Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='mykevermin']I directly challenged your argument, i didn't avoid a bloody thing.

You've got nothing in response - clearly you're out of ammunition if the best you can muster up is a half-assed "no, *you* google it" response - and yet you want to continue to argue like you bring something of worth and merit to the conversation.

I'm not the only person here who sees that is hardly true.[/QUOTE]
actually I'm on the phone while doing my homework, so I really don't have time to educate you. This is the first time I've seen you submit proof of your arguement as well. I will have to read through it, but the first paragraph already has it wrong...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, you have time to post but you don't have time to post anything of substance?

I already knew that.[/QUOTE]
....if you would take your head out of your ass, you would notice my posts are substantially shorter.
 
this quote from a book made me think of you guys:

It happens to all of us: You're minding your own business, when some idiot informs you that guns are evil, the Prius will save the planet, or the rich have to finally start paying their fair share of taxes. Just go away! you think to yourself -- but they only become more obnoxious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Quoting Glenn Beck?

I invoke Poe's Law.[/QUOTE]

regardless of who stated it, still reminded me of you guys. Noone told me what the end result of liberal idealogy would be yet? hmmm it starts with an S.

I, along with the majority of America find the end result of conservatism much more appealing.
 
Bet you've got "research" to back up that argument, too.

You keep talking in unsupported vagaries and you'll have a backlog larger than my video game backlog before Tuesday.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
I, along with the majority of America find the end result of conservatism much more appealing.[/QUOTE]

And 2/3rds of the country disagree with you.

So I hope that wasn't math homework you were doing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']actually I'm on the phone while doing my homework, so I really don't have time to educate you. This is the first time I've seen you submit proof of your arguement as well. I will have to read through it, but the first paragraph already has it wrong...[/QUOTE]

OK. So, point out the flaw in the first paragraph.

"Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie."

Here are a few inroads for you critique:

1. Were Fannie and Freddie ever attacked?
2. Was the subprime crisis every blamed on the Community Reinvestment Act?
3. Did the law undergo any changes during the Bush I or II years?
 
This has nothing to do with health care, but who cares.
The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling the stake it owns in Citigroup Inc., which could result in a profit to the government of more than $8 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_bi_ge/us_citigroup_treasury

So Citi has paid back 20 billion of the 45 billion given to them by the government, the other 25 billion in stock will be sold for what looks like a good profit.
 
Knoell,

You seem to be somewhat new here. In these forums, unless you are status quo, you are one man in the center of a forest fire with a bucket of water. You can either toss your bucket in a direction and hope you can run out, or you can soak yourself and hope it keeps the flames away a few seconds longer.

Just some friendly advice: These forums are so entrenched with the far left that you really can't have a fulfilling discussion unless you A) Agree with the majority or B) Have aspirations of being a pinata. That's discussions. If you want to have an argument, you better have as much evidence as you would need to win a court case cut and dry in any court in America to even TRY to argue with these lefties. So don't bother trying until you do - unless you want to make claims like all tea party members are racist, or Bush was the worst president in the nations history - nobody will ask for evidence then.
 
Aw. Thrust is teaching coping mechanisms now.

And fulfilling discussions? Really? If you don't profess a love for Ronald Reagan and hate for Brown v Board of Education, conservatives paint you as a left wing communist so how fulfilling can we really get on these forums?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just some friendly advice: These forums are so entrenched with the far left...[/QUOTE]
You, elP, Bob, FoC, Troy, Ram, and now this guy, to name regulars, but also BigT, Koggit, Magehart, Quillion, Guile, Neorev, berzirk, etc.

Yeah, this subforum is the fucking Lincoln Brigade.
 
Here is the difference between myself and the tea party folks. They identify themselves as being members of a specific group. Now you can argue that incidents like the one above are isolated if you want, but it sheds light on the minds of at least some of the people involved, it also casts a shadow over the entire movement, whether they're all like that or not.

I on the other hand do not identify as being part of some left leaning extremest group. I am liberal in my politics, but i don't belong to any organized group like they do. The the people you see in these disturbing videos and in stories like above may not speak for all of them, but it's enough to cast them all in a negative light. I would never be part of a group that goes around using racial and homophobic slurs like that. Add to it the fact that the Klan actually sees these people as potential recruits, it doesn't help matters.

I would actually like to see someone infiltrate the group and see how a large sampling of them really are.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You haven't been trying for months thrust. If you don't have an argument you can't expect to have a discussion.[/QUOTE]
Arguments and discussions are two different things to me.

The problem with this place, is you aren't allowed to have an opinion unless it can be proven legitimate with studies, surveys, and scientific research - all peer reviewed and from sources found acceptable by all (which doesn't really exist).

That's fine for arguments. If I come into a thread and make a crazy claim as fact (which I admit to doing sometimes), then I can understand why I should probably back that claim up with verifiable facts.

But the real problem is most opinions are simply based on feelings, as much as we want to believe they are shaped by facts. Two people will look at the same facts and come to different feelings/opinions.

The only value I find in these forums is learning what others believe and think, and why they do. The actual SHARING of opinions here is mostly a waste of time.

[quote name='depascal22']Aw. Thrust is teaching coping mechanisms now.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. Why not. The only coping here is to just not take anything seriously. The majority of people in these forums are not here to discuss or learn anything - they are here to denounce those with different views and prove to their peers why they are stupid.
 
Part of the problem is that the tea party has barely any organization anyway. It's even worse than the anti-war marches that end up being anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-GMO, or like 12 other subjects. If the tea party was more organized they could actually root out the racists better and disassociate with those they don't want to be associated with. It's so fractured now you have whole tea party groups that are based on direct racism, others that are based on less conscious racism, others that are just crazy paranoid, and others that are at least semi-reasonable.

But at the same time I doubt they want to be organized and disassociate with certain groups because they still want the numbers. And of course disassociating wouldn't stop people from marching, they just wouldn't be considered part of the tea party group.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Arguments and discussions are two different things to me.

The problem with this place, is you aren't allowed to have an opinion unless it can be proven legitimate with studies, surveys, and scientific research - all peer reviewed and from sources found acceptable by all (which doesn't really exist).

That's fine for arguments. If I come into a thread and make a crazy claim as fact (which I admit to doing sometimes), then I can understand why I should probably back that claim up with verifiable facts.

But the real problem is most opinions are simply based on feelings, as much as we want to believe they are shaped by facts. Two people will look at the same facts and come to different feelings/opinions.

The only value I find in these forums is learning what others believe and think, and why they do. The actual SHARING of opinions here is mostly a waste of time.[/QUOTE]

You can't have a discussion simply about feelings. "I feel X" "I feel Y" ok? Where do you go from there without any basis in fact? If you feel differently about the same thing you can argue over why that is, but it has to have a factual basis to do so. You can't act like this new guy here.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Here is the difference between myself and the tea party folks. They identify themselves as being members of a specific group. Now you can argue that incidents like the one above are isolated if you want, but it sheds light on the minds of at least some of the people involved, it also casts a shadow over the entire movement, whether they're all like that or not.

I on the other hand do not identify as being part of some left leaning extremest group. I am liberal in my politics, but i don't belong to any organized group like they do. The the people you see in these disturbing videos and in stories like above may not speak for all of them, but it's enough to cast them all in a negative light. I would never be part of a group that goes around using racial and homophobic slurs like that. Add to it the fact that the Klan actually sees these people as potential recruits, it doesn't help matters.

I would actually like to see someone infiltrate the group and see how a large sampling of them really are.[/QUOTE]

I can respect that point of view actually.

The problem is, people are angry. Many for different reasons. But anger doesn't do anyone any good unless it's organized anger.

I think the tea party simply started as "hey, who's angry at government size, waste, and direction right now? Let's go picket!". But in the past year it has grown to encompass a myriad of negativities (with a lot of help from media) that some of the people that share that sentiment might have. It's frustrating for those of us that still share that sentiment, still want to do something about it, but don't know how to do so without having the movement hijacked.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
You can't have a discussion simply about feelings. "I feel X" "I feel Y" ok? Where do you go from there without any basis in fact? If you feel differently about the same thing you can argue over why that is, but it has to have a factual basis to do so.[/QUOTE]

And that's fine to do. But ultimately the problem with any arguing, especially here, is that the goals quickly shift from "This is WHY I feel this way" to "If my argument doesn't change your mind, you are stupid".
 
[quote name='depascal22']Here's a good article on why the left really doesn't like the tea party movement, Knoell.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/24/1544302/tea-partiers-proved-that-i-was.html[/QUOTE]

Nice read.

The words are n*gger and f*ggot (asterisked because they'd be filtered otherwise).

They need to be used by people reporting the news, because "the n-word" and "the f-word" create a distance between the viewer and the gravity of those verbal attacks. Let's not candy coat hate speech. I'm glad someone has the guts to write those words out for what they are.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Arguments and discussions are two different things to me.

The problem with this place, is you aren't allowed to have an opinion unless it can be proven legitimate with studies, surveys, and scientific research - all peer reviewed and from sources found acceptable by all (which doesn't really exist).

That's fine for arguments. If I come into a thread and make a crazy claim as fact (which I admit to doing sometimes), then I can understand why I should probably back that claim up with verifiable facts.

But the real problem is most opinions are simply based on feelings, as much as we want to believe they are shaped by facts. Two people will look at the same facts and come to different feelings/opinions.

The only value I find in these forums is learning what others believe and think, and why they do. The actual SHARING of opinions here is mostly a waste of time.
[/QUOTE]

The only opinions that matter are informed opinions.

Yeah some topics like abortion, religion etc. are going to come down to feelings, values etc. And I tend to stay out of those topics as I frankly don't give a damn on those. When it comes down to something that's pure opinions/morals, the only ones I care about are my own.

But when we're talking health care, economy, and other issues where one can rely on science, experience in other countries, economic analyses, budget projections etc. Then only informed opinions matter. I couldn't give a rats ass what someone's biased, opinion/rhetoric is on those kind of things. I want to hear people's informed opinions backed by evidence.

I can respect an opinion I disagree with if there's evidence on their side and they clearly not what they're talking about. I can't respect wingnuts who just post their opinions which seldom differ from the typical partisan rhetoric from their side, and who ignore evidence etc. because their opinion is all they care about, right or wrong.

And with all your railing against intellectuals, education etc., you fall into that category pretty much all the time now. If you want your opinion to be valued, then take some time to get an informed opinion, otherwise GTFO IMO.
 
If the tea party doesn't want to be associated with "undesirables" so to speak, they need to actively remove them. As was said though, this would shrink their numbers, by how much we don't know. No matter what we may be told, a single person is basically powerless. They need as many people as they can get, and they don't seem particularly worried about what else some of these people may believe.

If it were simply a political movement i wouldn't care so much, i doubt i'd agree with them, but that's ok. However, politics doesn't seem to be the only thing on the minds of some of them.
 
The problem is also that a lot of the "undesirables" aren't easily identifiable. I'm sure a good bit are members of hate groups etc.

But I'm sure less overt racism and homophobia etc. is prevalent among a much larger percentage of people attending the rallies than just those who actively involved in hate groups etc.

The fact is such views are just very prevalent among lower class, undereducated, blue collar folk and that's the core of their base. Most aren't raging racists or homophobes who'd join a hate group. But they have some underlying hate and certainly can yell epithets when fired up at a rally.

As I said before, I see it all the time on West Virgina University sports boards. Every political discussion has some racist remark about Obama, liberals called homos and other gay slurs etc.

In short, they're going to have a hard time weeding out all that type of stuff from their rallies as its just damn prevalent among their core constituency. They can get rid of the really rotten apples, weed out those with ties to hate groups etc. But there will always be someone saying something stupid at these rallies due to the demographics.
 
dont know if this has been discussed yet, but i just heard about it this weekend on a radio show. also, its a fox news link because nobody else is reporting it (and other websites that have are much worse than fox news), so go ahead and flame away. id like to opt out of the class act right away, guess ill have to wait until i hear from my employer. evidently, revenue collected from it will not be protected. so just like social security and medicare the gov't can take the cash, issue an IOU and well just hope the money is there when we need it 50 years from now. bold added in story.

While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.

The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program.

Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019.

Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need -- assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.

Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.

"This is a scary proposition where the government passed a huge new entitlement program with gimmicks and tricks and the American people don't know they will be automatically enrolled in it by their employer if they don’t watch out," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA).

Nunes says Republicans were blindsided by the provision because they were unable to see the final bill until the very end. But Democratic supporters say the provision, which was championed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, should not be controversial.

"It promotes independence and choice for people who need long-term care, and over time it will help millions stay where they want to, which is at home," says Jim Firman, director of the National Council on Aging.

Scheduled to go into effect in January, actual deductions could take place in 2012.

Here's how the program will work:

-- The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.

-- The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.

-- After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care.

"Seventy-five dollars a day in flex cash will be enough for most people who are at home to stay at home, which is where they want to be," Firman said. "We are convinced a cash benefit is the best way for consumer to get what they want."

While the plan's opponents don't question the need for long-term care, they say the federal government should not be managing it, and they believe the program will eventually add to the deficit.

"This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country," Nunes said. "In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won't be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program."

The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion."

Supporters and detractors admit much needs to be worked out, and eventually premiums will be based on how many Americans actually sign up for the insurance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lth-care-provision-budget-buster-say-critics/
 
That's true too. It isn't to say there are no racist or homophobic democrats, there are believe me, but they seem to be the holdovers from the old southern democrats. I'm not even sure i'd call them liberals, since the only thing that seems to unite them is a distrust of big businesses. On the other hand, i can't see there being too many liberal racists or homophobes, it just goes against the core of what most liberals stand for.
 
The CBO analysis of the *overall* bill predicts long term savings - which, Ram, is evidently the sum of its parts, both those that would increase deficits by themselves as well as those that decrease deficitis by themselves. The provision you cite is perhaps one of the former.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']That's true too. It isn't to say there are no racist or homophobic democrats, there are believe me, but they seem to be the holdovers from the old southern democrats. I'm not even sure i'd call them liberals, since the only thing that seems to unite them is a distrust of big businesses. On the other hand, i can't see there being too many liberal racists or homophobes, it just goes against the core of what most liberals stand for.[/QUOTE]

Oh absolutely. Certainly in places like my home state of WV there are Democrats with racist and homophobic views who aren't in hate groups etc. I didn't mean to imply that's limited by party lines.

But you're right that they're not very liberal. Which is why WV usually has a democratic governor, has 2 democratic, long-time senators, 2/3 congressman are democrats, the state legislature is majority democrat etc., yet the state voted for Bush twice and McCain last time.

It's mainly the anti-big business stuff. The state is very conservative when it comes to things like gay rights, abortion and other social issues.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nice read.

The words are n*gger and f*ggot (asterisked because they'd be filtered otherwise).

They need to be used by people reporting the news, because "the n-word" and "the f-word" create a distance between the viewer and the gravity of those verbal attacks. Let's not candy coat hate speech. I'm glad someone has the guts to write those words out for what they are.[/QUOTE]

So the video evidence of those slurs exists then? I had confidence there would be - because there is no way we'd all jump on the bandwagon of "he said she said's" as all the proof we need for condemnation. Because, we are a group of people that only like hard evidence and facts, right?

No cognitive dissonance here....

Maybe you can post links to them?

[quote name='JolietJake']If the tea party doesn't want to be associated with "undesirables" so to speak, they need to actively remove them. As was said though, this would shrink their numbers, by how much we don't know. No matter what we may be told, a single person is basically powerless. They need as many people as they can get, and they don't seem particularly worried about what else some of these people may believe.

If it were simply a political movement i wouldn't care so much, i doubt i'd agree with them, but that's ok. However, politics doesn't seem to be the only thing on the minds of some of them.[/QUOTE]

How do you propose they do that though? There isn't a tea party registry of names. There is no database of members. To my knowledge, they just announce when they are going to have a rally and anyone that shows up can do so, and call themselves a tea partier.

Maybe what you are saying is that it's time for them to move from that stage to a real organization that filters members? Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The CBO analysis of the *overall* bill predicts long term savings - which, Ram, is evidently the sum of its parts, both those that would increase deficits by themselves as well as those that decrease deficitis by themselves. The provision you cite is perhaps one of the former.[/QUOTE]

yes, this is true. but my main problem (well other than it being a new tax that could effect me, aka the middle class) is that these funds are not protected. but the govt can borrow against the money, issue an IOU and thats that. the last thing i want is to be paying into another entitlement program when i have little faith that ill ever reap a benefit from it. im already doing it with 2 programs that arent pulling in enough money, i dont want to be part of a 3rd.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So the video evidence of those slurs exists then? I had confidence there would be - because there is no way we'd all jump on the bandwagon of "he said she said's" as all the proof we need for condemnation. Because, we are a group of people that only like hard evidence and facts, right?

No cognitive dissonance here....

Maybe you can post links to them?



How do you propose they do that though? There isn't a tea party registry of names. There is no database of members. To my knowledge, they just announce when they are going to have a rally and anyone that shows up can do so, and call themselves a tea partier.

Maybe what you are saying is that it's time for them to move from that stage to a real organization that filters members? Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea really, i just know that if they want to be taken seriously they can't have their people acting the way that some have recently. Groups exist for those fringe members who want to say things like that, which is why as i said before groups like the Klan actively try to recruit some of these activists.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']yes, this is true. but my main problem (well other than it being a new tax that could effect me, aka the middle class) is that these funds are not protected. but the govt can borrow against the money, issue an IOU and thats that. the last thing i want is to be paying into another entitlement program when i have little faith that ill ever reap a benefit from it. im already doing it with 2 programs that arent pulling in enough money, i dont want to be part of a 3rd.[/QUOTE]

I'll give you that - the program itself isn't a problem, but the ability to borrow against it is. I'd totally agree in that regard for Social Security as well.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Aw. Thrust is teaching coping mechanisms now.

And fulfilling discussions? Really? If you don't profess a love for Ronald Reagan and hate for Brown v Board of Education, conservatives paint you as a left wing communist so how fulfilling can we really get on these forums?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what compels thrust and a few others (not all the wingnuts who post here) to come to the Versus Mode forum and then curl up in the fetal position when someone asks them to defend what they say.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sure. Why not. The only coping here is to just not take anything seriously. The majority of people in these forums are not here to discuss or learn anything - they are here to denounce those with different views and prove to their peers why they are stupid.[/QUOTE]

Yet, here you are. Again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXeyYdGoLCU
 
So, new plans are out.

Our deductible is going from 2700 to 3000.

The company match goes to $1500.

The only curious thing is 10% co-insurance after the first $3K. Either we pay 10% of another 3K after the deductible is met ($300) or we pay 10% until another 3K after the deductible is met ($3000).

The wife says premiums are going up $25-50 per month.

I can't complain. She has physical therapy until the end of time and she was keeping The Boy on Singulair until I showed her http://www.askapatient.com/viewrating.asp?drug=20829&name=SINGULAIR.
 
Damn, i've taken singulair for years for allergies. I wonder if that's why i've been so tired lately. Probably not, but the rest of the stuff on that site is pretty crazy.
 
I had singulair for a bit, didn't seem to help my allergies, but no side effects I noticed either.

Just use Nasonex daily and zyrtec as needed. Mostly works, just seem to always have post nasal drip most of the year.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll give you that - the program itself isn't a problem, but the ability to borrow against it is. I'd totally agree in that regard for Social Security as well.[/QUOTE]

i think fox and a couple other places have reported on it. its really hasnt caught on and i bet most people wont hear about it or raise a fuss about it until they see it on their pay stub or their employer notifies them about it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I certainly wasn't hoping you would leave thrust. That hopey-changey stuff has let me down far too often. But you complain you never get a fair shake here, everyone is out to get you...have I got a channel for you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

You certainly deserve credit for coming back, and that's my point.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you mean by that link, but I appreciate the vote of confidence all the same.

I wasn't complaining I don't get a fair shake here. I was simply letting a newbie know that dissent against the majority in this forum is always met with predictable results.
 
Oh I did start reading it. Once I got to:
The "right wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.

I stopped. Because it isn't describing me or anything we were talking about, which is why I am confused.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll give you that - the program itself isn't a problem, but the ability to borrow against it is. I'd totally agree in that regard for Social Security as well.[/QUOTE]

You don't think Social Security is a problem other than the borrowing against it? While that's bad enough, SS is scheduled to go bankrupt now in 2037, and that is a number that was just revised downward since we are now paying out more in SS benefits than are collected in taxes. Maybe you meant a sustainable version of SS.
 
bread's done
Back
Top