Author Topic: ACA  (Read 32602 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #105 on: November 09, 2013, 05:42:06 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?

If they refuse to get a job?  why is that my problem if they choose to sit on their asses and do nothing?    Why should I work harder and get taxed more for someone who refuses to pay their fair share?   

It's amazing how soft people are in this country.  What happened to the backbone of people busting their asses for what's theirs?  Truly sad state we are in now.
That's all well and good, but those people exist. Whether it's because they're lazy fucks, or because the can't get a job that provides healthcare, they're out there. You still haven't said you're willing to let them die, and you still haven't addressed the fact that you're already paying for them whether you realize it or not.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #106 on: November 09, 2013, 05:44:54 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

Here ya go:

Fire's spread. It's what they do. WIthout proper containment, they can spread from one house to another. Say someones house catches on fire, and they don't have the money to put out the fire. Should the neighbors have to pay the bill for their 'irresponsible' neighbor? And if they don't have the money, should it just spread until someone does have the money to pay for it? Which gets increasingly hard, because the more the fire spreads, the harder it is to put out, the costlier it becomes. It starts to become everyones interest, within a locality, to ensure fires get put out,  because it is for their own benefit. It is cheaper to put out the fire when it is small at the persons house who cannot afford the fire service than to let it grow.

Which is directly comparable to health insurance. It is cheaper to give people preventive care than it is to not let them die in the hospital later.

The world is an interconnected system. I don't make it so, and you can't make it not so.

It's not even close to the same thing, so try another way of convincing me that MORE government interference in the medical industry is a good thing.  You might like government mandates and socialized medicine and nanny state propaganda but it doesn't belong in a free republic.  These health care systems aren't as ubiquitously successful as everyone here is claiming they are either. 

Here's what a rational discussion would entail:

You're wrong, and here's why you're wrong.

Here's what you're doing:

You're wrong!

It's just not worth debating something with someone when they refuse to respond rationally, or deal with reality. Peace.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4588
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #107 on: November 09, 2013, 05:45:21 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?

If they refuse to get a job?  why is that my problem if they choose to sit on their asses and do nothing?    Why should I work harder and get taxed more for someone who refuses to pay their fair share?   

It's amazing how soft people are in this country.  What happened to the backbone of people busting their asses for what's theirs?  Truly sad state we are in now.

You didn't answer my question.  What is the hospital supposed to do? 

They've given emergency care to a patient, and that patient isn't paying for that emergency care.  The hospital deserves (and potentially needs) to be reimbursed for the care they have provided, don't they?  So where are they supposed to get the money?  They aren't getting it from the patient, you don't want them to get it from the government, you don't want them to get it from the taxpayers, so what are they supposed to do?  Just eat the loss? 

Or perhaps they should have refused to provide emergency care in the first place?  In that case, you're back to letting the patient die.  (And for the record, I'm with El Barto on this point: if you were to just say 'let them die,' I wouldn't hold it against you.  It's a valid position.  It doesn't sit well with me, but it's a valid position.)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 05:50:31 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #108 on: November 09, 2013, 05:53:37 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?

If they refuse to get a job?  why is that my problem if they choose to sit on their asses and do nothing?    Why should I work harder and get taxed more for someone who refuses to pay their fair share?   

It's amazing how soft people are in this country.  What happened to the backbone of people busting their asses for what's theirs?  Truly sad state we are in now.
That's all well and good, but those people exist. Whether it's because they're lazy fucks, or because the can't get a job that provides healthcare, they're out there. You still haven't said you're willing to let them die, and you still haven't addressed the fact that you're already paying for them whether you realize it or not.

Of course I know  I am already paying for them.  You don't think I know to where all of my taxes go?  You don't think it irritates me that I'm quite possibly somebody's meal ticket?  Yes there are some people that genuinely need assistance and I am completely understanding towards that.  But lets lay all of the cards on the table and not ignore the fact that there is an astronomical amount of freeloaders out there bleeding the system. It should irritate everyone one of us because what they steal, is taken from someone else, and eventually falls on the backs of the taxpayers. 

And again, I am not saying let them die.  You seem to have this black and white logic about beating this answer out of me.  For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.  Get rid of all the nonsensical government bullshit, let the doctors and hospitals do their jobs, and the question of letting them live or die wouldn't even have to come to fruition. 

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4588
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #109 on: November 09, 2013, 05:58:03 PM »
For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.

So that's the solution, you're saying?  The answer to my question is that the hospital should appeal to charities for help?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #110 on: November 09, 2013, 06:04:54 PM »
For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.

So that's the solution, you're saying?  The answer to my question is that the hospital should appeal to charities for help?

Since when is it so obscure for a hospital to thrive on donations?  Look at the Shriner hospitals, which are completely funded by private donations and the Freemasons.   Are you going to tell me that there is some big mystery behind this? 

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4588
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #111 on: November 09, 2013, 06:08:09 PM »
The question wasn't meant to be sarcastic or derogatory.  I'm not trying to antagonize you, and I'm not against you.  I'm honestly just trying to understand your position.  Sorry if it doesn't seem that way.   :)
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #112 on: November 09, 2013, 06:12:52 PM »
The question wasn't meant to be sarcastic or derogatory.  I'm not trying to antagonize you, and I'm not against you.  I'm honestly just trying to understand your position.  Sorry if it doesn't seem that way.   :)

Well I'm a little tired of trying to defend myself here like I'm the one who is the oddball for realizing that in this Republic, the solution is not more government but less government.  I am sure many people can understand the logic behind that but it seems people are just genuinely for more government, while I am not. 

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #113 on: November 09, 2013, 06:14:57 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

Here ya go:

Fire's spread. It's what they do. WIthout proper containment, they can spread from one house to another. Say someones house catches on fire, and they don't have the money to put out the fire. Should the neighbors have to pay the bill for their 'irresponsible' neighbor? And if they don't have the money, should it just spread until someone does have the money to pay for it? Which gets increasingly hard, because the more the fire spreads, the harder it is to put out, the costlier it becomes. It starts to become everyones interest, within a locality, to ensure fires get put out,  because it is for their own benefit. It is cheaper to put out the fire when it is small at the persons house who cannot afford the fire service than to let it grow.

Which is directly comparable to health insurance. It is cheaper to give people preventive care than it is to not let them die in the hospital later.

The world is an interconnected system. I don't make it so, and you can't make it not so.

It's not even close to the same thing, so try another way of convincing me that MORE government interference in the medical industry is a good thing.  You might like government mandates and socialized medicine and nanny state propaganda but it doesn't belong in a free republic.  These health care systems aren't as ubiquitously successful as everyone here is claiming they are either. 

Here's what a rational discussion would entail:

You're wrong, and here's why you're wrong.

Here's what you're doing:

You're wrong!

It's just not worth debating something with someone when they refuse to respond rationally, or deal with reality. Peace.

Right, because I am not agreeing with your ideology I am out of  touch with reality.

Online Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4524
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: ACA
« Reply #114 on: November 09, 2013, 06:41:39 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?

If they refuse to get a job?  why is that my problem if they choose to sit on their asses and do nothing?    Why should I work harder and get taxed more for someone who refuses to pay their fair share?   

It's amazing how soft people are in this country.  What happened to the backbone of people busting their asses for what's theirs?  Truly sad state we are in now.
That's all well and good, but those people exist. Whether it's because they're lazy fucks, or because the can't get a job that provides healthcare, they're out there. You still haven't said you're willing to let them die, and you still haven't addressed the fact that you're already paying for them whether you realize it or not.

Of course I know  I am already paying for them.  You don't think I know to where all of my taxes go?  You don't think it irritates me that I'm quite possibly somebody's meal ticket?  Yes there are some people that genuinely need assistance and I am completely understanding towards that.  But lets lay all of the cards on the table and not ignore the fact that there is an astronomical amount of freeloaders out there bleeding the system. It should irritate everyone one of us because what they steal, is taken from someone else, and eventually falls on the backs of the taxpayers. 

And again, I am not saying let them die.  You seem to have this black and white logic about beating this answer out of me.  For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.  Get rid of all the nonsensical government bullshit, let the doctors and hospitals do their jobs, and the question of letting them live or die wouldn't even have to come to fruition.

In other words, find a way to get rid of/punish the freeloaders, and let everyone else who actually can't pay stay with the program? Seems logical enough to me.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #115 on: November 09, 2013, 06:50:30 PM »
Right, because I am not agreeing with your ideology I am out of  touch with reality.

Not at all what I said.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #116 on: November 09, 2013, 07:06:09 PM »
And again, I am not saying let them die.  You seem to have this black and white logic about beating this answer out of me.  For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.  Get rid of all the nonsensical government bullshit, let the doctors and hospitals do their jobs, and the question of letting them live or die wouldn't even have to come to fruition.
I'm not looking to push a black or white answer on you at all. The problem is that you haven't offered up any alternative other than "Obamacare is evil!" You recognize that freeloaders are out there (though they're not to the extent you imagine). We've finally ascertained that you don't want to see them die (and I genuinely didn't know if you did or not, but I'm surprised you don't). So what now? You hate the status quo, and you you hate the ACA, so where does that leave you?

And as for the donations part, I think you're a little out of time. Hospitals did just fine when you could mend a broken arm in exchange for a chicken and couple of weeks worth of milk. Those times are long gone. How much in donations do you have to take in to treat somebody for cancer in this country? Hell, how bout just an appendectomy or childbirth? Donations might still work in countries that don't rape people who try to stay alive, but this ain't one of them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #117 on: November 09, 2013, 07:22:39 PM »
And again, I am not saying let them die.  You seem to have this black and white logic about beating this answer out of me.  For years we thrived on private donations and charitable donations.  Get rid of all the nonsensical government bullshit, let the doctors and hospitals do their jobs, and the question of letting them live or die wouldn't even have to come to fruition.
I'm not looking to push a black or white answer on you at all. The problem is that you haven't offered up any alternative other than "Obamacare is evil!" You recognize that freeloaders are out there (though they're not to the extent you imagine). We've finally ascertained that you don't want to see them die (and I genuinely didn't know if you did or not, but I'm surprised you don't). So what now? You hate the status quo, and you you hate the ACA, so where does that leave you?

And as for the donations part, I think you're a little out of time. Hospitals did just fine when you could mend a broken arm in exchange for a chicken and couple of weeks worth of milk. Those times are long gone. How much in donations do you have to take in to treat somebody for cancer in this country? Hell, how bout just an appendectomy or childbirth? Donations might still work in countries that don't rape people who try to stay alive, but this ain't one of them.

I've said nothing but "Obamacare is evil?"  Really?   I must have been posting under a different name then for a little while.  I've offered up solutions that you probably missed or just don't care enough to entertain.  Maybe you don't think those suggestions were valid because they don't fit your ideology but the world goes beyond the few people having this discussion. 

And again, if you don't want to see people continuously getting raped at the hospital stop with the government interference.  Stop the regulations and let people do their jobs.  I am against government involvement, but you seem to be for it.  With things the way you think they should go, it will never get better. Loosen the choke hold that government puts on doctors, insurance companies, licensing, drugs, etc and things will get better.  Government interference is not the answer. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #118 on: November 09, 2013, 09:25:47 PM »
I've said nothing but "Obamacare is evil?"  Really?   I must have been posting under a different name then for a little while.  I've offered up solutions that you probably missed or just don't care enough to entertain.  Maybe you don't think those suggestions were valid because they don't fit your ideology but the world goes beyond the few people having this discussion. 
First off, I wouldn't be replying to your posts if I couldn't entertain your ideas.

Second, I went back through your posts and found the few suggestions you've made. Charity, get a fucking job, and less government. The get a fucking job part is actually pretty reasonable and something I generally agree with, but not much of a solution to the problem, really. Charity and less government rely on two things that Libertarians tend to be wrong about. [For the record, there's plenty about Libertarianism I'm real cool with. The reason I tend to be against them so often is because of their black and white view that everything has to be completely market driven. Some things work better in that scenario. Some things require a different motivation than profit.] For one thing, the fact that people pay less in taxes does not mean that they'll make up the difference in services through charity. Furthermore, the fact that corporations have less overhead does not mean that they'll pass along their savings to consumers. The taxpayers will spend the majority of their money on toys, and the corporations will give their savings to the shareholders. Medical costs won't go down any significant amount. Drugs will remain stupidly expensive. Hospitals will still have to pass along the loss to the poor and freeloaders to everybody else.

For an economic school of thought that relies so heavily on "basic human nature," it sure does seem that the people who espouse it have very little understanding of how human nature actually works.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #119 on: November 09, 2013, 10:22:23 PM »
I think a lot of your response is speculation, especially with your opinion regarding Libertarians.  I am on a Libertarian forum and they bicker with each other same as Dems or Repubs. Not all of them see eye to eye, but they mostly all share the same foundation.  You will get SOME who have this black and white mentality about things but that is no different than any of the other political parties so it's not even worth the argument. 

What do lesser taxes in relation to charity have to do with anything?  Some will give more, some won't.  You can't really make a broad generalization like yours and expect it to hold water.

Regarding businesses having less overhead, you don't know for certain what their responses will be.  We can both assume that the bigger businesses won't give a shit about us and will continue to raise prices.  The smaller businesses I don't hold to the same assumption though.  Again, they are assumptions. 

Medical costs might go down, they might not.  Again more speculation.  No one can predict what will happen. 

And explain to me how getting these lazy layabouts off their asses to get jobs wouldn't be at least part of a solution to the problem. I get tired of hearing people whining that there are no jobs out there with health benefits.  There are plenty of jobs out there.  People just don't want to do the work.  Why would someone want to bust their ass for 40-50 hours a week when they can just sit home, let the television fry their minds, and collect a government check once a week?  I can totally understand that train of thought and if I had less respect for myself I would probably do the same too. 

I've offered other solutions, especially regarding the loosening of government regulations on the medical industry.  You can look there first for a big solution to the problem.  The government has its hands far too deep in the medical cookie jar and are licking their lips waiting for more. 

You can read this for a bit, or skim through it:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-613.pdf

Some information about the tax hikes among other things:

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758


Not just for you obviously.  But I figured I'd share since I'm that kind of guy.   Yes you can say I am focusing on the "negatives" but why would I ignore them when they are so blatantly obvious?  I think everyone else is not paying enough attention to the negatives and are crossing their fingers and closing their eyes really tight hoping that it will all work in the end.



Oh, and I'm going to bed.  I'm beat. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #120 on: November 10, 2013, 04:00:39 AM »
Of course I know  I am already paying for them.  You don't think I know to where all of my taxes go? 
Apparently, because what you keep missing, although it's been pointed out many, many times in this thread is that the way you are paying for them is THROUGH YOUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.  Healthcare providers cannot refuse service to patients due to the hippocratic oath, so once it's time to pay, and they can't pay (regardless of the reason), the healthcare providers make up the loss by passing it onto the insurance companies, who make it up by passing it onto their policyholders (you, me, and everyone else that has health insurance).  That is a key component to why insurance premiums rise every year.

You are already paying for those without insurance, and you are doing it with YOUR INSURANCE.  Not through taxes.

The individual mandate part of the ACA is to provide that more people will actually have the coverage in place, so healthcare providers don't have to poss their cost on to you, making your premiums go up.  It's to make people contribute to the system who currently aren't.  It's to make sure that you, Peter, get robbed LESS to pay Paul.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #121 on: November 10, 2013, 08:19:52 AM »
Apparently, because what you keep missing, although it's been pointed out many, many times in this thread is that the way you are paying for them is THROUGH YOUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.  Healthcare providers cannot refuse service to patients due to the hippocratic oath, so once it's time to pay, and they can't pay (regardless of the reason), the healthcare providers make up the loss by passing it onto the insurance companies, who make it up by passing it onto their policyholders (you, me, and everyone else that has health insurance).  That is a key component to why insurance premiums rise every year.

You are already paying for those without insurance, and you are doing it with YOUR INSURANCE.  Not through taxes.

The individual mandate part of the ACA is to provide that more people will actually have the coverage in place, so healthcare providers don't have to poss their cost on to you, making your premiums go up.  It's to make people contribute to the system who currently aren't.  It's to make sure that you, Peter, get robbed LESS to pay Paul.

Okay, so then where does that extra money come from "to provide that more people will actually have the coverage in place", if it isn't coming from me?  Especially considering all of my premiums went up.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #122 on: November 10, 2013, 07:31:47 PM »
It comes from the individual mandate, which says that you have to get insurance or be fined.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #123 on: November 10, 2013, 07:53:30 PM »
It comes from the individual mandate, which says that you have to get insurance or be fined.

Oh, we're back to that mandate nonsense again.  Forcing people to buy something that most didn't need in the first place because they had something already?  It's a bit fascist if you ask me and not my cup of tea.  People here might like that but it has no place in this Republic.  If you just did what I said a million times regarding the overreaching government regulations on the medical industry, shit would even out and go back normal. TOO much government is the problem and eventually people will get that.  Until then it's an exercise in futility to argue with people who think more government is the answer. 

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #124 on: November 10, 2013, 08:51:39 PM »
We get it, you're a libertarian.

-J

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #125 on: November 11, 2013, 09:40:31 AM »
Until then it's an exercise in futility to argue with people who think more government is the answer.
It seems equally an exercise in futility to discuss (not argue) with people who think virtually no government is the answer.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #126 on: November 11, 2013, 10:42:53 AM »
Until then it's an exercise in futility to argue with people who think more government is the answer.
It seems equally an exercise in futility to discuss (not argue) with people who think virtually no government is the answer.

However I don't recall say "no government" is the answer, as I've said countless times that "more government" is not the answer.   ;)

I get it though.  People are misinformed due to the mainstream media being saturated with fallacies and some utopian promise made by the savior. But his utopian ideology already has some chinks in the armor and unfortunately as time goes on more will reveal themselves. And when it all fails (if it does <---  see I can be hopeful too), the burden will be on the taxpayer as always.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25380
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #127 on: November 11, 2013, 10:57:29 AM »
Prog Snob, while I agree with you that more government, generally speaking, is not necessarily the answer, I don't think sarcastically referring to Obama as "the savior" is helping here at all.  Just my two cents.  :)

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #128 on: November 11, 2013, 11:01:55 AM »
I get it though.  People are misinformed due to the mainstream media being saturated with fallacies and some utopian promise made by the savior. But his utopian ideology already has some chinks in the armor and unfortunately as time goes on more will reveal themselves. And when it all fails (if it does <---  see I can be hopeful too), the burden will be on the taxpayer as always.
Wow, what a grossly inaccurate characterization of, well, virtually everything.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #129 on: November 11, 2013, 11:03:58 AM »
Prog Snob, while I agree with you that more government, generally speaking, is not necessarily the answer, I don't think sarcastically referring to Obama as "the savior" is helping here at all.  Just my two cents.  :)

I agree with you and I am sure it's not helping.  But if people stopped treating him like one and actually admitted that the guy has broken so many of his promises  and is extremely unreliable these days plus admit that this plan of his could quite possibly become a big train wreck, I wouldn't have to point it out. 


I get it though.  People are misinformed due to the mainstream media being saturated with fallacies and some utopian promise made by the savior. But his utopian ideology already has some chinks in the armor and unfortunately as time goes on more will reveal themselves. And when it all fails (if it does <---  see I can be hopeful too), the burden will be on the taxpayer as always.
Wow, what a grossly inaccurate characterization of, well, virtually everything.

That's just your opinion.  If you want to believe everything the mainstream media tells you, then more power to you.  I'm not falling victim to the lies of both the left AND right. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #130 on: November 11, 2013, 11:12:59 AM »
I don't believe everything that ANYONE says.  The only one who views Obama as a savior here is apparently you, so you can set up a straw man to rail against.

I am just really tired of the old accusation "the mainstream media."  That's a big red flag for me. 

As far as I can see, what you are calling the mainstream media (which, by the way, is pretty much the legitimate media - no one calls them "mainstream media" except people whose views are too non-mainstream to get covered) has certainly not been kissing Obama's ass on this rollout, even people who you would probably find on his side (MSNBC hosts, Bill Maher, Jonathan Stewart, etc).

But whatever.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25380
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #131 on: November 11, 2013, 11:22:28 AM »
Yep, Stewart took Obama to task last week for his misspeaking about everyone being able to keep their doctor and insurance, even poking fun at him for his use of the word "period." :lol  Granted, it was somewhat of a set-up to rail against the GOP for going overboard with their criticism of it - kind of a "yeah, Obama misspoke, but look at what these nuts on the right are saying!! - but I do like the fact that no one is immune to criticism when it comes to his shtick.  It's one of the reasons why I love watching The Daily Show,  Well, that and Stewart is just funny as hell. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #132 on: November 11, 2013, 11:25:00 AM »
I agree, with Stewart it's open season on everyone who deserves it, which is everyone, sooner or later.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3928
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #133 on: November 11, 2013, 11:36:43 AM »
Stewart's been railing against Obama pretty regularly since the marketplaces opened and took Kathleen Sebelius to task for it as well. She pretty much spent the entire interview NOT answering the questions.

So yeah blaming the mainstream/lamestream/liberal media is an incredibly lame copout.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #134 on: November 11, 2013, 12:14:19 PM »
So you throw a couple of names out there as red herrings and I'm supposed to be like, "wow guys, you're all right. How foolish of me to think the government would deceive us." If people are starting to rally against Obama, then all that means is that they are finally opening their eyes. Good for them. It's too bad most people don't keep the same open mind.

Oh..."legitimate media"?  You mean like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN?   :lol

What might make then legitimate to most people is the fact that they keep it simple and subliminally tell you that you can trust them. Don't bother looking elsewhere because we have all of the facts right here for you.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #135 on: November 11, 2013, 12:17:31 PM »
No one here has ever said the government won't decieve us.  Of course they do sometimes, they are the government.

You are making arguments against positions that people here don't actually have.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16583
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #136 on: November 11, 2013, 12:26:01 PM »
So then everyone here is against the government telling us what to do? Because it seems to me if someone supports government mandates, then they are FOR the governments interference in health care. The government is the problem here. The sooner everyone realizes that and realizes that some authoritarian methodology isn't going to fix our already government-infested health care system, the better we'll be.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #137 on: November 11, 2013, 12:37:53 PM »
Oh..."legitimate media"?  You mean like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN?   :
As opposed to economiccollapseblog and watchdog.org?

I think you're misreading what's going on here. I mentioned that the reason I'm always at odds with Libertarians is because they take such a binary view of things, and you're doing just that. I suspect that everybody here would agree with a few very simple premises: Too much government is a very bad thing. Governmental oversight can be a good or bad thing depending on how it's handled. No government would be a very bad thing. Pretty straight forward.

Where the disconnect comes in is when people aren't able to acknowledge all of these things, and Libertarians often struggle with a few of them. Not only do you seem to have a real problem with the second premise, but you're ascribing your own inflexibility in the matter to everybody else when you suggest that people here who disagree with you do so because they love big government.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: ACA
« Reply #138 on: November 11, 2013, 12:38:39 PM »
Hey Prog Snob, how about you stop shoving your fucking beliefs down mine and everybody else's throats?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #139 on: November 11, 2013, 12:39:13 PM »
Or then there's that.  :rollin
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson