Obama Care Could Be Deadly

Oh I agree, I just don't want anyone trotting out the "people come here for surgery" etc., as if we're saying the quality of care is also crap. Not to say there aren't some horror stories, but we have pretty good care if you can afford it. That's the problem, not everyone can.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh I agree, I just don't want anyone trotting out the "people come here for surgery" etc., as if we're saying the quality of care is also crap. Not to say there aren't some horror stories, but we have pretty good care if you can afford it. That's the problem, not everyone can.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately it doesn't matter. They'll keep going down their ideological train of thought till they reach the dead-end. Then like a spoiled prat they'll just throw it in our faces that they're going to vote Republican anyway.

This has been repeated in the vs forums many many times before.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well that's the difference between you and me isn't it boyo, I dare to dream bigger. You say cope whereas I see hope.

When it comes to present-day America you're happier then a pig in mud, we all get that. When are you going to realize that this isn't all about you you you?[/QUOTE]

I'm beginning to realize that you don't even really know what you're saying - you just see that it's a post by me and have to respond with something that disagrees with what I said.

Most rational people will agree, the quality of health care in the US is admirable - the accessibility (/cost) is where the problems lie. Therefore, it makes sense to want to address the accessibility issues while, of course, "keeping (or improving) our current levels of quality".
 
[quote name='mykevermin']37![/QUOTE]

TRY NOT TO SUCK ANY BOXES OF DICKS ON YOUR WAY THROUGH THE PARKING LOT!boxes of diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick
 
[quote name='camoor']no[/QUOTE]

Let us not get into whether the con posters we have been blessed with are rational or not.

As clak pointed out, overall quality should improve as accessibility is improved.

Raising quality while improving access isn't really a problem conceptually, considering how much is spent in our healthcare system that goes to things other than healthcare.

Of course, anything other than letting people die is just communism.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Let us not get into whether the con posters we have been blessed with are rational or not.

As clak pointed out, overall quality should improve as accessibility is improved.

Raising quality while improving access isn't really a problem conceptually, considering how much is spent in our healthcare system that goes to things other than healthcare.

Of course, anything other than letting people die is just communism.[/QUOTE]

I had a libertarian tell me with a straight face that it is all about numbers and if the US was really serious about fixing the healthcare system they would just let poor old people die.

At least it was interesting to talk to a con who had an internally consistent narrative.

Trying to follow a typical CAG con thread makes about as much sense as a Michael Bay film. It starts with a nonsensical premise, then come the fireworks and cliched one-liners, pile on a few plot holes big enough to drive a truck through, and wrap it all up with some Deus Ex Machina bullshit.
 
How naive are people to fall into the trap of using the term "obamacare" who wish to defend it?

It's the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the HCRA.

Sigh.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How naive are people to fall into the trap of using the term "obamacare" who wish to defend it?

It's the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the HCRA.

Sigh.[/QUOTE]

It annoys me to no end. This is even more hilarious because Obama pretty much pushed it on Congress to frame and pass. The worse part is that it's fcking Dole-care from the fucking 90's.

Just goes to show you that marketing works and the right has highjacked political discourse in the country. fuck them all.
 
hijacked suggests there was some struggle to take it. i disagree - they've been so organized in ways that democrats never could be (mainly since we've appropriated all of the moderate republicans who are aghast at what they're party's become - arlen specter was a democrat by the end for cryin' out loud).

they echo their talking points *magnificently*, so that if you listen carefully, you know what the talking points are without reading or seeing GOP memos (or knowing their exist).

"repudiation"
"jam down our throats"
"obamacare"
"tax and spend" (this one always amazes me, since it's not really tied to reality; I wish we had some democrats who had the guts to tax)

The democratic machine is nowhere near as well oiled or organized as the GOP. There's no parity at all.

The GOP is intellectually villainous, but they're managed by a brilliant team who constructs a brilliant message. The New York Yankees coaching staff and management could acquire anyone, convince anyone, do anything with anyone.

The Democrats are the Cincinnati Bengals - they're made the playoffs twice in two decades, lost both times, and continue to retain the bulk of that coaching staff. See Corey Dillon's career the very year following him demanding Cincinnati trade him.

It's about organization, and the comfort-making the public feels from an oft-repeated message - and the unwillingness of the public to challenge itself. The public knows liberals think they're stupid, and easily manipulated - and the public denies such an assertion, but never acts in ways contrary to it.
 
I don't completely disagree, but you don't need to do it by conventional force. There more than one way to skin a cat, just like there's more than one way to conduct warfare or commit acts of violence. I think hijack is appropriate because it's not like they were just given the stage, they had to organize and spend lots of money to do it. This is why I say marketing works.

edit: btw, I think you mean "refudiate," not repudiate, cause you know...repudiate is the correct word...LOLLERZ :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard Frank Luntz on the radio detailing his job. Essentially he said his job is to turn soundbytes into arguments so that rational debate can be skipped entirely.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How naive are people to fall into the trap of using the term "obamacare" who wish to defend it?

It's the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the HCRA.

Sigh.[/QUOTE]

Is using the term "Obamacare" any more or less disingenuous than saying "The Bush Tax Cuts"?

[quote name='mykevermin']
1) extending the Bush tax cuts on 98% of the American public
2) extending the Bush tax cuts on 100% of the American public
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']Let me ask you this: who do you think is most responsible for the expiry of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']Let the Bush tax cuts expire, replace with an across the board $5,000 tax cut for all filing households.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']they echo their talking points *magnificently*, so that if you listen carefully, you know what the talking points are without reading or seeing GOP memos (or knowing their exist).[/QUOTE]

To me the worst is 'government takeover'. In what way is a subsidy to buy from private insurance companies considered a 'takeover'?
 
We need a real public option that is run for the people, by the people, similar to can food drives and other forms of charity, where the people with 5-10% of their check goes to the funding of this option, so we can get off of those bloodsuckers teat that we call the government.

They have enough control and influence as is, and they sure as hell don't need anymore.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']We need a real public option that is run for the people, by the people, similar to can food drives and other forms of charity, where the people with 5-10% of their check goes to the funding of this option, so we can get off of those bloodsuckers teat that we call the government.[/quote]

Who would you trust to run this?

A profit making corporation?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Who would you trust to run this?

A profit making corporation?[/QUOTE]

The people of course. But of course, this is why I'm not a politician nor decision maker because this would have serious flaws.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']But of course, this is why I'm not a politician nor decision maker because this would have serious flaws.[/QUOTE]

No shit.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']The people of course. But of course, this is why I'm not a politician nor decision maker because this would have serious flaws.[/QUOTE]

There are those that would agree, that such a system set up and ran by "the people" would be full of flaws. These are the same people who push for government control of health care.

And yet, these people don't seem to realize that our federal government, itself, is supposedly already a government by "the people" (and for "the people"). Thus, a system of health care, set up as a non-for profit system ran by (the government)=(the people) would be flawed, according to these people.
 
The whole private charity thing always makes me laugh, because a very small amount of donations to any given charity actually goes to those they claim to help. I can't remember the charity, but there was a veterans charity that was exposed not long ago to only only spend a very small percentage of donations on actually helping veterans. So yeah, nothing run by a private group is any better or less corrupt than anything run by the government.

Libertarians love to rail against government, then throw up private business as a better solution, when businesses are run by people who are just as corrupt and untrustworthy. Which of course is due to the fact that people are easily corrupted and will do just about anything to benefit themselves, and this is something that really can't be helped. But, at least our government is supposed to work to our benefit, whether it does or not, no private business gives a damn about you unless you're paying them to.
 
Well clak, the new slogan is "repeal and replace".

However, the mental and moral midgets among us (and they know who they are) can talk repeal but bupkis on something that works to replace it with.
 
Well keep in mind that the people electing them to office don't really care if they have a better idea, they just want to keep Barry O'Bummer out of their lives.
 
[quote name='Clak']So yeah, nothing run by a private group is any better or less corrupt than anything run by the government.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

But I can decide to stop giving money to any particular company whenever I wish. When can you decide to stop giving money to the government?
 
[quote name='Clak']Well keep in mind that the people electing them to office don't really care if they have a better idea, they just want to keep Barry O'Bummer out of their lives.[/QUOTE]

I get the feeling that some of the people spouting off (for example the charity canard) believe what they say but have no idea what they are talking about.

Many however are just liars who just want to pretend they have something to add to the conversation or that they give a crap about people who suffer from lack of care.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...is-private-charity/?scp=1&sq=reinhardt&st=cse
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed.

But I can decide to stop giving money to any particular company whenever I wish. When can you decide to stop giving money to the government?[/QUOTE]

When you leave our country.

And when you do, we'll all throw a big party.
 
[quote name='camoor']When you leave our country.

And when you do, we'll all throw a big party.[/QUOTE]

I know you're just being facetious, but, realistically, not everyone can just leave the country. Such an uprooting would be quite the undertaking - so that only two groups of people are likely to attempt it. The super-poor and the rich.

Obviously, the super-poor aren't going to leave over taxes, as they don't even pay any federal income tax.

But is your answer honestly for the rich people to up-and-leave? If the top 1% of Americans just decided "screw it" and left, there just went nearly 40% of our tax base.

Maryland found this out - losing a predicted $206 Million Dollars when they increased taxes on the wealthy.
There's a good game plan. Tell all the paying customers to leave, but let the shoplifters and loiters hang around.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And thus, one charity you can choose to stop giving to at any point in time.

Meanwhile the Federal government uses billions to bomb people in Iraq and Afghanistan - when do we get to stop giving to them?[/QUOTE]
It's more institutional than that, it's far from a single charity. When you give money to most charities a good chunk of that is going to administrative costs.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's more institutional than that, it's far from a single charity. When you give money to most charities a good chunk of that is going to administrative costs.[/QUOTE]

While I'd disagree with the "most" part of that, I would counter with the fact that the government has a lot of administrative costs as well.
 
That's great, but the government isn't a charity. I can accept that an organization tasked with running an entire country has high administrative costs. The truth is that even charities court high paid executives like any private business. Why exactly I'm not sure, but they do, and those folks demand high salaries. This si why I'd sooner donate my time than my money, because I can't be sure if it's going to those the charity claims to help or their president's salary.

Now you're going to tell me, "Just like the government" as if I'm supposed to have some mind shattering realization.
 
Btw, for a very brief moment, Bill Maher and Steve Moore had the same argument about being forced to pay for auto insurance being no different than being forced to pay for medical insurance. And the exact same positions were taken by the respective sides. I only wish it had lasted more than a few seconds.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's great, but the government isn't a charity. I can accept that an organization tasked with running an entire country has high administrative costs.[/QUOTE]

The government doesn't have high overhead costs compared to private organizations. At least with any program I can think of.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The government doesn't have high overhead costs compared to private organizations. At least with any program I can think of.[/QUOTE]
I mean over all, all the administrators the government has on the payroll.

edit lollllll Rand.
 
Rand didnt need it, she was just trying to drain the funds a little faster so we would see sooner how broken the system is - this would result in our scrapping the system earlier. She was taking one for the team. Just like two libertarians I know that are on unemployment.
 
[quote name='tivo']http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/[/QUOTE]

Awesome...

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's anyone willing to defend this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top