More Obamacare fuckups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Who would be more at fault? The people on side A that came up with the bill, or the people on side B that were too stupid to vote against it?

Let's pretend person A is a drunk driver. Person B is in the passenger seat. The car crashes and kills an entire family. Person A and person B come out without a scratch of course.

Who is more at fault...person A for being in the driver's seat? Or person B for not taking person A's keys away?

---

Does this mean that The Dems are both parts, A and B when it comes to Obamacare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I've never said I was unbiased. I find it amusing how a rabid liberal like you could possible state that you have no problem pointing a finger at your own party faults when the history of your posts on this forum states otherwise.

---

This high horse you ride is more like a My Little Pony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

You mean banks are knocking people out on the street, putting hoods over their heads, and forcing them at gunpoint to buy a car they can't afford and won't keep?

Those fucking Banks!!

---

Neither banks or individuals are angels.

This thread seems to be incorrectly titled since there seems to rarely be discussion about Obama as indicated. Thus, I re dub it the Perpetual Insult of the Circular Argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Give some examples... I'm sure you will find I am correct and you are once again proven blissfully ignorant as usual.

---

Just like denying that mankind has an affect on the environment? Something is changing. Something is in the air. Could it be a sea change of the republican talking point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

This thread seems to be incorrectly titled since there seems to rarely be discussion about Obama as indicated. Thus, I re dub it the Perpetual Insult of the Circular Argument.

---

http://t1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/39/90/44/...F5m7hnWY0Q.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

This thread seems to be incorrectly titled since there seems to rarely be discussion about Obama as indicated. Thus, I re dub it the Perpetual Insult of the Circular Argument.

---

There have been a lot of discussions about the failures of Obamacare. The problem is Democrats are trying to spin a failure into a success, sort of like how they've been doing with Obama for 6 years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

I find it telling that you're willing to discount any effect on inflation that minimum wage may have, simply because you can't directly correlate only minimum wage increases to only inflation increases. The economy is way more complex than that.

---

Of course it's telling, man, I'm a scientist. Where there is no data, there is no belief.

Quote:

---

It is indeed a significant one; notice I was the first one to bring it up. This goes back to the system...if you can find some sort of empirical evidence that proves that the price fixes they use is the main cog in that machine, I'm all ears.

---

Ah, but they don't have to be used to have an effect. Like the threat of censorship and free speech, the mere threat of price controls is enough to hold price gouging in check. How can I back that up? As follows:

1. We know the United States and Singapore are not different in competition. The top five health insurance companies in each country control the same market share.

2. We know the United States and Singapore are not different in government subsidy. If anything, Singapore's scheme of forcing citizens to save thousands of dollars is a more dramatic and market-warping subsidy.

3. We know that Singapore has seen dramatically less price increases than the United States. If not because of competition or government subsidy, then why not price controls? Economies are complex, granted, but it seems a pretty direct causation: the government says prices can't go more than yea high, then the prices don't go yea high.

Quote:

---

My overarching opinion is that they are wrong in any situation...I've stated that I believe Singapore's healthcare system succeeds in spite of them, not because of them.

---

I understand that you believe this to be true. I also understand that you believe Singapore's system creates more competition than ours does. When I have demonstrated that the latter is untrue, however, I think it behooves you to reexamine the former. No?

Quote:

---

Well yes, in a sense. The unfortunate reality(inconvenient truth?) is that our civilization has been building up to that very thing for generations now...you can't honestly look at the almost 18 TRILLION DOLLAR debt and be like "oh, it's a percentage of GDP, we're fine"...I've previously linked visual references to what 18 trillion dollars actually looks like, IRL...it's somewhat akin to a person standing next to a nuclear-class aircraft carrier...except instead of a ship it's just piles of money. Pallets of money. Stacked a hundred feet high and a thousand feet deep. All 100's.

---

I can do that, because I honestly believe in basic arithmetic and the concept of inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

It is a shame that the Founding Fathers did not *literally* write "the Scope of Government (Bureaucracy) must not grow beyond xxx/yyy/zzz" (with x/y/z being defined as defense, trade, etc)

---

Then again, maybe it was a conscious choice. Consider these two phrases from the Articles of Confederation and Constitution respectively, with added emphasis mine:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Doesn't this suggest that they tried it your way, decided it was junk, and hotfixed that philosophy out? You can criticize their failure to wipe the character base after beta, sure, but the release notes are pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

This high horse you ride is more like a My Little Pony.

---

I don't think the phrase means what you think it means. I'm not the one proclaiming myself to be unbiased or unafraid to point the finger at my own party... or that other people are not being "classy"... that's you.

Hell, even the post you quoted of mine said I am not unbiased and never claimed to be.

You should stick to playing the victim.. you might get someone to feel badly for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

This thread seems to be incorrectly titled since there seems to rarely be discussion about Obama as indicated. Thus, I re dub it the Perpetual Insult of the Circular Argument.

---

Fantastic input as usual. You really articulated the issues you see with the ACA in ways none of us ever could.

Please... continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Just like denying that mankind has an affect on the environment? Something is changing. Something is in the air. Could it be a sea change of the republican talking point?

---

Are you high again at 4 in the afternoon?

Here is an easy assignment for you: Just quote one post of mine that states I believe that man doesn't affect the environment. I have tons of posts in multiple threads about climate change.

Just one post is all it takes for you not to be the brain dead retard you have always been here.