Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='archangelreb']
How about I cut to the chase. I have a 401 K plan and Roth Retirement account so please before you fire a comment like the one above please ask before you assume that I'm blaming anyone.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='archangelreb']And with the Obama Care plan I may be able to retire at 75[/QUOTE]

Are you just exaggerating how bad it is going to be?
 
[quote name='archangelreb']Just fyi nothing personal this is my opinion you can spin it any way you want to but there's nothing you can say to make me believe this bill is good.[/QUOTE]
Ignorance is bliss. :roll:
 
[quote name='archangelreb']Regarding your inability to retire until 75, stop blaming other people for your inability to save money. Unless you're living on ramen and water in a studio apartment and walking to 70 hours of jobs every week, you've placed something over savings. __________



How about I cut to the chase. I have a 401 K plan and Roth Retirement account so please before you fire a comment like the one above please ask before you assume that I'm blaming anyone. I pay into a tax that was put in place called Social Security You might assume I have at least some right to that seeing as how I've paid into it for the last 25 years. To go back to the Greece part of this conversation. She has been gone for six years now and they weren't bankrupt then and i was using Greece as a model and I do have friends from the U.K. that say this is bad because they modeled it similar to Britain's Health care system. she worked a total of 26 years in Athens, I would assume they taxed her income and she worked another 34 in the US Which goes back to the point if you pay in you should be able to get some sort of benefits. Like I said my wife works in the health care profession, I'm assuming you do too since you seem to be an expert on the issue. She deals directly with the insurance companies. Lets see she says Medicare(Once again a government program) denies more claims in her line of the health care business than any Private companies. There are better ways of getting health care to people who need it. http://www.hermancain.com/news/press-opinion-041309.asp

Look at how it will affect businesses (remember they have to make money to be able to employ workers and this is just one example.)
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/07/ohio_hamburger_chain_says_insu.html


Just fyi nothing personal this is my opinion you can spin it any way you want to but there's nothing you can say to make me believe this bill is good.[/QUOTE]

You know, about the denial rate, most states actually subcontract private companies to handle the paperwork, including denials.

Secondly, are you seriously advocating for a health insurance food stamp?
 
I was just thinking about knoell and his terrible comparisons about the polling of healthcare reform.

What it is really like is that Cons spent months telling people the bills resurrects Hitler so he can kill their children (using their tax dollars) and now as more and more people realize basically nothing cons said was true the approval numbers are rising.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I was just thinking about knoell and his terrible comparisons about the polling of healthcare reform.

What it is really like is that Cons spent months telling people the bills resurrects Hitler so he can kill their children (using their tax dollars) and now as more and more people realize basically nothing cons said was true the approval numbers are rising.[/QUOTE]

Did you see a "do you like how the government is going to pay for the bill?" question was off the poll? interesting.

My point is I can pick five things out of the bill that I like sure, but I still don't support the bill because all of it put together is simply nonsense. This goes back to you guys thinking that if people like individual parts of a bill, that must mean they like the combined bill. That is simply not true. Now sit down and explain to the person the good and the bad of the bill, including the cost, and if they say they still support it then yippee-kai-aye but thats not what was asked.

Of course if you explain to them the bad parts of a bill, and they dislike them, and vote no, they just dont know how the bad parts will minimally affect the bill right?
 
My point is I can pick five things out of the bill that I like sure, but I still don't support the bill because all of it put together is simply nonsense. This goes back to you guys thinking that if people like individual parts of a bill, that must mean they like the combined bill.
Click to expand...

You are basically saying children hate eating meals because they are expected to eat vegetables.

Sorry Knoell, grownups accept the fact that they can't have candy all the time.

People who in the end supported passing the bill didn't get everything they wanted (liberals technically "got" almost jackshit) and quite frankly I doubt even you understand why you are against it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Did you see a "do you like how the government is going to pay for the bill?" question was off the poll? interesting.

My point is I can pick five things out of the bill that I like sure, but I still don't support the bill because all of it put together is simply nonsense. This goes back to you guys thinking that if people like individual parts of a bill, that must mean they like the combined bill. That is simply not true. Now sit down and explain to the person the good and the bad of the bill, including the cost, and if they say they still support it then yippee-kai-aye but thats not what was asked.

Of course if you explain to them the bad parts of a bill, and they dislike them, and vote no, they just dont know how the bad parts will minimally affect the bill right?[/QUOTE]

That's how politics works, puddin' pop. You vote on the entirety of a bill, you as the elected official MAKE that hard decision:
a) support it despite its flaws?
b) vote against it despite what you do like.
...it's basic rational choice theory. do the pros outweigh the cons?

But there was NEVER a question of Republicans voting for this bill. NEVER. I dare you to say otherwise. That's where they're not a part of this political process.

Now, you've not gone so far as to say you think Repubs would ever consider voting for a bill from a Democrat - but you have implied that Republicans in Congress actually *weigh* the rational costs and benefits of making that decision. Which is a similarly laughable load of nonsense, and suggests reasoned responses instead of political posturing and reactionary disdain for a bill. We'd never be talking about "death panels" and long lines and white castle going out of business if the debate was reasoned and honest.

Let me explain it this way in terms I think will make quite clear what I'm getting at. If there was a 1-person swing in the Senate right now, meaning 1 more Republican than Democrat (another Scott Brown, for example, do you believe - for a single second, for any and every Democrat-sponsored piece of legislation this year and last year - that any of them would have passed in Congress?

Support your answer with evidence.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's how politics works, puddin' pop. You vote on the entirety of a bill, you as the elected official MAKE that hard decision:
a) support it despite its flaws?
b) vote against it despite what you do like.
...it's basic rational choice theory. do the pros outweigh the cons?

But there was NEVER a question of Republicans voting for this bill. NEVER. I dare you to say otherwise. That's where they're not a part of this political process.

Let me explain it this way in terms I think will make quite clear what I'm getting at. If there was a 1-person swing in the Senate right now, meaning 1 more Republican than Democrat (another Scott Brown, for example, do you believe - for a single second, for any and every Democrat-sponsored piece of legislation this year and last year - that any of them would have passed in Congress?

Support your answer with evidence.[/QUOTE]

I thought we were talking about citizens being polled so ill disregard this post and let you make a fresh start. Unless you insist on explaining why I am wrong on that point too...
 
tying this one back to your charades from a few weeks ago wherein you claimed that it's ok for Republican Senator Bumblefuck to take credit for the bill he never intended on voting for.

You know, the one where you started hedging your bets on taking a semantic perspective in your argument that everybody saw through but you continued to ape?

Yeah, that one.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are basically saying children hate eating meals because they are expected to eat vegetables.

Sorry Knoell, grownups accept the fact that they can't have candy all the time.

People who in the end supported passing the bill didn't get everything they wanted (liberals technically "got" almost jackshit) and quite frankly I doubt even you understand why you are against it.[/QUOTE]

So now suddenly people needed to be explained the good parts of the bill but the bad parts they can fill in the blank? uh huh :roll:

Heres a quote to better explain this situation to you numbskulls.
That's interesting, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. For one thing, at least one important component of the bill—cuts to Medicare, and specifically Medicare Advantage—wasn't tested. The question wording probably also took respondents' minds off several major lines of attack against the bill, such as the claim that it would increase the national debt, raise premiums, and hurt job growth.
Click to expand...

Heres you guys:
Me "Citizens were polled on the legislation"
You "They only voted against it because they dont know whats in it, when they were asked if they liked what was in it they liked it"
Me "The poll you are talking about includes the 8 main parts of the bill, which to my knowledge only included 2 negative points which were voted against by the majority, once a complete understanding of the bill (good and bad) is known by the person being billed will I accept they will know whats truely in it, otherwise poll them without the propaganda"
You "They are grown ups, they dont need to know the bad things that are in it, they just have to take the good with the bad and they know that"
Me ":roll:"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']So now suddenly people needed to be explained the good parts of the bill but the bad parts they can fill in the blank?[/quote]

Not really, many seem to be figuring out for themselves that the fearmongering spread by cons was crap.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']tying this one back to your charades from a few weeks ago wherein you claimed that it's ok for Republican Senator Bumblefuck to take credit for the bill he never intended on voting for.

You know, the one where you started hedging your bets on taking a semantic perspective in your argument that everybody saw through but you continued to ape?

Yeah, that one.[/QUOTE]

Here we will steal Bobs quote I hope he doesnt mind

[quote name='Unclebob']Duh. Obviously, if you vote against something, then you're 100% against it in every aspect.

I'm going to propose a bill that toughens punishment on those who molest babies and makes it legal for people to throw poop at one another.

Obviously anyone who votes against this bill is for baby rape. [/QUOTE]

Because the senator who worked on the bill obviously wanted tougher punishments on molestors but since the other side insisted on throwing poop at each other being legalized, he couldnt bring himself to vote for it which obviously means he cannot possibly be pro tougher punishments on molestors right? wrong.

Yep, because despite what you think Republicans did work on the bill, the reason they voted against it was because the MAJORITY of it was not what they wanted. They did not sit on their hands the entire time, they worked on it. Now if the Senator reversed his appeal to repeal the bill and suddenly supported the entirety of it, I would be a little concerned. But he is simply supporting a part of the bill he liked, and probably even did one of those minor votes to vote into the bill. Do you guys even know for sure that he didnt work on that aspect of the bill?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not really, many seem to be figuring out for themselves that the fearmongering spread by cons was crap.[/QUOTE]

About all I thought I would get out of that.
 
[quote name='Knoell']About all I thought I would get out of that.[/QUOTE]

You keep quoting from Ramesh Ponnuru and expect me to treat it like gospel it will continue to be all you get.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You keep quoting from Ramesh Ponnuru and expect me to treat it like gospel it will continue to be all you get.[/QUOTE]

You mean the two lines which just summarized what I was talking about? Yep those two lines sounded like real propaganda.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You mean the two lines which just summarized what I was talking about? Yep those two lines sounded like real propaganda.[/QUOTE]

Is there any particular reason you decided not to source the quote?

Basically nothing the guy said was true, but even then he hides behind the weasel word "claim".

Because his know-nothing compatriots are the ones making those claims.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Is there any particular reason you decided not to source the quote?

Basically nothing the guy said was true, but even then he hides behind the weasel word "claim".

Because his know-nothing compatriots are the ones making those claims.[/QUOTE]

I didnt care who said it, and it simply explained what I was trying to say better than I was doing, and what I quoted was simply the majority of what it was, and I didnt want to borrow it without making sure you knew I wasnt the one who came up with it. but here ya go http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGJmMzRmZjc5OWZhNGZkMjYxMDljMTJjODkzZmQ1ZTc=

Those claims werent true huh? which one? Ill give you the hurting jobs one may not be proven yet but rising premiums will still be an issue, it obviously was going to raise the national debt, and the cuts to medicare are true as well.

Just want to point out that you are sidetracking us from everything else in that post as well.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I didnt care who said it[/quote]

Maybe you should start caring if you want to stop looking silly.

In our first "discussion" in this thread I told you I read things written by people who are you know knowledgeable. You just want people to spoonfeed your own biases because its easier than thinking or adjusting your worldview a bit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']..[/QUOTE]

So you are still claiming the poll did include those things, or are you just looking to be a jacks ass instead?
 
There is more than one poll out there knoell, the ones I have seen tell generally the same story.

The bill has gotten more popular since its passage.

Like I said before the most likely reason is that people are learning that the bill won't come into their house at night and wreck the place like Republicans said it would.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is more than one poll out there knoell, the ones I have seen tell generally the same story.

The bill has gotten more popular since its passage.

Like I said before the most likely reason is that people are learning that the bill won't come into their house at night and wreck the place like Republicans said it would.[/QUOTE]

Show me one that doesnt forget anything good or bad, or at least has a balance of positives and negatives.

Or they are receiving some minor positive effects right now, but the entire bill will not go into effect until 2014. I bet youll contradict me on that as well.

I cant find the quote but I heard Obama say a few months ago (phrased differently of course) that us all whining about spending and the deficit better be ready for some serious cuts next year. I agree with him making the cuts but it was quite nice of him to spend 3+ trillion on special projects in his first 2 years, and then tell us to be ready for cuts.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Or they are receiving some minor positive effects right now, but the entire bill will not go into effect until 2014. I bet youll contradict me on that as well.[/quote]

My friends little brother will start being covered under his parents insurance.

I can get him on here to contradict about how minor that is.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here we will steal Bobs quote I hope he doesnt mind



Because the senator who worked on the bill obviously wanted tougher punishments on molestors but since the other side insisted on throwing poop at each other being legalized, he couldnt bring himself to vote for it which obviously means he cannot possibly be pro tougher punishments on molestors right? wrong.

Yep, because despite what you think Republicans did work on the bill, the reason they voted against it was because the MAJORITY of it was not what they wanted. They did not sit on their hands the entire time, they worked on it. Now if the Senator reversed his appeal to repeal the bill and suddenly supported the entirety of it, I would be a little concerned. But he is simply supporting a part of the bill he liked, and probably even did one of those minor votes to vote into the bill. Do you guys even know for sure that he didnt work on that aspect of the bill?[/QUOTE]

Stop conflating "support" with "taking credit."

I support handjobs, but I can't take credit for them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stop conflating "support" with "taking credit."

I support handjobs, but I can't take credit for them.[/QUOTE]

He said he worked on that part of the bill, do you know for sure he didnt? I mean besides your ill-concieved notion that Republicans sat at home and refused to put any input in the bill :roll:.
This is where you are falling into your sides propaganda. If you do a little research Republicans worked on the bill, they didnt agree with the majority of it, but they worked on what they could get a word in on.
 
[quote name='Msut77']My friends little brother will start being covered under his parents insurance.

I can get him on here to contradict about how minor that is.[/QUOTE]

....Sigh Why are you getting emotional? your friends little brother is 26? or did he have a pre existing condition? Regardless minor is what that part of the bill is, I didnt mean that there is anything minor about what that part does. You are acting like a woman.
 
[quote name='Knoell']....Sigh Why are you getting emotional? your friends little brother is 26? or did he have a pre existing condition? Regardless minor is what that part of the bill is, I didnt mean that there is anything minor about what that part does. You are acting like a woman.[/QUOTE]
Sexist comments are sexist.
 
Thats if you have an extra 3,000 dollars laying around to pay for that medical bill. According to you guys, they don't. Sure it is a good way to lower the costs, but its like saying you should pay your credit cards off before you get charged interest. If they can they will, but if they can't there is still a problem with the cost.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Thats if you have an extra 3,000 dollars laying around to pay for that medical bill. According to you guys, they don't. Sure it is a good way to lower the costs, but its like saying you should pay your credit cards off before you get charged interest. If they can they will, but if they can't there is still a problem with the cost.[/QUOTE]

Time for some fail!!!!

If a business can remove X% of the charges to a customer and remain in business, what is the minimum percentage of profit a business is making before removing X% of the charges?
 
CHICAGO – Your doctor could be drunk, addicted to drugs or outright incompetent, but other physicians may not blow the whistle.

A new survey finds that many American physicians fail to report troubled colleagues to authorities, believing that someone else will take care of it, that nothing will happen if they act or that they could be targeted for retribution.

A surprising 17 percent of the doctors surveyed had direct, personal knowledge of an impaired or incompetent physician in their workplaces, said the study's lead author, Catherine DesRoches of Harvard Medical School.

One-third of those doctors had not reported the matter to authorities such as hospital officials or state medical boards. The findings, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, are based on a 2009 survey of 1,891 practicing U.S. doctors.
Click to expand...
Apparently their malpractice insurance doesn't cost enough to modify behavior.
 
So 181 pages of back and forth has basically boiled down to this.

Liberals: "Healthcare reform of any kind will help Americans get the care they need and hopefully help us live longer."

Libertarians: "Don't take my money."

Conservatives: "Gimme money."

Anarchists: "fuck money."
 
[quote name='depascal22']So 181 pages of back and forth has basically boiled down to this.

Liberals: "Healthcare reform of any kind will help Americans get the care they need and hopefully help us live longer."

Libertarians: "Don't take my money."

Conservatives: "Gimme money."

Anarchists: "fuck money."[/QUOTE]

I like where you're going with this.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Everyone gets healthcare, Bob. Not just ones with great paying jobs.[/QUOTE]

So, you're implying that people without great paying jobs do not have health care.
And this bill provides them with health care.
Paid for by those people with great paying jobs.

..."Gimme money and pay for my health care."
 
[quote name='depascal22']So 181 pages of back and forth has basically boiled down to this.

Liberals: "Healthcare reform of any kind will help Americans get the care they need and hopefully help us live longer."

Libertarians: "Don't take my money."

Conservatives: "Gimme money."

Anarchists: "fuck money."[/QUOTE]

It is over 180 pages of rational people explaining why reform was a good idea and those who were against for no reason they can articulate or prove.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Time for some fail!!!!

If a business can remove X% of the charges to a customer and remain in business, what is the minimum percentage of profit a business is making before removing X% of the charges?[/QUOTE]
I should have mentioned this before, forgot about it. While my doctor will do this for people automatically, it's only for the uninsured, those with insurance have to pay their full co-payment. That's probably how he's able to do it, he makes enough off insurance companies and co-payments that he can take a hit on the few uninsured that come through.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Time for some fail!!!!

If a business can remove X% of the charges to a customer and remain in business, what is the minimum percentage of profit a business is making before removing X% of the charges?[/QUOTE]

If X% of people without health insurance come in, and Y% of those people without health insurance don't end up paying the bill, then the business would rather settle for 75% of Y% rather than 0% of Y%. It isn't about being willing to take that discount off, its about getting people to actually pay for the procedures and getting at least some of the money that they otherwise wouldn't.

We all know you think any business is like Scrooge McDuck swimming in their piles of money though, so this post won't phase you.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is over 180 pages of rational people explaining why reform was a good idea and those who were against for no reason they can articulate or prove.[/QUOTE]

It is 180 pages of you saying, "I'm not willing to discuss any part of this discussion again."
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is 180 pages of you saying, "I'm not willing to discuss any part of this discussion again."[/QUOTE]

How would you know?

Not as if you read almost any of it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']How would you know?

Not as if you read almost any of it.[/QUOTE]

Your posts in the first 5 pages of this thread. You almost contributed at the end of page 5. Need I go on?

[quote name='Msut77']People can get seen in an emergency room in many cases which happens to be nowhere near the same thing.



Are all your posts going to be like the above stream of consciousness drivel?



Lot of countries have done it "better" defined here as "providing coverage for all while spending a fuckton less". Even if that was not the case this is America and despite the last few years I still have faith in it.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']He was there recently, mopping the floors but still...[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']The OP mysteriously vanished and those in agreement with him have done nothing but make a bunch of non responses since they are incapable of arguing anything.

Just another day...[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Quadruple post and all of it piss poor.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Learn to count.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']I don't know why your posts are so piss poor, if I had to guess it seems that why you are certainly more energetic than the other posters you are equally dim. Now I can start on how your posts are so piss poor starting off with how you seem to believe that being able to get seen in an ER is a substitute for a working medical system.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']At least I can count, one would think that would be vital to your bed-pan changing career but then here we are.

Are you going to turn into a bitter kvetcher because you get shown to be a moron with every post? Because ramstoria might get mad you are infringing on his turf.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']Mythical?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']An expression of ignorance? Stupidity?



Of non-mythical working healthcare systems in other countries? Really?

You want me to hold your hand or tie your shoes for you as well?



No one has argued that other systems are "perfect", better yes but if you want to argue a strawman go somewhere else.



There is no way in hell I am going to spot you millions of Americans in order for you to pretend you have an argument.



You are taking the George W. Bush position on ER as healthcare.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']I am not very good at handling the level of butthurt you have displayed but anyhoo...

There is no particular system we have to copy "exactly", as koggit pointed out there are different ways of going about it they aren't all socialized at least to any worthwhile meaning of the word.

Technically even if we do copy another system there is no reason we would have to make the same if any mistake they happen to be making or made.



Ok.



That is not a question.

By "better" I am referring to the fact that many other countries manage to spend a whole lot less on healthcare than we do while covering everyone. Most of these countries provide better quality care on the whole than in America.

Also this isn't so much about the poor as some try to pretend it is, there are many solidly middle class people who are getting the short end.

When I say better I mean better any way a sane person would define it unlike the way you seem to be defining "working".[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']If X% of people without health insurance come in, and Y% of those people without health insurance don't end up paying the bill, then the business would rather settle for 75% of Y% rather than 0% of Y%. It isn't about being willing to take that discount off, its about getting people to actually pay for the procedures and getting at least some of the money that they otherwise wouldn't.

We all know you think any business is like Scrooge McDuck swimming in their piles of money though, so this post won't phase you.[/QUOTE]

You always deliver on fail.

The correct answer is (X - (X(tax rate))% at a minimum.

Additionally, do not put yourself as the subject of a sentence with the verb "know" unless you're using a negative to indicate you don't know something.
 
[quote name='dorino']oh please, go on. It's great when you complain about other people acting like you.[/QUOTE]

I would have to suffer from massive head trauma to act like knoell.

Every time I need a laugh I go look up his "summary" of the German Healthcare system, he sounded like a third grader who forgot to do the assigned reading and just makes it up as he goes along when the teacher calls on him.
 
[quote name='dorino']Because if people can't pay they're obviously evil, evil people. And they should die.[/QUOTE]

Who said this? I still say health care costs are too high for people to pay, and this bill does nothing to change that.
 
[quote name='dorino']Because if people can't pay they're obviously evil, evil people. And they should die.[/QUOTE]

Because if people can't pay, then obviously we must force everyone else to pay for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top