Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Knoell']Say a doctor leaves a glove in your chest during an operation. Do you have a second operation or do you let the glove fester inside you?[/QUOTE]
So the disenfranchised poor are festering gloves left in the economy by surgeons, aka the rich. Gotcha.
 
[quote name='tivo']you talk about redistributing wealth like its Zeno's dichotomy paradox. What I'm saying is that for socialized policies, there isn't enough money, resources, time, etc. to go around. Either someone will eventually get the shaft or a common equality of sacrifice will be made.

talk about racing to the bottom.[/QUOTE]
Of course there's enough money. The top 1% of this country owns owns how much of this country? Break it down to the top .001% and how much do you get there? Cry me a river about taxing the rich. If poor people had more money, you can tax them too.

But don't think that an across-the-board tax hike is somehow equal. Marginal utility is a real thing.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So the disenfranchised poor are festering gloves left in the economy by surgeons, aka the rich. Gotcha.[/QUOTE]

Or the bill is the festering glove. Why not fix what went wrong? Because it will do harm if you don't. However I don't doubt you will continue to claim that my beliefs are doubles for racism and intolerance of the poor.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Of course there's enough money. The top 1% of this country owns owns how much of this country? Break it down to the top .001% and how much do you get there? Cry me a river about taxing the rich. If poor people had more money, you can tax them too.

But don't think that an across-the-board tax hike is somehow equal. Marginal utility is a real thing.[/QUOTE]

There is always going to be people who have more money, until you get rid of money.

If you give everyone in the world an equal share of money, what purpose would money have, unless SOMEONE, ANYONE, wanted more than they have, which would break the magic rule of everyone having the same.

Unless you have some new economic system that humanity will accept? Not until the Federation is founded though!
 
[quote name='dohdough']So the disenfranchised poor are festering gloves left in the economy by surgeons, aka the rich. Gotcha.[/QUOTE]

There are never any answers and the questions never go anywhere. They never respond in good faith.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are never any answers and the questions never go anywhere. They never respond in good faith.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know, but I just like making them talk themselves in a circle and then see them all confused. Kinda like watching a dog chase it's tail.:D
 
There really isnt enough to go around. Not because of money, but because of the things money is supposedly valuing.

Our economies and way of life is predicated on the idea that growth FOREVER is somehow possible. Nothing we do is remotely sustainable. We're only trudging along now by doing damage to the commons and using resources in the natural world quicker than they can replenish.

Maybe with dramatically fewer people, dealing with the rich might be a catch all solution, but now its only part of the solution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']There are never any answers and the questions never go anywhere. They never respond in good faith.[/QUOTE]
Knoell's biggest problem is that he extrapolates out everything we say to the extreme. I'd say it's hyperbole, but then he seems to think it's what we actually mean.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, anyone who calls it "Obamacare" is disqualified from the discussion. That's the immediate telltale sign of an ideologue who is concerned with political victory, and not with reforming health care.[/QUOTE]

Again...

[quote name='UncleBob']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]
 
To me, the term 'Obamacare' implies Obama e.g. big gummint is now directly involved in health care, hence the amalgam. The implication is completely wrong, since the ACA affects paying for health care via health insurance more than anything else.

I don't think 'Obamacare' is innocuously implying a healthcare bill passed under Obama. I think term 'Bush tax cuts' implies tax cuts passed by Bush.

If you can think of a insidious implication for Bush tax cuts I'd loves to hear it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']To me, the term 'Obamacare' implies Obama e.g. big gummint is now directly involved in health care, hence the amalgam. The implication is completely wrong, since the ACA affects paying for health care via health insurance more than anything else.

I don't think 'Obamacare' is innocuously implying a healthcare bill passed under Obama. I think term 'Bush tax cuts' implies tax cuts passed by Bush.

If you can think of a insidious implication for Bush tax cuts I'd loves to hear it.[/QUOTE]

Do people not remember republicans using the same tactics 17 years ago with Hillarycare?
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are never any answers and the questions never go anywhere. They never respond in good faith.[/QUOTE]

I'm down to discuss free market healthcare improvements with you. Actual free market solutions, not Republican/Establishment Free Market ideas.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'm down to discuss free market healthcare improvements with you. Actual free market solutions, not Republican/Establishment Free Market ideas.[/QUOTE]

I am not playing "no true scotsman" with you.

Having said that, would these "improvements" of yours cover everyone?

Is there any country with a healthcare system that takes advantage of your ideas?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're comparing the rhetoric one party uses to the rhetoric both parties used. You're awful.[/QUOTE]

You're excusing behavior that, you, yourself have spoken out against because the Republicans did it, and that makes it okay? Really?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're excusing behavior that, you, yourself have spoken out against because the Republicans did it, and that makes it okay? Really?[/QUOTE]

I'm using the term in a non-malicious manner, just like those on the right use it.

It's not that you don't understand that. You do. You just choose to pretend you don't, because it allows you to make the lousy comparison you have been.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm using the term in a non-malicious manner, just like those on the right use it.

It's not that you don't understand that. You do. You just choose to pretend you don't, because it allows you to make the lousy comparison you have been.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that for a second. There's a reason why every time the tax cuts came up, in particular, the tax cuts for the upper tax brackets, they were called "The Bush Tax Cuts". There are those on the left (you included) who were all too happy to attempt to tie these tax cuts directly to the the failure of a leader that was Bush.

Bush = Suck, therefore Bush Tax Cuts = Suck.

Similar thing back when the right was pushing "Bush Tax Cuts" - the cuts were popular, so they wanted to tie Bush's name to them so he could ride the wave. You'll notice in this more recent round of tax cut-talk, those on the right stayed away from calling them "The Bush Tax Cuts" because they *didn't* want them tied to that massive failure.

Don't pretend to be noble - you're doing the exact same thing as the "Obamacare" folks. If Obamacare was as popular as some on the left make it out to be, I have no doubt in my mind that the term would happily be applied by many on the left.

*edit* http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../bush-to-obama-dont-call-them-bush-tax-cuts/1
"Well, I wish they woulda called it something other than the Bush tax cuts," Bush told conservative talk show host Scott Hennen this week. "There'd probably be less angst amongst some to pass it."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So now you're telling me what I think and what I mean.[/QUOTE]

And this is somehow different from...

Also, anyone who calls it "Obamacare" is disqualified from the discussion. That's the immediate telltale sign of an ideologue who is concerned with political victory, and not with reforming health care.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can start making your point by showing that Obamacare is used by people who are in favor of health care reform.[/QUOTE]

How about the idea that it's used by people who are indifferent, like, say, a respectable news organization using the term in headlines?

Is it possible that there are those who just use the general term "Obamacare" because it's much easier to say/type than "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" while still conveying the same idea?

Besides, how many instances of a well-known left-leaning figure do I have to come up with in order to "make my point"? Because anything less will be shoved aside as meaningless, I'm sure.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Similar thing back when the right was pushing "Bush Tax Cuts" - the cuts were popular, so they wanted to tie Bush's name to them so he could ride the wave. You'll notice in this more recent round of tax cut-talk, those on the right stayed away from calling them "The Bush Tax Cuts" because they *didn't* want them tied to that massive failure.[/QUOTE]

It's only ever been called Bush tax cuts. By supporters and detractors and everyone. It's not our fault that your dudes finally realized Bush was an awful president and a horrible stigma is now associated with the name.

People who oppose the ACA have ONLY ever called it 'Obamacare'.
 
Eh?
[quote name='IRHari']fuck metal.

Oh and it may be a failure in everyone else's eyes, but ask the people of MA if they would be cool if it got taken away. You'll get the 'keep yer gov't hands off my gov't healthcare'.

Even Knoell's hero Scott Brown endorses the MA system, which ironically is Obamacare on a smaller scale. Both systems were based on Heritage Foundation (conserv. think tank) ideas.

Let's ignore those though, I guess the talking points are easier to understand.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']About a month before Obamacare was passed, Chris Rock was on Real Time w/ Bill Maher. He viewed the debate about health care as people in First Class on an airplane, and people in coach getting bumped up to First Class even though they didn't pay for the First Class seat.

Who knew he was so right about what the real issue was? Why weren't people more honest about their real objection to the bill: they didn't want to pay for poor people.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']They treat you irrespective of your politics. The sign clearly singles out Obamacare supporters. Obamacare is a political issue (and it may be deadly, as one topic suggests).

I never said no politics expressed, I'm saying politics should not affect the job.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']Bipartisanship is including ideas that the other side can and does propose. Obamacare is based on conservative alternatives to Hillarycare back in the 90s. I guess the part that isn't conservative is the whole 'paying for people who don't deserve it' part.

I've got mine Jack. fuck off.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']Right, because when a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should totally be forced to have that baby.

Obamacare keeps the status quo of the Hyde amendment (which has exceptions for rape/incest.) This is a good thing.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']Or if you merely want access to similar healthcare, you could wait for Obamacare to kick in, right?

This guy objects to Obamacare. Obamacare is the gov't paying private insurers to cover you. Federal employees is the gov't paying private insurers to cover them.[/QUOTE]
 
You realize most of us aren't happy with this either, right? The difference being you think it goes too far and we think it doesn't go far enough.
 
I had to do it for you & Knoell et al. If I called it the ACA you'd think I was talking about the American Cornhole Association or something. You don't know it as anything else but Obamacare (see thread title).

EDIT:
[quote name='IRHari']
People who oppose the ACA have ONLY ever called it 'Obamacare'.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']I had to do it for you & Knoell et al. If I called it the ACA you'd think I was talking about the American Cornhole Association or something. You don't know it as anything else but Obamacare (see thread title).[/QUOTE]

So, what you're saying, is that you have an alternative reason for repeatedly calling it "Obamacare"? Because, myke thinks you're an idiot who isn't really interested in discussing health care reform because you call it "Obamacare".
 
I call it Obamacare because that's what the opposition knows it as. I wouldn't be able to discuss it with you if I called it what it really is, because you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. The opposition probably don't even know what PPACA stands for, and that's what they're *really* talking about.

[quote name='Uncle Bob']
Because, myke thinks you're an idiot who isn't really interested in discussing health care reform because you call it "Obamacare".[/QUOTE]

I can guarantee he doesn't think that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Another example from MSNBC: http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/cartoons-predict-the-death-of-obamacare-9309.gallery

The majority of the political cartoons actually use the phrase "Health Care Reform" - so there's no reason for MSNBC to have chosen to use the term "Obamacare".[/QUOTE]
They didn't choose anything you man child, it isn't even their fucking title. Did you even check the source article? They just reprinted what they gazette already wrote.

fucking hell man.
 
[quote name='Clak']They didn't choose anything you man child, it isn't even their fucking title. Did you even check the source article? They just reprinted what they gazette already wrote.

fucking hell man.[/QUOTE]

A.) MSNBC choose to source the article in the first link from The Gazelle.
B.) MSNBC did NOT source the contents of the second link from anyone - they created a collection of political cartoons (most which did not call the health care reform bill "Obamacare") and titled the collection "Obamacare". MSNBC CHOSE that title, all of their own free will.

[quote name='IRHari']I call it Obamacare because that's what the opposition knows it as. I wouldn't be able to discuss it with you if I called it what it really is, because you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. The opposition probably don't even know what PPACA stands for, and that's what they're *really* talking about.[/quote]
Myke doesn't call it "Obamacare", yet he still manages to have conversations with "the opposition" about it.

I can guarantee he doesn't think that.
Click to expand...

That seems to go completely against what he said before about those who use the term "Obamacare":
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, anyone who calls it "Obamacare" is disqualified from the discussion. That's the immediate telltale sign of an ideologue who is concerned with political victory, and not with reforming health care.[/QUOTE]

So, which is it, myke? Can people call it "Obamacare" without being an "ideologue who is concerned with political victory, and not with reforming health care"? Or should anyone who regularly calls it "Obamacare"
immediately be written off as a fool who shouldn't be a part of the conversation?

Are you willing to admit that "Obamacare" isn't necessarily some dog-whistle term used to rally the troops against the oppressor? Perhaps it's just a common term used because, honestly, "PPACA" isn't as catchy (and "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is quite a mouthful)...

Perhaps they should have came up with some kind of catchy acronym for the bill - like the "Our Best Attempt at Making Affordable Care Available with Regard to Everyone act" :D
 
Okay seems like you don't get it. Let's use a different analogy.

Obamacare is like 'teabagger'. The tea party called themselves that, they used it with pride. They acknowledged it was a dirty word when they encouraged people to teabag the president and congress.

Then liberals began to call the tea party 'teabaggers' obviously with malicious intent. The only people who continue to use teabagger are people like Bill Maher who absolutely abhor the tea party. It might be some dog-whistle term used to rally liberals against the tea party.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Then liberals began to call the tea party 'teabaggers' obviously with malicious intent. The only people who continue to use teabagger are people like Bill Maher who absolutely abhor the tea party. It might be some dog-whistle term used to rally liberals against the tea party.[/QUOTE]

Should Bill Maher and anyone else who still uses the term "teabagger" be removed and excluded from the conversation based on this fact alone?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) MSNBC choose to source the article in the first link from The Gazelle.
B.) MSNBC did NOT source the contents of the second link from anyone - they created a collection of political cartoons (most which did not call the health care reform bill "Obamacare") and titled the collection "Obamacare". MSNBC CHOSE that title, all of their own free will.[/QUOTE]

MSNBC does hire folks from the right.
 
Well we've learned at least one thing, bob doesn't understand what it mean to reprint a small section of an article and then link to the original.

Here's a hint doofus, if they'd changed the title it would be altering the article, which is kind of a no-no in journalism. They reprinted and linked to something in it's entirety.
 
[quote name='camoor']'Obamacare' is like 'Dubyaspeak'. You know where the person stands as soon as they mention the word.[/QUOTE]

So where does IRHari stand? He mentions it repeatedly...

[quote name='Clak']Well we've learned at least one thing, bob doesn't understand what it mean to reprint a small section of an article and then link to the original.

Here's a hint doofus, if they'd changed the title it would be altering the article, which is kind of a no-no in journalism. They reprinted and linked to something in it's entirety.[/QUOTE]

Again, MSNBC chose to source that specific article.

They could have chosen another article. They could have written their own that referenced the article (and not use Obamacare). And none of this explains MSNBC's choice of the word "Obamacare" in the second link I provided which you keep avoiding.
 
[quote name='camoor']Trolls be trollin'[/QUOTE]

IRHari is a troll? Personally, I think you apply that word rather liberally, but it's to be expected from someone hiding so well behind the anonymous internet...
 
2vjbgbl.jpg
 
I really don't see what the problem is. I mean, obviously Myke and cammor are smart, well versed individuals. If they're making broad, sweeping statements about "anyone" who says things like "Obamacare", then obviously, they're 100% correct all the time, every time, right? Right?

Or is anyone willing to admit that simply calling it "Obamacare" isn't something that damns you as one who worships at the altar of Reagan?
 
Just in case anyone here actually wants to understand the health care system and concrete ways to fix it, rather than relying on partisan sound bites, you can download this excellent book to Kindle for free at Amazon.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top