Are you going to be daft about this again? Yes of course you are. It's what you do. None. It's why Obama's year of abasement to people who weren't ever going to support him was so stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Printable View
Are you going to be daft about this again? Yes of course you are. It's what you do. None. It's why Obama's year of abasement to people who weren't ever going to support him was so stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Agreed. Finally we agree on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I can't imagine what is supposed to happen in August.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Regardless of whether a plan is sold on an exchange or outside of an exchange, the plan cannot exclude or charge more for pre-existing conditions if the plan is purchased during an open enrollment period. If you have a significant life changing event, such as getting married or losing employer provided coverage, then you can buy a plan on an exchange outside of the open enrollment period. Because of adverse selection issues, getting sick is not one of the events that qualifies you to purchase insurance through an exchange outside of an open enrollment period.
You can probably buy a plan directly from an insurance company outside of the open enrollment period, but you're not likely to find a plan that does not either exclude or charge more for pre-existing conditions.
The next open enrollment starts on November 1. Policies purchased between November 1 and the end of the year will be effective on January 1, 2016.
We have an important Supreme Court ruling coming up very soon, probably on Friday. If the court strikes down the subsidies, then health insurance will be a big issue in the 2016 election. If the court does not strike down the subsidies, then it won't. Although the candidates would never admit it, the Democrat candidates are secretly hoping that the court strikes down the subsidies, and the Republican candidates are secretly hoping that the court upholds the subsidies.
Fixed. Fascist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't think all 60 Dem Senators at the time would've voted for single-payer either. Certainly not Kent Conrad or Ben Nelson. If we couldn't even get a public option, single payer wasn't going anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Alright, you want single payer. Nothing else suffices. Again, are you going to vote for Bernie Sanders? Because no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, is going to push for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yep. It wouldn't have happened without a Frank Underwood (or his inspiration, Lyndon Johnson.) It makes Tgo01's line on this all the more ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I expect he won't vote again. I hope he keeps it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
How am I being ridiculous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You and Kembal are in the "Well Obamacare if better than nothing!" camp.
I'm in the "Obamacare is worse than nothing" camp.
Why is your camp better than my camp?
I bet your camp doesn't even have bugjuice.
You both A. Want Bernie Sanders level socialism while whining about anything that helps anyone and B. Buy into the childish conceit that Obama raised rates rather than insurance companies. It is the idiotic equivalant of people who declare that Obama is responsible for high ammo prices and not firearms manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Truly staggering.
See this is your problem. You seem to think that just because you think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread then obviously I must think that too. Well stop that. Stop thinking you think for me. I think Obamacare is utter shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Glad we have that misunderstanding out of the way now.
So Obamacare has nothing to do with insurance rates? You on drugs, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I think Obamacare is lackluster because Obama kept trying to "be friends" and Congress sucks. It's done some things your party would have never done though... like anything for anybody who's not a corporation or eager to dodge taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You seem to think Obama demanded companies increase rates. It's like companies don't even control their own prices! Yeah... You really convinced me there.
So Obamacare does suck? Another thing we agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Again, you want single-payer. I never pegged you for a socialist, but you pretty much are one based on your argument. And yet, you refuse to say whether you will vote for the one candidate who would push for it. So, as usual, you whine and complain, but you don't take action in accordance with your beliefs. No surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You say Obamacare is worse than nothing. Define nothing. No insurance at all? Or the system prior to ACA?Quote:
So Obamacare has nothing to do with insurance rates? You on drugs, dude.
I want to see actual healthcare costs go down, the only feasible way I see that happening is if the government go involved directly with healthcare or started enacting legislation to force hospitals and insurance companies to find ways to reduce costs. As it is now it's just one huge cluster fuck with no one caring because hell, they aren't the ones ultimately footing the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Yes, it's my God given right as an American to whine and complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
The latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Healthcare reform did two things for me.
1. My wife has a pre-existing condition and we paid $1500 per month for insurance at one point before reform. The changes forced student health insurance to cover prescription medication in a real way and allowed her to finish her doctorate. It's also nice to know that some kind of professional catastrophe wouldn't risk our access to affordable (i.e., <$1500 per month) insurance.
2. Several of my close friends didn't have health insurance prior to ACA. This was dangerous. They've been forced into getting insurance with subsidies and they actually go to the doctor when something is wrong now.
This is why, despite my issues with Obamacare, I would not undo it. It certainly needs changes (and I do not claim to have all the answers), but undoing it is the wrong choice. The thought of people not going to a doctor when they clearly need to is chilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean
What's your view of the IPAB provision of the ACA then (assuming Republicans ever let it go into effect)? It's supposed to do exactly that: force hospitals and other medical providers to find ways to reduce costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I assume you say this because you believe the previous state would induce the country to go for single-payer?Quote:
The latter.
As far as I can tell the IPAB is tasked with finding ways to cut Medicare spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I just think Obamacare is that fucking useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
It doesn't do shit in regards to the supposed goal it set out to do, which was to bring healthcare costs down. It just spreads healthcare costs to everyone so healthcare costs are artificially lower for some people, stays the same for some, and in fact goes up for others.
Lol you still think the person in office matters. That's cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
You still view voting as "taking action." That's precious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Wait, you're a dude? Gelston was right. There are no women on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean
Aren't you older? You're a candidate for death panels to refuse your care due to limited resources. Bet you change your mind then. Of course, by then it's too late for you and everyone else your age. At least the roads will be safer once we begin to euthanize everyone as they approach retirement age. Should drop healthcare costs for the young, too, since we won't be wasting money on old people. Even makes social security last longer due to less oldsters. You really think this won't happen? Okay. Well, if you like your plan and doctor, you can keep them, too. Obummer said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
If it makes a difference, I'm an especially pretty dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Yeah. It aims at providers to make them reduce their costs and thus reduce their Medicare billing. That info will be accessible to the insurance companies, so they can demand similar reductions (and they'll ask). The question will be if it reduces premiums. Presumably, it would, since premiums are tied to MLR. It'll require serious oversight of the insurance companies though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So if health care costs go up less than the rate of inflation (which means a decrease in real terms), that's not good enough for you?Quote:
I just think Obamacare is that fucking useless.
It doesn't do shit in regards to the supposed goal it set out to do, which was to bring healthcare costs down. It just spreads healthcare costs to everyone so healthcare costs are artificially lower for some people, stays the same for some, and in fact goes up for others.
The way they calculate inflation is a joke. If you've not seen what they don't include, you should check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Just stop. Stop acting like you give a shit about people struggling in this country then say stupid shit like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I'm sure the person working at McDonald's and not getting a salary increase to match inflation will just love to know that in "real terms" their healthcare is getting cheaper.
Pass a minimum wage increase. I'm already on record pushing for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What you want is a total decrease in health care costs. Single payer wipes out the insurance companies, which is a start. IPAB has a shot at reducing costs, which goes further. But you want affordable healthcare for everybody. The only way to guarantee that is a National Health Service like the UK or something similar to Canada's system. You ok with taxes going up to pay for that? On who should the tax increase fall?
Or maybe we should stop cheering bullshit legislation like Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
IPAB ain't gonna do shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
You.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Minimum wage increase=bandaid on a gunshot wound + getting shot again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
You can read, right? You did read that I had issues with Obamacare, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Wait, I forgot who was I responding to...never mind.
Move on, nothing to see here...
Good enough. I didn't realize you were a socialist, but hey, you are. And I'm not saying that as an insult either...for some reason, I had it pegged in my mind you were conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Because everyone fits nicely into their little boxes with no overlap, AMIRITE? Seriously, how small is your mind that you think that way? Oh right, you're a proponent of obummercare. Pretty small. I bet you even bought all that hope change and yes we can crap. Both times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
So you want to keep your socialized medicine but get rid of the resource allocation panels. Can't happen. We need this act repealed in its entirety yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
I believe what I believe. It's others who keep trying to peg me into some sort of group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I personally peg you as an afk scripter and part time slip and fall scammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Why sad? Those are two of my favorite qualities about you. Sticking it to simu and corporations is awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You know this admission had to hurt:
https://www.foramerica.org/2015/06/w...are-deception/
"Gruber, an MIT economist, famously said the “stupidity of the American voter” would help ObamaCare along."Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
lol
From the look of this thread.. there are plenty of people that actually bought into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
And still buying, somehow...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...5620143442.png
I need to open up a "non-profit" Obamacare Co-Op...
Damn, even Obama cronies don't make shit in Louisiana.
Money in La. is in the charter schools, not health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Blue Cross/Blue Shield in many states is technically non-profit. I guarantee they have higher salaries for their CEOs. This isn't some disease limited to health insurance co-ops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
No, money in La is in the casinos. No one really makes shit here in anything anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
LA has casinos?
My city alone has six. Riverboat casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/155/41...79b13ffb_z.jpg
There is two of the hotels with one of the boats.
One is paid by tax payers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I think someone posted before about the 20+% rate increases that some insurance companies are asking for in 2016 but I think at that point none of the rate increase had been approved yet.
Well, here we go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us...2016.html?_r=1
25% and 33% rate increase. Sure fucking sounds affordable to me!!Quote:
The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.
I like this part:
Wait, wait. A business paying out more in expenses than they bring in is unsustainable? Get out of here!Quote:
In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.
I also like this part:
The state of Oregon actually looked at the numbers and said to insurance companies "You idiots aren't asking for enough money!" and actually approved rates higher than they were seeking.Quote:
Health Net, for example, requested rate increases averaging 9 percent in Oregon. The state approved increases averaging 34.8 percent. Oregon’s Health Co-op requested a 5.3 percent increase. The state called for a 19.9 percent increase.
Yes we can!
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/15/news...d=hp-stack-dom
Quote:
Nearly a dozen fake Obamacare enrollees were able to keep their plans -- and subsidies -- for 2015.
The federal Obamacare exchange, known as Healthcare.gov, did not catch 11 fictitious policyholders who were enrolled last year as part of an undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office. The watchdog agency last summer announced that it had created 12 fake identities and 11 were able to sign up for coverage, qualifying for a total of $2,500 a month in subsidies.
An update to the probe found that all 11 enrollees had their coverage automatically extended for 2015. Republican lawmakers released the new information Wednesday ahead of a Congressional hearing on Obamacare controls.
Six policyholders had their coverage terminated a few months later because they did not submit the necessary documentation. But GAO investigators were able to get five enrollees reinstated after talking to Healthcare.gov phone representatives. The representatives also increased the enrollees' subsidies by a total of $1,000 for the year. The application of the sixth policyholder is still pending.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs the federal exchange, has "limited ability to respond to attempts at fraud," according to prepared remarks by Seto Bagdoyan, director of the GAO's forensic audits and investigative service. Also, CMS officials told the GAO they must balance program integrity with allowing consumers to "effectively and efficiently" sign up for coverage.
CMS said the federal exchange has multiple layers of verification and continues to improve its process for confirming applicants' identity and eligibility. The agency noted that it ended the coverage of 226,000 consumers at the end of March because failed to provide sufficient documentation of their citizenship or immigration status.
Some 7.3 million Americans enrolled in coverage for 2015 through Healthcare.gov, according to the latest federal statistics.
There was a plan here in MN that asked for a 74% increase.
They asked for a 74% increase, but the government only let them have a 60% increase.. SO OBAMACARE IS WORKING!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA!
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/22/news...urge-stack-dom
24% w/o coverage last year? Sounds like it was an UNaffordable Healthcare Act.Quote:
About 7.5 million Americans paid an average penalty of $200 for not having health insurance in 2014 — the first year most Americans were required to have coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Service said Tuesday.
The government had estimated in January that from 3 million to 6 million households would have to pay a penalty: 1% of their annual income or $95 per adult in 2014, whichever is greater.
By contrast, 76% of taxpayers checked a box indicating they had insurance coverage all year.
Final figures for the tax year aren't available. The IRS has so far processed about 135 million of the estimated 150 million returns expected.
So far, the IRS said it has collected $1.5 billion from the individual mandate penalty included in the health law.
Some 12 million people avoided the penalty because they received exemptions. They included those whose incomes were too low and Native Americans.
I haven't seen any other stats by taxpayer to give a frame of reference, but the percentage of Americans uninsured has dropped dramatically since Obamacare.
All this sturm und drang is hilarious.
Republicans believe that companies raising their prices on insurance plans (much like on bullets) are solely Obama's fault. I can't wait till when he's out of office and clever companies still use him as an excuse to raise prices and Republicans buy it hook, line, and sinker.
"We didn't want to raise our prices and make more (like companies do)! It was that evil Obama!"
"Okay! We knew it was Obama all along! You never raised your prices before!"
This is followed by companies counting their money and wondering what they'll do after the best excuse ever leaves office.
I don't blame Obama for prices rising. I blame Obama for prices not going down. That was the point of Obamacare, right?
And here I thought it was to cover uninsured Americans so we don't have to pay for them as often and have more people get the old Republican "skin in the game" for their healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Too bad they're not actually getting any real coverage and are paying for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
That's sort of interesting given that I know several people who get their coverage through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You're a funny, funny man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's what Mitt Romney said it was about when he came up with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's great, we're talking about Obama and Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Are you really saying Obama didn't claim that healthcare costs in America was too high and that his ACA was going to lower healthcare costs?
So we're talking about the same plan? Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Political puffery is different than most folks's understanding of the aim of the bill. He also spent quite a lot of time on underlining how it'd cover the uninsured.
Then again... you still oppose this law by backing a party that wants to do even less for people.
That's great, we're talking about Obama and Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Are you really saying Obama didn't claim that healthcare costs in America was too high and that his ACA was going to lower healthcare costs?
Oh boy. We get to repeat ourselves since you have nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
1. The plans are the same.
2. I believe that most people who don't believe that Obama is responsible for all the ills of the world (and he makes all companies raise prices! ZOMG!) understand the goal was to cover the uninsured that he spent time talking about.
3. It's still funny how your attack from the left on this plan involves supporting people who want to do even less for everybody.
That's great, we're talking about Obama and Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Are you really saying Obama didn't claim that healthcare costs in America was too high and that his ACA was going to lower healthcare costs?
It's pretty clear that's not what I'm saying at all and you have nothing. It's okay. There eventually comes a time when people have to stand for things as opposed to whining about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Then again you could fail to vote in another election and prove me wrong!
So you do acknowledge that Obama said health care costs in the US were too high and the ACA would lower those costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I said that already in one of my responses but you've been durping out because you don't want to address anything else. I merely don't feel that this is the primary purpose or even expressed primary purpose of the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Actually you didn't but okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs. I say I blame Obama for healthcare costs not going down. You jump on my nuts for pointing out that Obama should be held responsible for healthcare costs not going down since that's what he promised us with Obamacare.
I about sum up these past few posts?
WB, you can argue all you want about what it was 'Intended' to do, but it was sold as lowering healthcare cost, not providing insurance for uncovered people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so
Here is the proof, ad nauseum.
No. Not at all and yes I did. I pointed out how laughable it is that Republicans whine so hard about Obama raising prices when the companies do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You respond with OMG IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOWER COSTS!
I agree that he claimed that but suggest that was him being a politician and point out what I believe the bill was for (and what Mitt Romney said it was for when he came up with it) and point out all the conservative stuff it's supposed to do that you people spend time whining about.
You repeat yourself a bunch of times because you somehow think this is effective discussion.
Now you want to claim that "lowering costs" is the purpose of it again because you don't want to discuss the sheer amount of whinging that other Republicans do about "raised prices!" (which is hilarious in the party deeply against price fixing) and want to act like you represent everyone as opposed to some sort of strange outlier Republican who attacks Obamacare from the left while backing the party that wants to do less for people.
It's funny how the only people who claim it was sold that way are Republicans who opposed it from the start. Being the actual target audience I'm not so convinced. And of course Glenn Beck's news site is going to edit it to make it seem like the only way it was sold. Are you going to take Daily Kos or Think Progress as representative of how Republicans sell their plans to each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
That's great, we're talking about Obama and Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Are you really saying Obama didn't claim that healthcare costs in America was too high and that his ACA was going to lower healthcare costs?
Back to you having nothing. It's okay. I'm rooting for you not voting again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Not sure where you got Glenn Beck from, Avik Roy works for the Manhattan Institute and Forbes, he is a Graduate of MIT and received his MD at Yale. I would think he is probably someone who can speak with some authority on what will and will not impact healthcare cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
As far as me claiming it was sold that way, I do not have to the President literally said it HUNDREDS of times. How are we trying to sell it?
TheBlaze is Glenn Beck's news site.Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
Given as who it was "sold to" is liberals like myself I'm not really going to believe you, a Republican, or an edited video from a conservative talk radio hosts's news company.Quote:
TheBlaze is an independent news and entertainment television network and website founded by conservative talk radio personality Glenn Beck.
You can try a few more times though.
To my understanding the goal was to reduce the uninsured while getting more people to pay for their coverage. Obama certainly SAID reduced costs would happen. Most of the rest of us didn't believe it was particularly likely. There are less uninsured and more people are paying for their healthcare than before though.
“The other thing we’ve done is to say, what are the critical needs of small business? A lot of time, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you, as a sole proprietor, that you can get health insurance for you and your family. So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.” - President Obama July 16, 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Are you really claiming that Glen Beck edited those video clips of Obama saying he is going to lower the costs of healthcare premiums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Seriously?
Why is it called the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT if it's main goal was to reduce the uninsured?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You are a gullible fool.
Because Obama's an excellent politician who copied Romney's Act to great success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
No. I'm claiming that a conservative website would make a clip with sound bites that only show one goal to further their talking points/agenda. Not that surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He certainly did say that one quote. It just wasn't the only thing he said. Obama's said hundreds of pages worth on healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
WB, you are being disingenuous if you think that it was passed as a way to insure the uninsured. Just like Gruber said, if it had been advertised as what it was, a tax that redistributes wealth it would have died an ignominious death in committee. It is not about insuring the uninsured, you could have done that for probably 1/3 of what it cost by just opening clinics for the uninsured. It is about fairness, or at least what one side of the equations interpretation is of fairness. But I have no idea why I even bother engaging ideologues like yourself in this discussion. i should save my breath for when I am dying.
We have different beliefs as to what it is. It was advertised in multiple ways. That is simple fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
If you don't think you're an ideologue you should do some personal reflection. Honestly, given your job, I'd be very sad if you weren't.
WB will not respond to such a direct question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I personally got coverage through the exchanges and have used it frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I'll just leave this here and check back in a few days.
For First Time, America's Uninsured Rate Is Below 10% - And It's Because Of Obamacarehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...e-is-below-10/Quote:
For the first time in more than 50 years of surveys, the CDC on Wednesday reported that more than 90% of Americans — 90.8% of us, to be specific — have health insurance.
Until now, no major survey had ever found that the uninsured rate in America has hit single digits.
The data comes from the National Health Interview Survey, which the CDC has been conducting for more than 50 years. The questions have sometimes changed, but until this year, the answers haven’t: More than 10% of respondents, and sometimes as many as 18% of Americans, have reported that they’ve been uninsured
Uninsured Rate means nothing.
It is how much it costs for the insured.
As it is possible that an individual may actually be better off w/o paying insurance premiums.
The uninsured rate is very important. I think it has been pretty well established that a pool of insured people that includes the healthy helps keep costs down. A historically high rate of insured indicates that they are being insured. Secondarily, uninsured people end up not getting care until the shit has totally hit the fan... and then they go to the emergency room, where costs are sky high, and often covered by the rest of us in one way or another. Both directly and indirectly, the number of uninsured affects your costs, so yeah, it does matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
It's also possible that you may be better off not wearing a seat belt, and yet almost all people now wear them. Smart people plan for events that are likely to happen, as well as catastrophic events that may happen that could ruin them physically and financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
"The uninsured rate means nothing"- Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard about Obamacare since the Death Panel BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
The uninsured rate has dropped to 9.2%- which I believe puts it at the lowest level in the history of the US. And as much as you people love to bitch and moan about "affordability"- a recent Kaiser Foundation survey found that folks with insurance through the ACA were significantly more likely to say their insurance was affordable and to say that their health needs were being met than those who got their insurance through other means. And to be blunt- if all of suddenly insurance had become to much harder to afford **the insurance rate wouldn't have dropped**. People weren't passing up insurance before for kicks- they were doing it because they couldn't afford it.
The ACA was a huge success. You people were wrong about it bringing about some doomsday. You were so very, very, VERY wrong. And instead of looking at the fact that millions of people are now covered for life-threatening illness when they weren't before, and the fact that people are no longer being pushed out of their insurance because they hit their lifetime maximum coverage and saying "Thank GOD- lives are being saved", you're bitching and moaning and trying to find any problem you can possibly manufacture because of your inability to let go on a stupid argument that never held any weight. Admit you were wrong. Rejoice at the lives saved. Move the hell on.
Actually, I am not wrong. My insurance costs went up and my coverage went down on my employer plans that exactly mirrored exchange plans in my state. The employer plans were slightly less ($20-35 a month less) than the same exchange plans. Now, the issue you are simply missing is the over all cost of this in the long run in which case the OMB has already said will be many times more than originally predicted and was never going to be "revenue neutral" as stated. In addition, the SCOTUS set a precedent where if the national government decides it is in the best interest of the people, they can simply take over, mandate profit margins, require purchase or participation and tax it in any way they choose without legal recourse. So, imagine that they should chose that you buy a particular type of car and then decide there will only be 4 models and they are required to cost X amount and employees and so on can only be paid X amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I am pretty sure that it is not a good precedent. Lifetime limits, immediate coverage and no exclusions/guaranteed transferability, the 3 major benefits that people really wanted to get done could easily have been done without instituting a slavish requirement to buy something no matter if you want to or not and a massive tax/cost burden in a blatant attempt to cause enough issue to make people cave in to a single payer system.
Well by all means- what's millions of people with insurance (and massive numbers of lives saved) compared to you paying $20 a month extra? Also, I'm going to guess that you're in a red state. The rates in red states aren't nearly as good because most of the Governors refused the medicaid expansion money. And they did that specifically because they knew it would drive up the cost of insurance and would make the ACA look bad to their constituents. (see below)Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Which brings me to the real point- you seem to be *grossly* confused about the insurance mandate's origins. It was put into place specifically because the insurance companies screamed bloody murder and pointed out that if it weren't in place, they might suffer from adverse selection issues that would leave them covering only the highest risk pools while healthier (profitable) people opted out. That's also precisely why the medicaid expansion was included- it allowed insurance companies to exclude the these pools and price their premiums around an overall healthier population group. So this means the government is taking the financial liability and is leaving the profits to insurance companies.
i.e. The mandate was a huge handout to the insurance companies, not some dark liberal conspiracy to force you to accept a single payer system.
Of course, in a stroke of brilliant irony, it does absolutely demonstrate WHY a single payer system makes so much sense. Insurance only works under two conditions: when EVERYONE is covered, or when the highest risk pools are excluded. The latter is idiotic, but it's what we had to settle for so that folks like you didn't all die of S.I.T.S. (Socialist Insurance Takeover Syndrome)
Yes, the uninsured rate is going down. That's part of forcing people to get insurance. The question should be however, has healthcare gotten "affordable."
You know, I can see why Obama embraced the term "Obamacare." Most people seemed to have forgotten what the first A in ACA stands for by now.
Mine has gone up at a higher rate since the ACA was passed than at anytime prior... and I don't have a "Cadillac plan".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
So, exactly how many lives did Obama save?
Everyone agrees it should be cheaper. The ACA has subsidies- in fact over 80% of enrollees get subsidies. We need to expand those subsidies to continue to drive down costs.
But the strangest thing- there's this entire party that's just adamantly opposed to expanding subsidies and funding for health care coverage through the ACA (including accepting the subsidies that are already there and available). It's almost like they *want* to break it or something.
You're right- zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sick people without insurance never die from lack of medical care.
Subsidies are driving down costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Well, is healthcare getting cheaper?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I thought they all just went to the ER and didn't pay the bill then everyone's healthcare costs went up? Wasn't that the argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Now people were dying in the streets because they didn't have insurance?
Please stop making sense. I can tell you're blowing minds here. Some people just aren't ready for this yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
:rofl: x 2Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Stop. This forum already has a Backlash. We don't require 2.
Yes subsidies drive down costs *for the people getting the subsidies*. You...are aware of what a subsidy is, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Also, apparently you're largely unfamiliar with the concept of preventative care and what happens to people who wait until they're on death's door to go to the hospital because they don't have insurance. Never fear, I've got you covered: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Impact+of+preve...ealth+outcomes
But, by all means, let's keep pretending like having insurance doesn't have anything to do with your likelihood of dying from illness. I mean, really, why even bother with insurance? It's not like it's related to medical care of anything.
Oh okay. So we're not making healthcare affordable, we're just making people pay more in taxes so we can give the insurance companies more money so it's cheaper for some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Yes. Are you aware of what "driving down costs" means?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Awesome. Thanks for that. So while you're believing people literally wait until they're on death's door before they seek medical help why don't you peruse this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...als-uninsured/
I think you're confusing terminology here.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Health insurance != access to healthcare.
There are free clinics, emergency room visits, state and local governments helping poor/uninsured with their healthcare bills, non-profit hospitals/organizations providing free treatment as part of their deal to be, y'know, non-profit. Then there's always, GASP! People without insurance paying their bills out of pocket. Insane, I know. But it happens(ed).
But yes, you are 100% correct. Lack of access to medical care can certainly be tied to someone dying prematurely. Tell me, does the "Affordable" Care Act help to ensure that people have access to medical care?
Yeah I know very well what "driving down costs" means, and given we were talking about health insurance premiums it's pretty clear I was talking about people. They have costs too it turns out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Nice 5 year-old study, whose findings haven't really been replicated btw, but here's one that's 2.5 years old: http://familiesusa.org/sites/default...r-Coverage.pdf
And if you don't think that insurance = access, you've lived a charmed life. Access is when a hospital doesn't say to you "I'm sorry, you can't pay for this procedure so we won't do it because we're not legally obligated to do so". Access is "The doctor's appointment normally costs me $150, but now it's only $10". Access is also the >1 million new healthcare jobs that have resulted from the ACA producing new demand for medical services- creating a stronger infrastructure for care. And it goes far beyond simple mortality- it' about quality of life for people with serious and/or chronic illness. It' about understanding the gravity of the reality that medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy filings.
If you cannot wrap your head around the concept that insurance is about access to health care, then it's no small wonder why you're having such a hard time understanding the significance of our country's uninsured rate dropping below 10% for the first time in history. Insurance may not be sufficient to ensure 100% access, but for people with significant illnesses it is necessary.
It's astounding to me how committed some people are to finding some way to say the ACA has been a disaster. First it was- this won't lower the rate of uninsured, and it will cause massive unemployment and blow up our debt!" Then, of course, it turned out that it created jobs, DRAMATICALLY lowered the rate of the uninsured, and slowed down the rate of increase in health costs. Now it's "But it's not cheap enough!" Hey, guess what- liberals and you agree 100% that it should be cheaper. So let's all hold hands and fight for a single payer system and to expand Federal funding for health care coverage.
"Driving down costs" for people via subsidies is about the worst way to reign in the soaring cost of healthcare in this country. Wasn't this a popular slogan during the ACA debate? America spends more for healthcare than any other nation yet we supposedly get fewer results?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You're hilarious. You decry my study being a whole 5 years old then you link an article with citations that are 10 years old, 22 years old, 21 years old, 6 years old, 6 years old, 7 years old, and 6 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
What's also funny is the article I linked specifically talks about what shoddy work IOM and the Urban Institute did and much of the study you link talks about IOM's and Urban Institute's findings.
No, apparently you're the one who has lived a charmed life. Access is having the means to travel to your primary care physician who might be 50+ miles away. Access is having the means to travel to a specialist who might be even further away and being able to afford the trip and find time off of work. Access is a working and stable local ambulance system for emergencies. Access is not having to travel 40+ miles to the nearest emergency room. Access is not having the only local hospital being so understaffed that you might have to wait weeks or even months just to make an appointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Do you have any idea at all about rural areas in this country?
Almost 1.5 million healthcare jobs were created during the 5 years prior to the ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You're the one saying people were dying in the streets. I was just responding to your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Has this changed since ACA was implemented?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I agree it's about access to health care, but as I said before health insurance != access to healthcare. Insurance/affordability is but just one ingredient of access to healthcare, they are not synonymous. Stop that.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I never questioned the significance. I merely stated the question we should be asking is if healthcare has gotten more affordable. Has healthcare costs gone down in this country? Do you have an answer for these questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
For the Obamacare diehard supporters...
Subsidies would not be necessary if healthcare insurance/costs were affordable.
(as a reminder, subsidies are a form of wealth transfer)
A significant part of why Obamacare is 'unaffordable' for many is its 'comprehensive' nature, which includes coverage far and beyond what is necessary and padded with electives,
Which ironically inflates healthcare costs by instilling artificial profit margins (charging people for coverage that they will rarely if ever actually utilize).
Genuinely affordable healthcare would be restricted to basic preventative care, and basic emergency care.
Anything beyond that should be separate additional coverage *purchased* by those wanting semi-regular elective services (eyes, dental, etc).
There are basic standards for coverage. I am not sure what you mean by "basic" coverage, if not a standard minimum coverage. What specific things do you think shouldn't be included in the minimum standard but currently are?
Also, we had subsidized forms of healthcare before the ACA.
There are areas that could use improvement. For example, there's no question that our healthcare system remains inefficient. I also think we need to do something about absurdly high drug prices.
Your recourse for this and all other laws you disagree with is to elect different politicians, as it has been since 1789.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
And just who on the SCOTUS is elected? What districts to I need to be in to vote for or against them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Seriously?!!?!
What does basic emergency care mean? What about a cancer diagnosis? No private health insurance company would want to insure someone after it was found out that they have cancer. Are you seriously arguing that people should buy separate cancer insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I get where Tgo is coming from (though I don't know why the heck he even comes close to supporting any Republican, because they'll never enact what he wants), but I don't get your idea at all.
Because Democratic politicians are like children on a power trip. Sure, they might actually implement good healthcare reform, but at what cost? Look what they ended up doing with Obamacare. What else are they going to fuck up while they're at it? Look at how Democrats are turning on police officers. POLICE OFFICERS! What's next, are Democrats going to tie the police's hands when it comes to combating crime because we have to think about the poor and unfortunate criminal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Just listen to Democrats sometimes. It's a growing cry of "But think of the non violent offenders!" Yes, notice how they even PC'ed up the fucking term criminals, now it's just "offenders." But other than that who gives a shit if someone is in jail for a non-violent offense. I don't want burglars or crack dealers roaming the streets because a bunch of stupid liberals think non-violent offenders shouldn't be in jail.
Illegal alie...sorry, "undocumented workers", well hell let's just open up the fucking border!
Guns should be outlawed! That police officer shouldn't have used his gun...nor his stun gun...nor his pepper spray...notice how no matter what the fuck the officer uses they are always in the wrong because they should have used a "less violent" option that supposedly is always at their disposal?
Democrats are too busy trying to tell people that the evil Republicans want to implement voter ID laws because they are racist and don't want blacks to vote, even though our good friends up north have voter ID laws and many Democratic states have voter ID laws. But the Republicans!
You're a black Republican? You're scum and should be shot according to Democrats. You're a black FEMALE Republican? Forget about it! Democrats can't do anything right so the only way they can win is to instill fear in everyone (notice how Obama keeps claiming that if Congress shoots down the Iran deal the only option after that is war? FEAR MONGER!) or to claim "the other side" is filled with sexists and racists and that the Democrats will look after them.
"Vote Democrat! The party of the poor!" they'll shout. Exactly. Read that again poor people and realllllly let it sink in for a moment. If the Democrats are on your side because you're poor and they'll look after you...they want you to stay poor so you'll continue to vote them in so they can continue to look after you...
Alright, I'm hopping off my soapbox now.
Alleged offenders :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You misunderstand what a constitutional ruling means: it does not mean that a law must be, it means that a law can be. Congress is perfectly capable of repealing the ACA or any other constitutional law, and you can vote for both Representatives and Senators.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
If you want to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court, your vote also has an impact by counting in the election for President (who nominates the Justices) and the Senate (who approves those nominations).
Take a breath. Think it over.
You feeling ok TG? Maybe you should make an appointment with your doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So, paid enrollments are slipping? I wonder why?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...4s0O?li=AA4ZjnQuote:
the remaining uninsured may be disinclined to enroll or feel the plans are not affordable. *
I know my cost of insurance went up, my deductibles went up and my coverage went down with this mess. OH, and hey, I am covered for a pap smear and well baby care despite being a single male. What a farce.
* - emphasis added
As explained in the article, coverage numbers slipped last year and this year for a variety of reasons: cost is one, but they also list many statuses a change in which would explain dropping a private plan: job, immigration, marriage. The important point is that the number went from 8m to 6.4m to 11.7m to 9.9m. Looking at numbers year-over-year is an intelligent practice, and one I encourage you to embrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
If you think about it, the fact that people failed to accurately gauge the plans' costs can't possibly be evidence that the plans are too expensive... because if people couldn't tell how expensive it was, why would we assume they can now? I don't know if you've ever been on an Obamacare site but the prices are listed up front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Keep apologizing.
I used basic math to defend George Bush from scurrilous accusations, I use basic math to defend B. Hussein Obama from the same, I will use basic math to defend whomever the next President is as well. I suppose I just can't help it. :)
Whoever!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
the President as an elected official warrants the formal case presumptive tense pluperfect
commie
Whatever you just said...WWWRRROOONNNGGG!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
you got me
the President as an elected official warrants the formal case presumptive tense future practically imperfect vis a vis pronouns, ergo concordantly inter alia in loco pluperfectis
you wanted the thunder
well now you've got it
http://www.mossbaysoftware.com/FartS...GuyFarting.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Not really Obamacare related, but still stupid/frivolousis it me or is this just ridiculous??
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news...er/index.html?
1) you do not just suddenly get cancer from something in the 49th year of using a productQuote:
Lawyers for the family say a jury in St Louis, Missouri, awarded $72 million in damages.
Jackie Fox died of ovarian cancer in 2015, aged 62, two years after being diagnosed with the illness. Her family said she used Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder for nearly 50 years, and claimed her death was a direct result.
The family argued the company knew about the possible risks of using products containing talc, but failed to warns consumers about them.
The case is part of a wider lawsuit brought by nearly 50 women against Johnson & Johnson.
2) perhaps she was using it inappropriately? (50 years, really??)
3) there is a direct correlation between getting older and chances of cancer (she was 60+) ... maybe her family should sue Father Time.
Considering how long this stuff has been in use, and how widespread, you would have thought that we would have been hearing it for decades now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Altho.. yes.. you could suddenly get cancer in the (in this case) 48th year of using a product. -Cigarettes- It's a build up, it's not an instantaneous thing after all.
I think in many of these types of cases, the jury shit is basically... bullshit. I mean.. what jury generally doesn't want to stick it to a huge rich corporation for the little man.
It's like you said though... you would have thought we would have been hearing it for decades now.. but there might be proof "Big Talc" has been hiding it from it's consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Babies are literally hooked on the stuff, it's like all they do is cry until they get some!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
This story sponsored by Bourdreaux Butt Paste.
It doesn't require a conspiracy for us to not hear about something that is nevertheless true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm glad to know that you're here to tell people what they believe about the Republican healthcare plan that Obama passed. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I might also note that corrective lenses tend to be important for many people to carry out their jobs and bad dental care causing a whole slew of other health problems.
Why are you responding to things posted half a year ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Indirect commentary on pearl clutching about people suing companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I honestly didn't notice the date.
Dental insurance is quite commonly available as its own policy ... no reason why the same could not happen for corrective lens ... and no necessary reason for it to be broadly covered as part of basic health care, it is supplemental in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Insurer Exits From Obamacare Turn Few Choices Into None
Who could have predicted that a bunch of sick people signing up for insurance, and the insurance companies can't charge them more than they charge anyone else, would have led to insurance companies not making any money and just deciding to not offer insurance at all?Quote:
Later this year, residents of Pinal County, Arizona, who go shopping for health insurance under Obamacare will face a peculiar dilemma -- they’ll have to buy a product that may not exist.
The 400,000-population county southeast of Phoenix currently doesn’t have a single health insurer offering coverage next year on the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges, where Americans can shop for the insurance they’re required to have under the law. With the impending pullout of major health insurers -- including Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Humana Inc. -- Pinal County is just one place around the country where Americans will be left with few, if any, choices for coverage.
Oh wait, me, and lots of other people. Hey, Obama! I don't get big money to think of shit like this and yet I figured it out years ago. Why not give me some of that Obama cash you seem to love throwing around so I can save you some embarrassment next time.
Who am I kidding? Obama and gang probably knew full well this wasn't going to work, hence why they kept prolonging the roll out of this failure and kept giving businesses extensions. Obama just wanted his legacy while he was in office. The plan was probably for this to fail after the presidential elections though, that way it wouldn't affect a Democrat's chance of getting elected and if a Republican won they could blame the whole thing on the new Republican president.
Well.. they would likely just Blame it on Repubs not letting them have universal health care instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I want the Dems to force car insurance companies to make it the same rate for everyone, no matter how many accidents they have, or their age.
And life insurance companies should be required to have the same rates for everyone, no matter age or health.
Makes total sense.
Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama's health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday. That's sure to stoke another "Obamacare" controversy days before a presidential election.
Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.
Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.
"Consumers will be faced this year with not only big premium increases but also with a declining number of insurers participating, and that will lead to a tumultuous open enrollment period," said Larry Levitt, who tracks the health care law for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-24-17-03-27
WHAT!? Who could have possibly seen this coming?
Oh, that's right.. most intelligent people.
Premiums will go up by double digits... Thanks, Russia!
Trump is so racist for wanting to get rid of this!
But wait... wait! The Democrats have always said that THEY are the intellectual party! If they're so smart, how did they not see this coming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Or... *could it be* that they stuffed this monstrous mistake down our throats just so they could have something to stand behind at election time? Hmmm... guess the intelligentsia forgot to take that course on Machiavellian systemic manipulation. Definitely skipped the informal logic courses, too.
I can already see the $100M ad campaign, paid for by Hillary, brainwashing Americans into somehow believing that this mess is beneficial to anyone other than a small handful of powerful politicians.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Totes!! He is SO racist for wanting to secure our borders and improve the efficiency of our immigration department so that someone who wants to enter our country legitimately doesn't have to wait 10-15yrs to do so. Thereby reducing the incentive to hop the fence in the first place. And giving due respect to those who arrived here legitimately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
AND he has sexually assaulted SO many women that as soon as he ran against Hillary they all started magically appearing! What luck for the Clintons!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://adweek.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341...97663ed970b-piQuote:
Originally Posted by Someone who isn't Me
I actually agree with rQuote:
Originally Posted by Someone who isn't Me
Alt right radio in that this would lead to a good argument for a public option health care system for Hillary. What makes you think they didnt see this coming?
To be clear, I was referring to the crowd, not the players. But any decent Grand Master knows... seven to ten moves ahead. Minimally, three. They have known this potentiality since day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dendum
Arizona seems like it will be hit the hardest, with premiums going up over 100%. At this rate Obama's legacy is only going to stand for one thing, one big ass mistake America.
I bet you think only conservatives have a problem with Obamacare don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Actually Trump's idea of opening up the market to allow any company access to all states is pretty sound. And yes, repealing Obamacare is a very good idea.
That's where you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
God you are such a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
The 'Public Option' wasn't Bernie's idea... it was in the original version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) but was removed after threat of filibuster. The republicans and their lobbyists couldn't have government supported medicare competing with for-profit insurance companies.
Says the bot that recycles Hillary/liberal talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Frantic desperation? I've never once tried to hide my political beliefs on this board. The only frantic desperation here is you continually trying to tell me I'm a conservative, when even the board conservatives have told you otherwise. If some neck beard wants to think otherwise that's their problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
I'm a neocon now? Please, stop, you're embarrassing yourself to the extreme.
You say I'm a conservative because my positions are nearly indistinguishable from conservatives.
You say my positions are nearly indistinguishable from neocons.
Going off your retarded logic I'm a neocon.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2m7uyDRay...g-clapping.gif
You guys are being miscreants right now.
And which neocon/alt-right points have I parroted? Why are you the only person here who thinks I'm a conservative? No wonder everyone thinks you're completely delusional.
I think you're a Libertarian that reads a lot of conservative media and likes to troll Ashliana/time4fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I read a lot of media period, from all political spectrums. I don't troll Ashliana though, just think he/she/it is a blithering idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
What "positions" does pk hold that makes you think he's a conservative? Lately all he has been doing is attacking Hillary and saying Obamacare is shit. Is that all it takes in your mind to be a "conservative"? To think Hillary is a piece of shit? I guess I should tell my lifelong Democrat aunt that she's really been a conservative all this time because she hates Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
pk supported Ron Paul for fuck's sake. RON PAUL! He was the biggest Bernie supporter on here.
Well, Ron Paul DID start the neocon movement..
Or you know, you could actually respond to the question. I'm curious too as to what parts of Obamacare that you disagree with, since you say you're not a conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You're implying that only conservatives have a problem with Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Keep on trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
No she won’t. She will run it in front of focus groups and then come out and say she’s been an opponent of Obamacare from the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone who isn't Me
Like most Bernie supporters, these people tend to be a-political or new to politics and don’t understand the differences between left and right, conservative or liberal. They just see a guy promising them the world and think “Yea, I could use a piece of that big free pie!”Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Definitely It. It doesn’t like gender identity.. fucks up his, I mean It’s catfishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Hey, if Hillary says it, must be true! Especially when coupled with that smug, open-mouthed shit-eating grin she throws out every time she is destroyed in public debate. Yeah, the one designed to initiate that wonderful smug sense of "damn, she's so right" self-satisfaction in all of her followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Derp Derp, anyone who says anything negative about a liberal MUST BE A NEOCON CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE A 2 PARTY SYSTEM AND THAT IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE DERP DERP DERP!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
You're a dumb cunt.
I don't think you've ever had anything useful or informative to say on anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Oh look, a "guy" who has a habit of pretending to be a girl, denies he catfishes for dudes as a girl. What a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
He's told you multiple times he's not a Conservative. A number of people have told you the same. You decided he is.. so therefore you must be right?Quote:
It has nothing to do with "saying anything negative about Hillary" -- I myself have said plenty negative about Hillary, both on my own and when asked by Tgo01. But, by all means, pretend that, y'know, I didn't lay out all the reasons PK's claim of not being a conservative is comical.
You're a tool... just not a useful one.
1) You don't think. Not a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
2) I'm shocked you didn't speak for everyone.
3) You are King of the dumb cunts.
Actually, I'm not. But when you were asked as to whether the problem with Obamacare was whether you wanted a public option as supported by Sanders, or whether you preferred repeal as pushed by Trump, you answered with:Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You didn't reply that you wanted a public option or even single-payer, which is what those on the left generally prefer as an alternative to Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
In fact, the opening up of the market by erasing state lines for health insurance is almost diametrically opposed to a single-payer system (since single-payer would mean all the health insurance companies are largely dead, and thus there's no market.)
So that's why I find it interesting to ask you the question: what parts of Obamacare do you disagree with, since you say you're not a conservative yet are calling for repeal and have not expressed support for single-payer?
Did you provide more of the "alt-right" talking points he spews other than this list?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Because that's a pretty weak list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
1) It's pretty pathetic to say if you don't like Obamacare you must be some sort of neo con alt-right winger. That doesn't even make sense.
2) Yes, he hates Clinton, as everyone should.
3) Again this goes way back to when Sanders supporters were saying Hillary was stealing the election from Sanders. pk wanted Sanders to be our next president. Are all Sanders supporters just a bunch of alt-right wingers too?
4) What does this one even mean? What are you trying to say?
5) Again, what? pk has had his head up Assange's ass way before Wikileaks started going after Hillary. So, what, now if you don't ignore the released emails because RUSSIA HACKED THEM!!!!! you are literally a communist and a Putin/Trump lover?
And the dumbing down of the Democrat base continues.
Interesting stance from a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
To be fair I haven't seen the far right propose taxes on the poor, unless by poor you mean we middle class poors.
Because you aren't putting forth any sort of argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Can't articulate what he doesn't like about Obamacare? You really think pk hates Obamacare because it's named Obamacare?
Provides no alternative to replace it? It's not pk's job to come up with an alternative to replace Obamacare, that's what politicians are for.
This is all "straight out of the GOP playbook"? I have named lots of things I don't like about Obamacare, go ahead and check out my posts in this very thread for some of them. I also do know what I would prefer our healthcare system to be like.
Again because you're spinning bullshit. Yes, pk hates Hillary, he has posts going back at least 4 years stating as such. Why is it such a surprise now that he would believe stories in regards to her and her foundation being corrupt? Oh Breitbart wrote the playbook on that?! Well surely that means ANYONE who believes the Clinton Foundation is an example of Hillary's corruption just means they're parroting back Breitbart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
No, honestly you fucking little tool, I didn't "confuse" anything. pk has been harping about voter fraud since the primaries back when the DNC and Hillary were accused of rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor. This was back when he wanted a far leftist socialist to be our next president. But now that he still talks about voter fraud he's obviously a neo-con alt right winger? That is so dumb I can't even imagine time4fun backing you up on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
I just wanted you to clarify what you meant. This is straight out of the Idiot's Playbook! Can't give details about what your position is and instead just deflect deflect deflect!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Again, what? Isn't Wikileaks/Russia accused of hacking the DNC? Isn't that what you're talking about? My bad, perhaps you're talking about something else. But as you've already demonstrated your inability to articulate your position because you follow the Idiot's Playbook I don't expect you to clarify what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
It is a message board though, and I'm kind of curious what other options people are interested in as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Personally, I'm all for a single-payer system as long as it's voted on and stays at a state level.
Premiums are skyrocketing but who cares, we need to know what pk thinks!
The only ones being obtuse are the dumb fucks that thought you could drastically increase demand and have that lower costs.Quote:
You're deliberately acting as obtuse as humanly possible in an attempt to simply exhaust the other party.
Obtuse was thinking young adults would enroll.
#1 complaint, having the government force me to purchase a product.
Well, I tried.
Dear God I am so tired of entitled straight white men over 35 being so angry all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sorry that the black guy has been in charge of you for 8 years. Sorry that a white woman is about to be in charge of you for 8 years.
(But not really)
Spoken like an entitled straight white woman over 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Racism at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Attachment 8192Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Also time4fun you do realize we have a president and not a dictator, right? Obama could show up at my doorstep tomorrow and I don't have to do a single fucking thing he tells me to do, he's not "in charge" of me.
But going by the fact that you want Hillary in office I'm guessing you actually want a dictatorship so I see the confusion.
If he showed up at your door tomorrow the Secret Service would have already been all up in your house the day before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I have a black belt in judo, I would kick their asses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8yTGXKUZJsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Unless it was a completely random, "Hey I'm going to Terry's place right now." type thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
1. Premiums are skyrocketing because a) no one can get the legislation done to make the necessary tweaks that would normally come with a new large program and b) Sen. Rubio included in a must-pass bill about 2 years ago a provision that required the risk corridor reimbursement program to be revenue neutral. This killed off reimbursement payments from the government that all the insurers were dependent on because they did not have the underwriting experience to anticipate how sick or healthy their signups would be. For the new health insurance co-ops, this effectively killed them because they needed that money to replenish their reserves. For the larger insurance companies, this forced them to raise premiums to cover reserves. A lot of them are pulling out of the exchanges because they needed those payments in order to not take a loss. This, of course, creates an anti-competitive situation in quite a few states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
This is literally the only legislative accomplishment I think Rubio had during his entire Senate term. Not sure why he didn't run on it during the primary. I'd have figured "Guy who killed Obamacare" would've picked up a lot of GOP primary votes.
2. You're still deflecting as to what in Obamacare you find disagreeable. At least I know where Tgo stands - he wants single payer. You? It seems to me that your political philosophy is so incoherent that you can't even figure out what you support. I have no idea at this point why you were pro-Sanders.
Didn't they slip the whole "federal government is taking over student loans" thing into Obamacare too? That was a pretty dick move too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Liking a candidate doesn't automatically mean falling in line with every single one of their political positions.
Are you a single issue voter on marijuana legalization?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Thread: More Obamacare fuckupsQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Zero. Self. Awareness. So much for me being "delusional," and "everyone" thinking how obviously NOT conservative you are. Have fun palling around with your fellow conservatives.
So much salt from you, Ashley.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll...0ekdo1_500.gif
Give him a break, he's special needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Special. Needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
It generally means that either:Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
a) you have party allegiance to the candidate;
b) you agree with a considerable amount of their political positions; or
c) you know the candidate personally
A and C don't apply here. So what exactly did you agree with Bernie on?
Or you agree with more of their stances than the other candidate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Or you would rather anybody be in office that isn't Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
again with the assumptions..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal