More Obamacare fuckups

[Whirlin]

Fair enough. And the rest of it? How about rationing of care? Don't think that'll happen?

I'm not sure why you're trying to defend an article that's has already been identified as out of date, and the bill has been revised since that analysis was performed. Furthermore, the bill was vetted through the supreme court. I don't care if the guy teaches law, the interpretation of the supreme court overrides anything he has to say as far as it being a constitutional or not.

But what really concerns me is that you're attempting to defend someone's else's interpretation of a draft version of the bill, and passing that as your own judgement towards the current bill.

I'm not sure how you do it. I wouldn't be so accepting of such second hand disclosures, unless you're seeing it across many sources, in which case, I'd recommend disregarding the current source and pulling up another that highlights the same concerns, and may be a little more timely and specific to the current Law.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm not sure why you're trying to defend an article that's has already been identified as out of date, and the bill has been revised since that analysis was performed. Furthermore, the bill was vetted through the supreme court. I don't care if the guy teaches law, the interpretation of the supreme court overrides anything he has to say as far as it being a constitutional or not.

But what really concerns me is that you're attempting to defend someone's else's interpretation of a draft version of the bill, and passing that as your own judgement towards the current bill.

I'm not sure how you do it. I wouldn't be so accepting of such second hand disclosures, unless you're seeing it across many sources, in which case, I'd recommend disregarding the current source and pulling up another that highlights the same concerns, and may be a little more timely and specific to the current Law.

Who's defending it? Who said I accepted it? WB is the only one who has made claims about it. I merely asked him to elaborate on those claims. Calm down.

[Whirlin]

Who's defending it? Who said I accepted it? WB is the only one who has made claims about it. I merely asked him to elaborate on those claims. Calm down.

You're right, my bad.

[cwolff]

So, if a program helps even one person.. it should be praised, no matter the cost.

When did Social Security become an entitlement? I thought that was the left's main defense of that system?

This is really great stuff. Thanks.

You're really stretching this just to be argumentative. This talk about "if it helps one person..." and whatever kind of word trap you're attempting to lay with the out of left field entitlement thing you brought up is pathetic. Just chill out dude.

[Warriorbird]

So, if a program helps even one person.. it should be praised, no matter the cost.

When did Social Security become an entitlement? I thought that was the left's main defense of that system?

This is really great stuff. Thanks.

Yes, it's really great stuff. It'd be up there with somebody attacking the police for saving their life.

[crb]

Lets pretend there are 10 different ways to provide "universal" healthcare to a country's citizens.

You could probably legitimately say, for each method, that it helps people. Does that mean each disparate method is perfect and beyond reproach? Logic dictates that one of those 10 must be better than the other 9, so if you're using one of the 9 ways, that aren't the best way, they'd be deserving of criticism, right? But you're not allowed to criticize it?

While its unfair to say there is no "republican alternative" or "free market alternative" or just "alternative" to Obamacare, it is also unfair for Republicans who personally aren't offering an alternative, or cannot articulate one, to attack it. Both sides can get pretty stupid on it, though I find it a constant source of amusement how liberals are willing to defend it seemingly because of whose name is on it, rather than it actually being a tool to accomplish any of their published goals (private goals of the increase in government power and rewarding special interests put aside).

There alternatives, and in fact I'd go so far as to say Obamacare is probably the worst possibly designed system on the face of the Earth for providing "universal" healthcare, you might dispute that but you'd be a retard to say its the best it can be. There are big problems with how it was designed, how it pays for itself, how it provides care, what it considers care to be, etc. It is 2000 pages, 1900 of which are crap.

I'd personally be in favor of a system that gave subsidies to more people, and reduced the number of uninsured even more than the rosiest predictions from the White House, and I'm a crazy libertarian. I'd just design it in a free market way and get all the stupid out. Personally I think somewhere between switzerland, germany, and us pre-obamacare is a good place to start.

[Warriorbird]

Fair enough. And the rest of it? How about rationing of care? Don't think that'll happen?

He doesn't really talk about the right wing conspiracy "rationing of care." notions just the rightwing conspiracy "OMG executive branch!" notions. I'd rather a poor or indigent person be able to get traditional medical care than be forced to use emergency care and the more expensive bill be footed by all of us, however.

It's a Republican bill. I just find it funny you guys don't get that it is because of the anti Obama obsession.

[Latrinsorm]

Why?

The individual knows best their living habits ... ie smoking, drinking, dietary, exercise, etc ... and can essentially control all of it.

So why should people who put effort into living healthy be forced to subsidize those who do not give a shit as far as personal self-responsibility goes.

Some people can smoke until 90 and never get cancer. Some people have gotten cancer from looking at a single carton of cigarettes. They may know their habits (although frankly I doubt that, most people are bad at math), but they certainly do not know what the consequences will be. Consider this - how many people knew about the risks of CTE in the 1980s? Besides the NFL, I mean, and obviously they weren't telling anyone.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business,and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

To assume that adding one variable allows you to predict an outcome with any certainty is pure arrogance, Mr. Connelly. (If that is your real name.)

[Warriorbird]

Lets pretend there are 10 different ways to provide "universal" healthcare to a country's citizens.

You could probably legitimately say, for each method, that it helps people. Does that mean each disparate method is perfect and beyond reproach? Logic dictates that one of those 10 must be better than the other 9, so if you're using one of the 9 ways, that aren't the best way, they'd be deserving of criticism, right? But you're not allowed to criticize it?

While its unfair to say there is no "republican alternative" or "free market alternative" or just "alternative" to Obamacare, it is also unfair for Republicans who personally aren't offering an alternative, or cannot articulate one, to attack it. Both sides can get pretty stupid on it, though I find it a constant source of amusement how liberals are willing to defend it seemingly because of whose name is on it, rather than it actually being a tool to accomplish any of their published goals (private goals of the increase in government power and rewarding special interests put aside).

There alternatives, and in fact I'd go so far as to say Obamacare is probably the worst possibly designed system on the face of the Earth for providing "universal" healthcare, you might dispute that but you'd be a retard to say its the best it can be. There are big problems with how it was designed, how it pays for itself, how it provides care, what it considers care to be, etc. It is 2000 pages, 1900 of which are crap.

I'd personally be in favor of a system that gave subsidies to more people, and reduced the number of uninsured even more than the rosiest predictions from the White House, and I'm a crazy libertarian. I'd just design it in a free market way and get all the stupid out. Personally I think somewhere between switzerland, germany, and us pre-obamacare is a good place to start.

None of those systems would've happened under the Republican Presidential candidate. This system would've happened under Mitt Romney too.

"Free market" ways would be a totally corrupt disaster, as such notions always are. With that said, while no Republicans ever had any intention of cooperating or negotiating with Obama on this bill (it was all lies) he actually did a really good job of producing one that makes the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry happy.

Taking advantage of Social Security and then whining about it will always be hypocritical.

[Parkbandit]

You're really stretching this just to be argumentative. This talk about "if it helps one person..." and whatever kind of word trap you're attempting to lay with the out of left field entitlement thing you brought up is pathetic. Just chill out dude.

What are you even talking about? He's talking about one person.. Ayn Rand.

I realize WB is using 3rd grade level "logic", but it's not that difficult of a thread to understand.

If you want pathetic, check out this post: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...55#post1595955