If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Facebook)   Obamacare explained like you're a 5 year old or a Republican   (facebook.com) divider line 482
    More: PSA, obamacare, Republican, chronic illnesses, tanning booth, health information  
•       •       •

12823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 8:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



482 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-01 11:07:02 PM

skullkrusher: I wasn't aware the options we were limited to doing nothing at all and the bill we have.


They kind of are.
 
2012-07-01 11:07:09 PM

Nemo's Brother: I haven't seen this many butthurt lib submissions since they took an ass beating in 2010. November 10-about Feb 11 was nothing but Palin and Bush submissions, even though neither was in office or of any consequence anymore.

Obama got a major victory this week. The Court ensured his first term wasn't a complete waste. You should be celebrating. Why so insecure?


0/10.

Insecurity is not defined as pointing out inaccuracies.
 
2012-07-01 11:08:43 PM

Biological Ali: A tax on profits, for obvious reasons, wouldn't be expected to change the price at all.


How can you suggest that? A company relies on profit to expand, weather the market or invest in R&D. A tax on profit would affect the price of goods since companies depend on a certain level of profit in order to remain open. A company that requires $10M to expand into a new location that is assessed a 35% tax on that saved-up amount would then have to either raise its prices or delay expansion.

Mrtraveler01: Actually a statement by William J. H. Boetcker known as "The Ten Cannots" (1916), this has often been misattributed to Lincoln since 1942 when a leaflet containing quotes by both men was published.


Misattribution conceded, but the point remains that Lincoln wasn't some progressive looney. His social policies were in stark contrast to those of Wilson and FDR, who are chip-shot progressives
 
2012-07-01 11:09:01 PM

EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump


Nice
 
2012-07-01 11:09:11 PM

bulldg4life: Well, considering the GOP in congress...what else could we possibly have done? Tort reform and medical malpractice insurance caps? Some sort of interstate deregulation?

We weren't going to be getting a robust public option which would've been the smart thing


that really is the crux of the biscuit - the problems i have going forward w/ ppaca were largely political compromises made to get that first foot moving.

there are theoretical changes i could be more in favor of than what's actually being done - but none of those theoretical changes have proven themselves even possible politically, much less practically.
 
2012-07-01 11:10:10 PM

bulldg4life: Well, if we're going to boil PPACA down to saying its focus was to lower health care costs and condemn it for not doing so, then that makes the argument easier.


except that was a stated purpose of it.
 
2012-07-01 11:10:32 PM

Nemo's Brother: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

Nice


Yes, it is a nice example of why the right isn't funny when they try to be isn't it? ;)
 
2012-07-01 11:11:39 PM

heap: make a case for something then. nobody ever does - they just act as if the problems we have now are the fault of something that hasn't been enacted yet - and do so almost explicitly to act as if we don't currently have a plethora of problems.

solve them.

until i see a better option actually become a possibility, i'm fine with the alterations being done - i'm not a fan of all of them, but in totality, it looks like a step forward. give me some reason to think there's a better place to put that first foot, and i'll listen.


a public option would have done much more to address the real issue - the cost of insurance - than what we got. If you make insurance more affordable, you are also taking a bite out of the uninsured people issue as well.
 
2012-07-01 11:11:51 PM

heap: there are theoretical changes i could be more in favor of than what's actually being done - but none of those theoretical changes have proven themselves even possible politically, much less practically.


Just think if the democrats had started at single-payer, government funded UHC.

The compromise would've been a reasonable public option available through state exchanges with supplemental private insurance for those that wanted to purchase it.

And lo, the rainbows flew from the sky and pigs catapulted in to the air.
 
2012-07-01 11:13:10 PM

skullkrusher: except that was a stated purpose of it.


And, you seem to be brushing off the other stated goals and/or minimizing them. It is quite disingenuous of you since the same person has repeated the other (successful) goals multiple times.
 
2012-07-01 11:13:56 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: I wasn't aware the options we were limited to doing nothing at all and the bill we have.

Well, considering the GOP in congress...what else could we possibly have done? Tort reform and medical malpractice insurance caps? Some sort of interstate deregulation?

We weren't going to be getting a robust public option which would've been the smart thing.


we could have done a lot more to encourage the creation of private, interstate non-prof coops which would could function in much the same way the public option would have without the socialism that makes the teabaggers gnash their teeth so
 
2012-07-01 11:14:15 PM

Tor_Eckman: Debeo Summa Credo: One correction on your headline subby. Because an over simplified bullet point list that focused on the "oh yeah, that sounds great" upside of the act without dealing with the inevitable downside and unintended consequences is perfect for a
5 year old, it's also perfect for a democrat.

Now, you can easily come up with a list of anti-obamacare talking points that focus on the negative aspects without discussing the positives that
would be perfect for 5 year old republicans, but this ain't it.

Go ahead. I want to see this fact-filled list of anti-obamacare talking points you can easily come up with.


Sure, you can take some of the points in TFA and phrase them in a way that focuses on the negative side:

1) elimination of pre-existing conditions, precluding the ability of insurers to price based on risk
, requiring them to raise rates for everyone

2) requiring minimum loss ratios which restrict the resources available to administer business, forcing insurers to reduce customer service or exit businesss

3) requiring insurers to insure children of policyholders until age 26, which require increases in rate

4). Require a significant increase in taxes to pay for a government funded program ( as opposed to TFAs calling it an"tiny" amount)

The first three are obvious to anyone who understands the law, the fourth is a subjective description that can be phrased to call the tax "tiny" or significant (it will increase some peoples tax bill by up to 4%- if your landlord told you he needed an extra 4% hike in rent itd be nothing to sneeze at)

Keep in mind that the law isn't
all bad and I'm not arguing against it here, but there are negative consequences that only blindly partisan liberals would ignore.

There are certainly benefits to the law, which TFA articulates. But clearly TFA is a biased
oversimplification.

All
 
2012-07-01 11:14:36 PM

skullkrusher: a public option would have done much more to address the real issue


and do you actually think this was a political possibility? it wasn't.

this is the first step. you can argue for taking it, you can argue for leaving things as they are, or you can argue for a different first step.

if your argument really is 'take that first step that they tried to take, yet were shot down horribly', that really doesn't leave any other option aside from 'leave it as is'. what you describe was tried, and it was shot down horribly. what now?
 
2012-07-01 11:14:44 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: except that was a stated purpose of it.

And, you seem to be brushing off the other stated goals and/or minimizing them. It is quite disingenuous of you since the same person has repeated the other (successful) goals multiple times.


there's nothing disingenuous about criticizing this bill's failure to address the main issue.
 
2012-07-01 11:15:05 PM
If you're rich you can still get better quality of care than available to the poor, right? As someone bound to be rich soon that's what's really important to me.
 
2012-07-01 11:15:51 PM

skullkrusher: we could have done a lot more to encourage the creation of private, interstate non-prof coops which would could function in much the same way the public option would have without the socialism that makes the teabaggers gnash their teeth so


Wasn't the public option modeled after this idea?

/The interstate part is pretty irrelevant when it comes to things like healthcare
 
2012-07-01 11:16:03 PM

bulldg4life: Just think if the democrats had started at single-payer, government funded UHC.


some did, and it didn't end well.

the practical and the political don't mesh well, but you have to acknowledge the gap.
 
2012-07-01 11:17:04 PM

skullkrusher: there's nothing disingenuous about criticizing this bill's failure to address the main issue.


And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.

skullkrusher: we could have done a lot more to encourage the creation of private, interstate non-prof coops which would could function in much the same way the public option would have without the socialism that makes the teabaggers gnash their teeth so


Who would you blame for the stonewalling and idiotic difficulties in compromise when concerning the health care debate?
 
2012-07-01 11:18:15 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: except that was a stated purpose of it.

And, you seem to be brushing off the other stated goals and/or minimizing them. It is quite disingenuous of you since the same person has repeated the other (successful) goals multiple times.

there's nothing disingenuous about criticizing this bill's failure to address the main issue.


again, i absolutely disagree that it IS the main issue. compare your insurance rates to having to unplug granny because they decided she had a pre-existing condition. compare your insurance rates to having an illness and being unable to get coverage. compare your insurance rates to death.

when 'leave things as they are' has the side effect of your insurance rates going sky high anyway, i fail to see why this is the main issue.
 
2012-07-01 11:18:22 PM

heap: this is the first step. you can argue for taking it, you can argue for leaving things as they are, or you can argue for a different first step.


I would have taken a different first step. A public healthcare system, for starters. Expand the VA, offer subsidies for medical school in exchange for working as a federal government doctor for a certain number of years. Encourage the creation of non-prof coops. Allow people to buy catastrophe insurance rather than full coverage. Allow the reentry of generic drugs. There are a lot of things we could have done to address the cost of healthcare that we didn't do to a significant degree.
 
2012-07-01 11:19:28 PM
Obama will lose this election. and that's sad.

Simply because there's more passion on the other side. First time, people were PASSIONATE about electing him. but they did it. Done. Those people are gonna stay home this time. Meanwhile, there's far more people who are PASSIONATE about making him a 1-term president.

So very sad.
 
2012-07-01 11:19:36 PM

o5iiawah: How can you suggest that? A company relies on profit to expand, weather the market or invest in R&D. A tax on profit would affect the price of goods since companies depend on a certain level of profit in order to remain open. A company that requires $10M to expand into a new location that is assessed a 35% tax on that saved-up amount would then have to either raise its prices or delay expansion.


If the company is attempting to maximize profits, the people running it will know that the price at which they maximize profits will be the same regardless of whether they're being taxed at 1% or 99%. If a company could raise profits by raising prices, they would have done so already (or will do so, once they determine that it is possible) regardless of what the tax rate on profits is.
 
2012-07-01 11:20:26 PM

bulldg4life:
For fear of being branded as biased by Fox News and the GOP, everybody else is forced to allow the "other side" equal time in expressing their ideas or with respect to compromise...no matter how idiotic.


The problem, in general, with modern conservatism is that it thinks its histrionic screeching deserves to be on the same pedestal as rational thought. In the abstract, I personally don't have any problem with conservative ideology; it's their methodology I find so utterly revolting these days.

And it ultimately does a disservice to themselves, as well as the country as a whole. Through logical inquiry, an intelligent person can come to conclusions about policy that fall on the 'conservative' side. When it's done as a result of soaking up FOXNEWS, Limbaugh, Beck, or any of the other sideshow freaks, the arguments made end up sounding ridiculous to independents (a crucial voting bloc). Here's an example:

"We should carefully consider the effects that unchecked illegal immigration may have on our state budgets, healthcare, and crime statistics."
/
upload.wikimedia.org

VS.

"Fartbong0 is letting more browns in becuz he's brown himself. My dog is a sekrit muslin too...I shake him for answers. Where is my medication?"
/
wonkette.com
 
2012-07-01 11:20:46 PM

o5iiawah: .Ambivalence: Look at Thomas Jefferson. Hell, look, at Abraham Lincoln

If you think Jefferson and Lincoln were leftist progressives then I have a bridge to sell you. Lincoln's "let not the poor man tear down the house of the rich, let him labor to build his own" quote would be interpreted by progressives as insensitive, suggesting that No man deserves a house while another man is out in the cold and what, should the man without a house just whither in the field and die? Want proof? Read up this post for MrTraveler's response as to the morality of taking property from one group of people to pay for another. Lincoln was a statist but that doesn't make him a bad dude. FDR was a raving progressive liberal. you're not making news with that suggestion.

You were probably thinking Hamilton.


Again, I don't think you understand what the left is actually all about.

Franklin was all about "doing well by doing good". He was a strong supporter of public institutions like libraries and fire fighting and mail service in the pre-independance colonies. He was also an all around awesome fellow and he is solidy ours.

Jefferson was a very strong supporter of REAL religious freedom "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my back to say there is one God or no God." He was the first person to translate the Koran into English. Keith Ellison was actually sworn into congress on Jefferson's Koran.

Lincoln spent his one term in the house of representatives (his only federal level office before being elected president) to fight AGAINST a war of political expediance against Mexico. His extremly vocal opposition is actually credited as the reason the declaration of war never passed. I'm sure I don't need to mention his strong unionist stances. While he shyed away from a war for profit, he was quite willing to fight a war to preserve the union. He was deeply anti-seccession (which doesn't appear to be a republican value anymore).

And FDR, well, he created social security and the New Deal which is the part of leftism you seem to be fixating most on but is only part of the whole.

I should also mention Teddy Roosevelt and his monopoly/corporatist busting and environmentalism. I forgot him in the last list (shame on me).

Some of the greatest leaders in this country's history have espoused modern leftist agendas.
 
2012-07-01 11:20:52 PM

Nemo's Brother: I haven't seen this many butthurt lib submissions since they took an ass beating in 2010. ... Obama got a major victory this week. The Court ensured his first term wasn't a complete waste. You should be celebrating. Why so insecure?


Either you have a very strange idea of what "Butthurt" means, or you've never seen people celebrate before, because that's exactly what we're doing.

/Damn right I'm celebrating.
//Thanks to Obamacare, I'm qualified for health insurance in the US for the first time in my life.
///Currently living overseas for that reason, but planning on moving back now.
 
2012-07-01 11:21:01 PM

bulldg4life: And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.


yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.
 
2012-07-01 11:21:40 PM

skullkrusher: I would have taken a different first step. A public healthcare system, for starters. Expand the VA, offer subsidies for medical school in exchange for working as a federal government doctor for a certain number of years. Encourage the creation of non-prof coops. Allow people to buy catastrophe insurance rather than full coverage. Allow the reentry of generic drugs. There are a lot of things we could have done to address the cost of healthcare that we didn't do to a significant degree.


the uninsured and pre-existing conditions? how do we 'encourage' the alteration of that?

you do realize that whole 'federal government doctor' thing is exactly what *isn't* in the PPACA, yet people are frothing at the mouth in fear of?

politically, i don't see it happening. practically, i don't see it solving the actual problems.
 
2012-07-01 11:22:29 PM

bulldg4life: Who would you blame for the stonewalling and idiotic difficulties in compromise when concerning the health care debate?


The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.
 
2012-07-01 11:22:42 PM

Burn_The_Plows: MrEricSir: Can't we just have single payer already? You'd think employers would be clamoring to get health care off their books.

Think about it as if you are a greedy business owner:

You can get someone to work for you at minimum wage with the promise of health insurance after their 60 day probationary period. That person would gladly work for your competitor down the street that pays minimum +X, but they need insurance which your competitor doesn't offer.

Then after the 60 days, you can either cut their hours so that they're not eligible, fire them, or even (if they're a decent worker) extend the probationary period for another 30 or 60 days. Repeat for every new hire.


I like how you think, but an employee costs money and time to train and make proficient at his or her job. No, you want to hire the people who's will is already broken. That's the reason there are strange, non-work related questions in WalMart's application system.

I think the question was something like "Organizations need non-conformist" and answering yes was correlated with an average length of employment of less than one year, but answering no would meant a person would stay there for three or more years. So now they only hire the no's. I wish I could remember with book I saw it in, one of those books with titles like Switch.
 
2012-07-01 11:24:07 PM

skullkrusher: See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured.


this is so circular, if i hadn't talked to you previously... i'd honestly assume a mental defect.
 
2012-07-01 11:24:29 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.

yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.


I'll remind my sister with the pre-existing of that fact.
 
2012-07-01 11:25:15 PM

heap: the uninsured and pre-existing conditions? how do we 'encourage' the alteration of that?


well, reducing costs you reduce the number of people who cannot afford insurance and therefore reduce the problem. If we have government hospitals and doctors, we don't have a pre-existing condition issue. "Pre-existing condition" is only a problem for getting private insurance.

are you satisfied with the health care reform bill? You talk about it being a "first step". Presumably that means you wish it did things differently. However, since it does other beneficial things you don't feel entitled to criticize the things it doesn't do? That's a bizarre way of looking at things.
 
2012-07-01 11:25:18 PM

Graffito: Tahs4Evar: Nicely explained. It all seems pretty mild - to an outsider who lives in a country with full health cover. Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?

/I know this is a "That's the joke son" thing, but I have to ask.

I, too, would appreciate such an explanation.


Optimally, such an explanation would be in-depth.
But in reality, it's not all that involved.
Actually, it's really quite simple.
Mainly, they just don't like the name of the person attached to it.
Alternatively, just read the first letters of each sentence of this post.
 
2012-07-01 11:25:30 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Who would you blame for the stonewalling and idiotic difficulties in compromise when concerning the health care debate?

The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.


Once you address the problem, you can correct it. So don't vote Republican.
 
2012-07-01 11:25:37 PM

skullkrusher: Now what does that do to alleviate the problem?


ok, now that you've acknowledged that problem, how will any solution you've suggested make it past that problem?

for real, you suggested federal government doctors - how do you expect to make that a reality when what has been attempted doesn't go that far, yet drew the tard brigade out in droves?
 
2012-07-01 11:26:01 PM

o5iiawah: yes, I know I need treatment some day. There's even a slim chance I might need something soon. That is what a high deductible is for and I'd have the extra money to help pay for it.


You have an extra hundred thousand or two lying around? More power to you.
 
2012-07-01 11:27:24 PM

skullkrusher: yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.


Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

But, the goddamn goose doesn't lay GOLDEN eggs!

You have stated several ideas for alternate health care plans...but we were left with the democrats attempting to solve the problem and the GOP kicking and screaming for things to stop. In the end, we were left with trying to fix what we could.

That is and will continue to be better than the status quo.
 
2012-07-01 11:27:25 PM

skullkrusher: If we have government hospitals and doctors


again, you're just flat out ignoring political reality. like i said, i can see several theoretical options that are far and away better than the status quo, and better than the PPACA as it stands.

that doesn't mean they are actually options. it has to actually survive political reality to be an option.
 
2012-07-01 11:27:50 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.

yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.

I'll remind my sister with the pre-existing of that fact.


the pre-existing condition issue is a problem but it is not the primary cause of uninsured people so while it makes for more emotional stories, it isn't the primary problem and it can certainly be addressed in an initiative which also addresses costs
 
2012-07-01 11:29:20 PM

bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.


I don't have a problem bashing it for that.
 
2012-07-01 11:29:35 PM

skullkrusher: The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.


Well, to alleviate the problem, I'd vote for less GOP politicians. But, again, you seem to be missing the point that several others are making. I'm not sure if it is intentional or not.

Most people are aware that the PPACA won't lower cost. However, outside of you, the rest of us are able to see that it will create more insured, protects many from bankruptcy, among a whole host of other things.
 
2012-07-01 11:31:00 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.

yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.

I'll remind my sister with the pre-existing of that fact.

the pre-existing condition issue is a problem but it is not the primary cause of uninsured people so while it makes for more emotional stories, it isn't the primary problem and it can certainly be addressed in an initiative which also addresses costs


I think the point is that everyone who isn't blinded by FW: FW: FW: and its cousin Fox News has something to gain from PPACA. It is better than the status quo.

Now, keep fixing rather than throw out. Why is the right so hell bent on taking a step backward, then doing nothing to go forward again and yet all their supporters, who have nothing to gain from that course of action, keep drooling and nodding?
 
2012-07-01 11:31:18 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.


Yes, I can see that.

And, I don't have a problem calling you disingenuous when you brush off the things that the PPACA actually does do while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "but but but, this could've been different"
 
2012-07-01 11:31:23 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Who would you blame for the stonewalling and idiotic difficulties in compromise when concerning the health care debate?

The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.

Once you address the problem, you can correct it. So don't vote Republican.


I haven't in 18 years of voting eligibility and I shan't be starting now. However, even if every member of the GOP was removed from Congress, the bill wouldn't be any better.
 
2012-07-01 11:31:32 PM

bulldg4life: Most people are aware that the PPACA won't lower cost. However, outside of you, the rest of us are able to see that it will create more insured, protects many from bankruptcy, among a whole host of other things.


more than anything, (and to beat the phrase to death), it just seems like a first step.

give me a better one that's actually possible, or somehow convince me that leaving things as they are is A-OK - acting like the perfect is the enemy of the good solves something doesn't really do much for me.
 
2012-07-01 11:32:11 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.


So throw it out if it doesn't address costs but addresses many other issues.

Dude, you're heading towards "best part... forever" territory.
 
2012-07-01 11:33:02 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Who would you blame for the stonewalling and idiotic difficulties in compromise when concerning the health care debate?

The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.

Once you address the problem, you can correct it. So don't vote Republican.

I haven't in 18 years of voting eligibility and I shan't be starting now. However, even if every member of the GOP was removed from Congress, the bill wouldn't be any better.


[quizzical_dog.jpg]
 
2012-07-01 11:33:06 PM

punistation: Obama will lose this election. and that's sad.

Simply because there's more passion on the other side. First time, people were PASSIONATE about electing him. but they did it. Done. Those people are gonna stay home this time. Meanwhile, there's far more people who are PASSIONATE about making him a 1-term president.

So very sad.


Oh yes, the Republicans are so passionate about electing a Mormon governor of Massachusetts who created the healthcare plan "Obamacare" is based on, and has all the charisma of cardboard.
 
2012-07-01 11:33:24 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

Yes, I can see that.

And, I don't have a problem calling you disingenuous when you brush off the things that the PPACA actually does do while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "but but but, this could've been different"


you can call it disingenuous all you'd like. The main issue is cost. It does not do NEARLY enough to address this issue. It does cover virtually everyone. That's a good thing. It doesn't make the cost problem go away, however, and your constant handwaving pretending that this bill is anything but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing
 
2012-07-01 11:33:32 PM

Pincy: o5iiawah: yes, I know I need treatment some day. There's even a slim chance I might need something soon. That is what a high deductible is for and I'd have the extra money to help pay for it.

You have an extra hundred thousand or two lying around? More power to you.


Now now, it only costs about 30k for a minor surgery these days (like an appendectomy or fixing a hernia).
 
Displayed 50 of 482 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report