Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='thrustbucket']I think the only thing clearly certain about cost for this thing is that not one person on the planet has a clue as to how much it will really cost.[/QUOTE]

We have a word for that: "estimate."

Care to dispute the CBO's with your own, or will you just sit and pout and be dejected at anything and everything the government does in your self-fulfilling worldview?
 
Quick - someone go back and find official estimates of how they said Social Security was going to be doing in 2010 when they were trying to set that program up...
 
In the scenario where the CBO did exist back when Social Security was first started, they would not have accounted for every Republican Congress since then poking holes in it and slowly making it more insolvent.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Quick - someone go back and find official estimates of how they said Social Security was going to be doing in 2010 when they were trying to set that program up...[/QUOTE]

I would say that burden of proof lies on the person making that argument.

I ain't doin' your heavy liftin', son.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In the scenario where the CBO did exist back when Social Security was first started, they would not have accounted for every Republican Congress since then poking holes in it and slowly making it more insolvent.[/QUOTE]

Or life expectancy improving by 15 years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It is your gut instinct, elp, that the CBO are willing participants in chicanery and accounting tricks - and also your gut instinct that Paul Ryan is correct in his claims.

You're combatting the analysis of a nonpartisan org with a Republican. Please.[/QUOTE]

You're either not understanding or don't want to understand. And there's a reason that no Democrat has been even interested in offering a rebuttal to what Ryan says: because what he says is irrefutable.

CBO scores the bill in front of them. If someone loads a bill up with 10 years of tax revenue and only 6 years of costs, for example, or doesn't include $371 billion of doc fix costs, as another example, those aren't included in the score of the bill. CBO did their job just fine; the problem is that the bill just shifts the costs somewhere else. Unfortunately, shifting the costs to another bill or raiding other funds doesn't eliminate those problems, it just moves them to a different piece of legislation or sets them to be dealt with down the road.
 
You're either not understanding or don't want to understand.
Click to expand...

Pot, Kettle something something.

And there's a reason that no Democrat has been even interested in offering a rebuttal to what Ryan says: because what he says is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

I posted a rebuttal, what he said was refutable QED.

Unfortunately, shifting the costs to another bill or raiding other funds doesn't eliminate those problems, it just moves them to a different piece of legislation or sets them to be dealt with down the road.
Click to expand...

Those are what are generally known as offsets, they are perfectly legitimate.

Compare that to the Republican option everything entirely on the deficit, refusing not to pay for anything does not equal fiscally responsible.
 
From bob's link: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/ma...t-ways-over-health-care-debate/news-politics/

So she pulled posters down and then demanded that they take them down? I"m confused how this is relevant. Doctors' offices are private enterprises and you should be banned from returning if you're ripping the posters off the walls and complaining like a baby. This has nothing to do with political views and everything to do with civilized behavior.

As for the other link, I'm saddened the system doesn't work. Why can't we learn from the Brit's mistakes and make it better instead of just saying it won't work and going back to a system that we know doesn't work?
 
So Obama wails on insurance companies today yet the bill gives them 30 million new customers...why no public option again? Why no medicare for 55+? What makes 55+ bad & socialism but 65+ is just socialism?
 
I'd assume that they put posters back up after she took them down.

Anywhoo, I'm not really saying that link had any bearing on the direction we should take with health care reform/deform - just thought it was an interesting article that was mildly related.
 
Yeah I only recently starting going on salon.com, I've really missed out lol.

They have a great interview of both the black dude and the white lady from the Oscars during the 'Kanye' moment.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

We're subsidizing agricultural products leading to obesity so that we can tax people consuming products leading to obesity.[/QUOTE]

end corn subsidies now!
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']end corn subsidies now![/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that have the same effect as taxing sugar?

The cost of high fructose corn syrup goes up. The price of products with high fructose corn syrup goes up. People consume less products with high fructose corn syrup.

Same effect as imposing a fat tax, but the money doesn't change hands twice over.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We're subsidizing agricultural products leading to obesity so that we can tax people consuming products leading to obesity.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to your government. Is it any surprise that so many people distrust the government to run in a way that makes any sense?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Wouldn't that have the same effect as taxing sugar?

The cost of high fructose corn syrup goes up. The price of products with high fructose corn syrup goes up. People consume less products with high fructose corn syrup.

Same effect as imposing a fat tax, but the money doesn't change hands twice over.[/QUOTE]

it would give a huge insentive for companies to use real sugar instead of HFCS

[quote name='JolietJake']But then the government would be up to its ears (hah) in complaints from farmers.[/QUOTE]

giant corporations are by far the biggest benefactor of corn subsidies.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']it would give a huge insentive for companies to use real sugar instead of HFCS



giant corporations are by far the biggest benefactor of corn subsidies.[/QUOTE]

more mountain dew throwback?

less HFCS?

win motherfuckin' win.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']more mountain dew throwback?

less HFCS?

win motherfuckin' win.[/QUOTE]

Hell yeah. I'm tired of spending $18 on what 24/12oz bottles of real Coke imported from Mexico. :(
 
What about this radical plan?

1. End agricultural subsidies and trade barriers.
2. Let people eat what they want without trying to socially engineer our choices of what to eat with taxes.
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
I gotta say I do like the "social engineering" line whenever I hear it. Just like "death tax" it has a nice negative connotation without really meaning anything. It's also interesting to think of the "social engineering" that went into proliferating the phrase "social engineering."
 
:lol: That's the idea, though. We talk about things like taxing the fuck out of HFCS/soopa-engineered mega-chemical foods, and the next thing you know, we're being called fascists without exaggeration or assumed hyperbole by the accuser because they think that a giant tax on "Little Debbies" is the next coming of Mussolini.

Can't make that shit up. But I do agree with elp that corn subsidies should largely go away. Yet I also agree that shitty foods should be taxed more. Y'all have stuck it to the smokers for probably two decades now, right? Aren't cigarettes like $10 in NYC? C'mon, time to move along and point the finger at the honey bun eaters.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I gotta say I do like the "social engineering" line whenever I hear it. Just like "death tax" it has a nice negative connotation without really meaning anything. It's also interesting to think of the "social engineering" that went into proliferating the phrase "social engineering."[/QUOTE]

Dear Subscriber,

It appears your account is about to be suspended. To prevent disruption in your account status, please login into www.notcheapassgamer.com/clearly_a_phishing_attempt.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Your Web Security Team
 
I could go with the corn subsidies being removed, or restricted to actual edible corn rather than the shit they grow for processing. I don't know if I'd rather the junk foods be taxed or the healthy foods be subsidized though. The latter might end up with high fructose broccoli syrup or some shit.
 
I absolutely hate smoking and smokers, but I am against cigarette taxes. I'm also against taxing anything deemed 'unhealthy'.

Along with that though, I am also for removing most subsidies on food manufacture, especially corn.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol: That's the idea, though. We talk about things like taxing the fuck out of HFCS/soopa-engineered mega-chemical foods, and the next thing you know, we're being called fascists without exaggeration or assumed hyperbole by the accuser because they think that a giant tax on "Little Debbies" is the next coming of Mussolini.

Can't make that shit up. But I do agree with elp that corn subsidies should largely go away. Yet I also agree that shitty foods should be taxed more. Y'all have stuck it to the smokers for probably two decades now, right? Aren't cigarettes like $10 in NYC? C'mon, time to move along and point the finger at the honey bun eaters.[/QUOTE]

Smoking and junk food are not the same at all, though. Smoking harms other people, while you eating junk food only potentially harms you. Aren't you in favor of legalizing marijuana?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Smoking and junk food are not the same at all, though. Smoking harms other people, while you eating junk food only potentially harms you. Aren't you in favor of legalizing marijuana?[/QUOTE]

No, El, that's old school thinking. Now, eating junk food will be a burden on society because of the societal costs of your resulting bad health. Remember, freedom means making sure everyone else is being taken care of...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, El, that's old school thinking. Now, eating junk food will be a burden on society because of the societal costs of your resulting bad health. Remember, freedom means making sure everyone else is being taken care of...[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, I still remember when alonzo replied to my post with that quote in your sig. To be honest, I couldn't quite believe it at the time that someone has actually written that, but then again I didn't expect to see this being said on American streets either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1-QcAPiunk&feature=player_embedded
 
Damn free and open education, it will be the down fall of this country. Once everyone starts going to college and becomes indoctrinated into the liberal socialist mindset, we'll all be doomed. We need to do everything we can to keep this from happening, the first step should be to convince people that a higher education is unnecessary, maybe even that graduating high school is unnecessary. Only then will we be able to retain our freedom and rights as American citizens.
 
do they always use such enormous font and wide margins? i've never really read a bill like that, but i've never really read a bill.. if it were written differently (isn't single-spaced 8.5x11 typically 500 words per page?) it'd just be a few hundred pages. might be a long day, but i imagine it could be read in a single day, which really isn't all that to much to ask of our lawmakers.
 
[quote name='Koggit']do they always use such enormous font and wide margins?[/QUOTE]

yep. that's why I find so much of the hand-wringing over length so laughable.

i also find it to be yet more evidence of general anti-intellectual sentiment in our nation, but it's not like I'm ever hurting to find those.
 
[quote name='Koggit']do they always use such enormous font and wide margins? i've never really read a bill like that, but i've never really read a bill.. if it were written differently (isn't single-spaced 8.5x11 typically 500 words per page?) it'd just be a few hundred pages. might be a long day, but i imagine it could be read in a single day, which really isn't all that to much to ask of our lawmakers.[/QUOTE]

A quick cut and paste into OpenOffice with a font change to 12 pt Ariel put it at 1,257 pages and 429,280 words - or, about 5 words per second, if you read non-stop for 24 hours straight. Quick check at (ugh) Wikipedia puts "average adult readers" at 2 words per second. And, of course, that's not even getting into things that the average person wouldn't understand and would need to look up. Or sleeping. Or eating. Or pooping. But, hey, if they print this out, they could have something to wipe with afterward.

Quick check at Amazon puts the complete works of William Shakespeare at 1,280 pages. It's probably a smaller font though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah and actually this isn't too easy a read, it's technical so I'd imagine it's a bit slower than 2 words per second. So it's probably like 70 hours of reading (1.75 words a minute is 68 hours). That's not too short. Then again, this is their whole job pretty much. Write, read what others wrote, vote. With that consideration, it's really not much work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top