that a plan that was invented by the Heritage Foundation and implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney is all about wealth redistribution.Quote: anonimussobamacare is about wealth redistribution.
Not like it's a new idea in America.
Quote:In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the short-lived flat tax contained in the Revenue Act of 1861.
If we follow that line of logic then Chris Christie should have increased the minimum wage in New Jersey because the voters wanted it. Not only did he ignore the voters will, he vetoed it after the legislature passed it. It took a special ballot measure for the people to override Governor Christie's veto. So Governors doing what the voters want is another conservative talking point dismissed. Mitt Romney could easily have ignored the voters of Massachusetts. Sort of like the way that you conveniently ignored the fact that ObamaRomneyCare was conceived by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.Quote: anonimussRomney's plan has nothing to do with obamacare. His state wanted it. He was voted in to do what his voters want. obama is cramming his garbage down the throats of people that don't want it. Another liberal talking point dismissed.
Quote: WizardThree-day suspension.
voided
Quote: boymimboCompanies have been avoiding hiring employees full time for a long time now to avoid the high cost of benefits which approach $5/hour/EE. Pay someone $30K and have them work 30 hours a week with no medical benefits. What's the solution to escalating health costs. This happened before ObamaCare and will continue to happen.
With healthcare costs going up 87% over the last 10 years and continual mergers in the insurance and hospital industries, you have to ask yourself the question "why hasn't the infrastucture improved". Are the companies not reinvesting in their capital by improving infrastructure in order to become more efficient? Or are they just increasing shareholder value and CEO pay?
You complain about Obamacare sucking and talk about the worsening of health care in your 35 years of experience while costs have been escalating, yet the proposed solution by the right is to trash Obamacare and go back to the way it was. AZ is the only one on this thread with interesting ideas, while everyone else continues to tow a "do nothing" line.
With or without Obamacare, companies will avoid hiring full time people and/or shift the burden of the benefits to the employees which reduces either the competitiveness of the company or the wealth of the worker. With or without ObamaCare, costs will continue to rise unless efficiencies and real competition occurs. With or without ObamaCare, because health care doesn't focus on prevention, costs will continue to rise because people are getting sick when they could have sought and received preventative care.
I'm not for ObamaCare. I've said it's a POS since it was signed. That's because the law falls short everywhere and fails to achieve what America needs: to lower health care costs and to provide a vehicle to lower cost care to all.
sure there has always been the idea that part time is more cost effective than full time. But now its at a whole nother level
My company has gone from a formula for having a certain percentage of new hires be PT....to an all out hiring freeze on full timers...because of the increased costs with obamacare.
Why hasnt the infrastructure "improved"????? who says ithasnt. hospitals have more state of the art equipment as ever.
It just hasnt expanded. There was no need for expansion. There was a very predictable occupancy rate/ visitation rate.
Now with millions of new people with who knows what conditions that have been festering for years show up on their doorstep..the system will be highly taxed/ overloaded. Leading to waits, mistakes, and deaths.
not because as you say it has not "improved".
Yes, Romney did. If it was wealth redistribution then he wouldn't have done it. If it was wealth redistribution then the Heritage Foundation wouldn't have dreamed it up.Quote: anonimussAgain, Romney did ...
Quote: anonimussobamacare doesn't work.
It might, you haven't given it a chance. Its still too early.
Quote: anonimuss
obamacare is a mess.
Yes buts still early.
Quote: anonimuss
obamacare is a failure.
Give it some time. Romneycare is working in MA. If MA can do it and survive Romneycare, so can the USA.
Go USA, Go Obama, Go Romneycare
I'm not the one losing focus here. You indicated that Obamacare was a redistribution of wealth. My counterargument is that it couldn't be wealth redistribution because Mitt Romney passed the same thing in Massachusetts and that the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank thought of it in the first place. Then you said that Mitt Romney was doing what the voters wanted in which I replied that Governors do not have to do what the voters want and I used Chris Christie and the minimum wage as an example.Quote: anonimussLiberals have a very hard time concentrating. obamacare doesn't work. "Well...Christie and the minimum wage!!!" obamacare is a mess. "Well..Mitt Romney!!!". obamacare is a failure. "Well...George Bush!!!"
Just as a reminder, here is the post that I was responding to:
Quote: anonimussobamacare isn't about better health care. obamacare is about wealth redistribution. The fact it is ruinous to our health care system is a byproduct.
In summary, I refuted everything you've muttered with cold hard logic and relevant examples. Your premise lies in tatters in a ditch.
Quote: s2dbakerYes, Romney did. If it was wealth redistribution then he wouldn't have done it. If it was wealth redistribution then the Heritage Foundation wouldn't have dreamed it up.
I love how s2dbaker brings up Republicans, yet he ignores all the Democrats who oppose Obamacare. *facepalm*
Quote: EvenBobHannity had a repeat of the show with 20 doctors that aired a
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.
As I've stated earlier in this thread, if they are in the dark they just have to ask. I will be paid a fair fee for taking care of Obamacare patients. Considering a large proportion of these patients would have used my services and paid nothing, this perhaps can end up as an improvement to me. When asked how the insurance company can afford to do this, the answer was "huge federal subsidies". Exactly where do the proponents of the ACA expect to find the money for the "huge federal subsidies"? Where do you think... NO WHERE.... just add it to the national debt....
I've never been against the concept of giving everyone health insurance.... but please.... at least be honest.... say.....
"IT WILL COST A LOT" and then figure out how to pay for it, not ignore it.....
Quote: SOOPOOAs I've stated earlier in this thread, if they are in the dark they just have to ask. I will be paid a fair fee for taking care of Obamacare patients. Considering a large proportion of these patients would have used my services and paid nothing, this perhaps can end up as an improvement to me. When asked how the insurance company can afford to do this, the answer was "huge federal subsidies". Exactly where do the proponents of the ACA expect to find the money for the "huge federal subsidies"? Where do you think... NO WHERE.... just add it to the national debt....
I've never been against the concept of giving everyone health insurance.... but please.... at least be honest.... say.....
"IT WILL COST A LOT" and then figure out how to pay for it, not ignore it.....
There is a focus issue here--everyone who supports Obamacare compares it to Romneycare. That is fine. Why won't they talk about the costs of both programs? The problems that both problems have or will have with getting unsubsidized folks to sign up? Who is paying for all of the subsidies? More importantly, HOW are we paying for them? The cost estimates have already been tossed out the window and supporters seem to not care one bit.
The implementation of the program is uneven--different groups are being given deferrals and delays...what will the impact be when they join the system?
Perhaps the idea, when originally conceived, was not necessarily a redistribution of wealth...but it isn't like the original idea that was presented is what was implemented into law. It is easy to say that the "idea came from the conservative side" so we must now support it. It is also a stupid thing to say.
+1Quote: RonCIt is easy to say that the "idea came from the conservative side" so we must now support it. It is also a stupid thing to say.
We can thank s2dbaker for that s2pid line. But apparently, he missed this poll:
Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows
This poll shows that 4 in 10 Democrats oppose Obamacare, so by s2dbaker's s2pid logic we must now oppose it!
I agree that it is a stupid thing to say and no one has said it because it is obviously not true. The Heritage Foundation no longer supports the thing that they invented. Obviously Mitt Romney no longer supports the thing that he signed into law in Massachusetts. Using Massachusetts as a model, 98% of all residents of Massachusetts are insured under Romneycare. The construct is working there.Quote: RonCIt is easy to say that the "idea came from the conservative side" so we must now support it. It is also a stupid thing to say.
No one is saying that conservatives must support their own ideas. It is however fun to postulate as to why they do not.
In a Facebook post last week, the Republican said the president hadn’t learned the important lessons from the Massachusetts reforms Mr. Romney signed into law seven years ago.
On Sunday, he went further, telling host David Gregory that if Mr. Obama had been honest about how many people would lose their health care under Obamacare, the law would not have passed.
“There’s no question in my mind but had the president been truthful and told the American people that millions would lose their insurance and millions more would see their premiums skyrocket — had he told them that at the time it was going through Washington, there would have been such a huge cry against it, it would not have passed,” he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/3/mitt-romney-dishonesty-selling-obamacare-rotting-f/
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
We can thank s2dbaker for that s2pid line. But apparently, he missed this poll:
Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows
This poll shows that 4 in 10 Democrats oppose Obamacare, so by s2dbaker's s2pid logic we must now oppose it!
I think it's pretty much taken for granted today when a liberal spouts "facts" it's a personal opinion without any basis in fact. It's a trick they got from obama. Just keep repeating something ad naseum and eventually people will give up and believe it. The only problem is that it only works on liberals.
Quote: anonimussQuote: Beethoven9th+1
We can thank s2dbaker for that s2pid line. But apparently, he missed this poll:
Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows
This poll shows that 4 in 10 Democrats oppose Obamacare, so by s2dbaker's s2pid logic we must now oppose it!
I think it's pretty much taken for granted today when a liberal spouts "facts" it's a personal opinion without any basis in fact. It's a trick they got from obama. Just keep repeating something ad naseum and eventually people will give up and believe it. The only problem is that it only works on liberals.
I think credit for "The Big Lie" is attributed to Goebbels
http://thinkexist.com/images/logo2.gif
Not really considered a liberal. Propaganda isn't the sole purview of any political party
We haven't gone Godwin yet, have we? That would be disappointing.Quote: petroglyphI think credit for "The Big Lie" is attributed to Goebbels
Quote: s2dbakerI agree that it is a stupid thing to say and no one has said it because it is obviously not true. The Heritage Foundation no longer supports the thing that they invented. Obviously Mitt Romney no longer supports the thing that he signed into law in Massachusetts. Using Massachusetts as a model, 98% of all residents of Massachusetts are insured under Romneycare. The construct is working there.
No one is saying that conservatives must support their own ideas. It is however fun to postulate as to why they do not.
Well for starters...because there ideas have been bastardized into something that is not the same thing as what they started with would be a could start to your postulating.
"Massachusetts has the best percentage of health insurance coverage in the country, with about 92.1% of its citizens Insured."
http://www.healthcare.org/massachusetts/
Quote: s2dbakerWe haven't gone Godwin yet, have we? That would be disappointing.
I never bring up the big guy but your point is well taken.
Would you prefer Edward Bernays?
That one is acceptable :) However, the aforementioned quote can not be attributed to him.Quote: petroglyphWould you prefer Edward Bernays?
Quote: s2dbakerThat one is acceptable :) However, the aforementioned quote can not be attributed to him.
Edward Bernays on manufacturing consent
http://youtu.be/0tQdbPT8qeA
A lie is just a tool in politics. My opinion is "both" party's are equally guilty and the majority of the public is willfully ignorant.
My point was the current regime didn't invent any of this.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" mostly attributed to Ron Paul
1. Romneycare was signed into law quietly, by a resolute but resigned Romney.
2. Romneycare was signed by a proud Romney with 14 commemorative pens, Ted Kennedy standing by his side, and a colonial garbed fife and drumcorp playing music and a bunch of VIPS in a big ceremony.
(hint, don't pick 1)
Unlike others here, I do not pretend to be able to foresee the future.
We should let it play out. Things cannot get to be much worse than they have been over the say last 20 years......maybe longer?
Quote: rxwineWhich statement is true?
1. Romneycare was signed into law quietly, by a resolute but resigned Romney.
2. Romneycare was signed by a proud Romney with 14 commemorative pens, Ted Kennedy standing by his side, and a colonial garbed fife and drumcorp playing music and a bunch of VIPS in a big ceremony.
(hint, don't pick 1)
Which statement is true?
1. 61% of people approve of Obamacare.
2. 61% of people disapprove of Obamacare.
(Hint: Don't pick #1)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-obamacare-support-obama-approval-sink-to-new-lows
Quote: rxwine2. Romneycare was signed by a proud Romney with 14 commemorative pens, Ted Kennedy standing by his side, and a colonial garbed fife and drumcorp playing music and a bunch of VIPS in a big ceremony.
Gee willikers, almost like a Republican governor trying to curry favor in a heavily Democratic state.
It doesn't change the fact that the implementation is miles apart, to such an extent that the one has basically wrecked the other, such an extent that I can only think it self-sabotage for the purpose of creating a vacuum to be filled by a centralized system.
Another s2pid argument.Quote: s2dbakerBTW, little known fact: Romney could not run for reelection in Massachusetts because he was term limited. He owed no one anything.
FYI, the worst kept secret in America was that Romney would run for president after serving as governor. DUH!
