Author Topic: ACA  (Read 31894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2013, 10:43:53 AM »
Who said anything about being dumped for an inferior plan? The plans that are getting dumped are rock bottom plans, and the likelihood is that the pool will offer better.  And thankfully, Mr. Yeshua just demonstrated that very point.
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: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2013, 10:50:01 AM »
Who said anything about being dumped for an inferior plan? The plans that are getting dumped are rock bottom plans, and the likelihood is that the pool will offer better.  And thankfully, Mr. Yeshua just demonstrated that very point.

Likelihood...but it's not guaranteed.  This could, in the end, be a big mistake and no one can assuredly say otherwise. This is a risk for a lot of people.  These are five articles alone that do not paint a pretty picture so far.  I am sure I can find plenty more too. 

http://watchdog.org/114137/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare/

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

http://kdvr.com/2013/11/06/nearly-250000-colorado-healthcare-plans-cancelled-under-obamacare/

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-signs-that-obamacare-is-going-to-wreck-the-u-s-economy

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2013, 11:02:36 AM »
Nope. No guarantees. Also no time to read those articles, but one of the headlines refers to an estimate of 93 million, which based on my crummy math skills is about 2.9% of the population. Then factor in that plenty of them will do better with a pool policy. This honestly doesn't trouble me too much.

And for the record, this is an area where I'm biased as all fuck. Private insurance has been completely fleecing me for years now because of my health. It's inconceivable that once I go back to non-medicare insurance I won't get a much, much better deal with much better coverage.
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: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2013, 11:10:39 AM »
Nope. No guarantees. Also no time to read those articles, but one of the headlines refers to an estimate of 93 million, which based on my crummy math skills is about 2.9% of the population. Then factor in that plenty of them will do better with a pool policy. This honestly doesn't trouble me too much.

And for the record, this is an area where I'm biased as all fuck. Private insurance has been completely fleecing me for years now because of my health. It's inconceivable that once I go back to non-medicare insurance I won't get a much, much better deal with much better coverage.

How is $93 million, 2.9% of the population? 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2013, 11:52:57 AM »
Nope. No guarantees. Also no time to read those articles, but one of the headlines refers to an estimate of 93 million, which based on my crummy math skills is about 2.9% of the population. Then factor in that plenty of them will do better with a pool policy. This honestly doesn't trouble me too much.

And for the record, this is an area where I'm biased as all fuck. Private insurance has been completely fleecing me for years now because of my health. It's inconceivable that once I go back to non-medicare insurance I won't get a much, much better deal with much better coverage.

How is $93 million, 2.9% of the population?
Hence my warning of crummy math skills (and more importantly a desire to get my ass off to lunch).

However, I do have some other issues with the part of the Forbes article I skimmed over. I'll see about addressing them later.
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 kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2013, 01:12:12 PM »
 ::)   If I dig around long enough on the Internet I'm sure I can find 10 articles that provide conclusive evidence that Obama is really a walnut. 


Most of the reputable news sources are reporting that about 5% of the population will face having to change plans.  That means that 95% of the population will keep their existing plans.  You know, 95% as in the vast overwhelming majority. 


So, then, what about those 5% of people who will lose their plans?  I don't know.  But I suppose we can speculate that a portion of those people have junk plans and will probably get better coverage for about the same money.  Let's say roughly 1/3 of them end up in this category.  That would leave around 3% still having to find a new plan.   


Well, thanks to the provisions in the ACA those 3% cannot be rejected for a preexisting condition.  They'll never face a yearly maximum, nor will they face a lifetime maximum of coverage -something I am sure just about all of them face with their current plans.


Yes, the roll out of the website sucked.    But.... 


The Website =/= The Policy   








Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2013, 01:22:59 PM »
::)   If I dig around long enough on the Internet I'm sure I can find 10 articles that provide conclusive evidence that Obama is really a walnut. 


Most of the reputable news sources are reporting that about 5% of the population will face having to change plans.  That means that 95% of the population will keep their existing plans.  You know, 95% as in the vast overwhelming majority. 


So, then, what about those 5% of people who will lose their plans?  I don't know.  But I suppose we can speculate that a portion of those people have junk plans and will probably get better coverage for about the same money.  Let's say roughly 1/3 of them end up in this category.  That would leave around 3% still having to find a new plan.   


Well, thanks to the provisions in the ACA those 3% cannot be rejected for a preexisting condition.  They'll never face a yearly maximum, nor will they face a lifetime maximum of coverage -something I am sure just about all of them face with their current plans.


Yes, the roll out of the website sucked.    But.... 


The Website =/= The Policy

So post those articles from the reputable websites then so I can do my own research instead of taking your word for it.   ;)  We'll see which information is actually accurate and not just propaganda from both sides.   

And saying you don't know to the question of what happens to people who lose their plan, and only offering up speculation as an answer is a sloppy way to go about a situation.  You can't just take something like that from someone and be like " well you can't have this now, but these people over here are going to get something."  THAT is government run bullshit and THAT is not what this country was founded on.  People do nothing but criticize the government and rant and rave about how much the government has their heads up their asses, but these same people want government run health insurance.  Yeah...that's logic for you. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25221
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2013, 01:30:36 PM »
  People do nothing but criticize the government and rant and rave about how much the government has their heads up their asses, but these same people want government run health insurance.  Yeah...that's logic for you.

Exactly.  That is the part of me that still leans to the right: I am not in favor of giving government more control and power.  Given what a disaster our government has been for most of the 21st century (starting with W.), why would anyone want more government?  It boggles the mind.  Congress as a whole has a very low approval rating, and Obama's approval rating hasn't been good lately either, so it would appear as if the majority of the country is displeased with the government...but let's give them more control and power?  Come on.

I think those eggheads in D.C. forget that they work for us, not the other way around.  Just watching the arrogance of the GOP when they were all proud of themselves for the shutdown last month was nauseating. It's like, what planet are these people on? 

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2013, 01:31:43 PM »
Um, the ACA isn't "government-run Health Insurance"  You guys may want to brush up a bit on the actual metrics of what's going on BEFORE engaging on the topic.  :)

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25221
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2013, 01:33:32 PM »
I was speaking in more general terms, although I realize the quote I responded to did mention government-run health insurance, but your condescension is always appreciated.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2013, 01:33:57 PM »
Um, the ACA isn't "government-run Health Insurance"  You guys may want to brush up a bit on the actual metrics of what's going on BEFORE engaging on the topic.  :)
Beat me to it. If it were government run health care there'd probably be a few more of us supporting it. It's government mandated private health care, which is the shittiest of all possible worlds.
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 kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2013, 01:35:03 PM »
Directly from the NON-PARTISAN factcheck.org


Quote

In addition, we continue to see claims from the Republican side that the law creates “government-run” health care, or will cause a steep rise in premiums for typical families, or will give health insurance to illegal immigrants, or will lead to widespread cuts in Medicare benefits. As we've written before, none of that is true. We also see claims that the law allows tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, despite specific language in the law forbidding that.







Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2013, 01:37:01 PM »
Directly from the NON-PARTISAN factcheck.org


Quote

In addition, we continue to see claims from the Republican side that the law creates “government-run” health care, or will cause a steep rise in premiums for typical families, or will give health insurance to illegal immigrants, or will lead to widespread cuts in Medicare benefits. As we've written before, none of that is true. We also see claims that the law allows tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, despite specific language in the law forbidding that.


Yes. You have now convinced me because factcheck.org said "None of that is true."  :lol



Um, the ACA isn't "government-run Health Insurance"  You guys may want to brush up a bit on the actual metrics of what's going on BEFORE engaging on the topic.  :)

That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!   

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2013, 01:38:19 PM »
I was speaking in more general terms, although I realize the quote I responded to did mention government-run health insurance, but your condescension is always appreciated.


But it's not condescension.  You guys are posting stuff in this thread that is demonstrably false.  I'm suggesting that you may want to actually acquire the facts about the law before coming in here and regurgitating Republican talking points.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2013, 01:40:08 PM »
I was speaking in more general terms, although I realize the quote I responded to did mention government-run health insurance, but your condescension is always appreciated.


But it's not condescension.  You guys are posting stuff in this thread that is demonstrably false.  I'm suggesting that you may want to actually acquire the facts about the law before coming in here and regurgitating Republican talking points.

Not a Republican, my friend.  I don't use Faux News or any of those other bullshit websites for my political research.  I'm pretty open-minded in that aspect requiring facts and not Bill O' Reilly or Sean Hannity style talking points.


Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2013, 01:43:33 PM »
I was speaking in more general terms, although I realize the quote I responded to did mention government-run health insurance, but your condescension is always appreciated.


But it's not condescension.  You guys are posting stuff in this thread that is demonstrably false.  I'm suggesting that you may want to actually acquire the facts about the law before coming in here and regurgitating Republican talking points.

Not a Republican, my friend.  I don't use Faux News or any of those other bullshit websites for my political research. 




LMAO!!!

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2013, 01:50:27 PM »
And what is wrong with that site.  Follow the links within each article to the news links and research.  Furthermore, I'll state this again because some people just don't get it.  I'm sure this goes for everyone here.  Just because I post an article from a certain website does not mean I believe every word that website publishes.  I follow links from the websites to other websites and further my research thusly.  I'm sure I can go through that website and find a lot of bullshit too.  However, it sure beats using biased sites like MSNBC or FOX.


And I'm going to guess you didn't even bother to read anything on that website.  It's all just black and white for you isn't it?

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2013, 01:52:27 PM »
Directly from the NON-PARTISAN factcheck.org


Quote

In addition, we continue to see claims from the Republican side that the law creates “government-run” health care, or will cause a steep rise in premiums for typical families, or will give health insurance to illegal immigrants, or will lead to widespread cuts in Medicare benefits. As we've written before, none of that is true. We also see claims that the law allows tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, despite specific language in the law forbidding that.


Yes. You have now convinced me because factcheck.org said "None of that is true."  :lol



Um, the ACA isn't "government-run Health Insurance"  You guys may want to brush up a bit on the actual metrics of what's going on BEFORE engaging on the topic.  :)

That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!

You kept asking for examples and evidence, then when it's presented you call it nonsense.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2013, 01:54:20 PM »
Directly from the NON-PARTISAN factcheck.org


Quote

In addition, we continue to see claims from the Republican side that the law creates “government-run” health care, or will cause a steep rise in premiums for typical families, or will give health insurance to illegal immigrants, or will lead to widespread cuts in Medicare benefits. As we've written before, none of that is true. We also see claims that the law allows tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, despite specific language in the law forbidding that.


Yes. You have now convinced me because factcheck.org said "None of that is true."  :lol



Um, the ACA isn't "government-run Health Insurance"  You guys may want to brush up a bit on the actual metrics of what's going on BEFORE engaging on the topic.  :)

That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!

You kept asking for examples and evidence, then when it's presented you call it nonsense.

I was given a link that said "None of that is true."  Are you serious about me having to be satisfied with that?  I want real information people.  If you're convinced that easily, then more power to you. 

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2013, 02:02:03 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.








Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2013, 02:05:56 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.

When I get home, I will look at the sources at the bottom of the article to see if I can glean any hard evidence. 

Regardless, it is still government mandated.  NOT FOR ME.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2013, 02:16:02 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.

When I get home, I will look at the sources at the bottom of the article to see if I can glean any hard evidence. 

Regardless, it is still government mandated.  NOT FOR ME.


"Hard evidence" of what?  You posted a collection of links, at least one of them from a doomsday prognosticator who's pimping gold, silver, rare coins and other shit so that you can hole up in some cave next week when the rapidly approaching apocalypse completely eviscerates the entire world economy and you're worried about whether or not FactCheck.org contains unbiased critical analysis of the political landscape?  :lol   








Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2013, 02:31:27 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.

When I get home, I will look at the sources at the bottom of the article to see if I can glean any hard evidence. 

Regardless, it is still government mandated.  NOT FOR ME.


"Hard evidence" of what?  You posted a collection of links, at least one of them from a doomsday prognosticator who's pimping gold, silver, rare coins and other shit so that you can hole up in some cave next week when the rapidly approaching apocalypse completely eviscerates the entire world economy and you're worried about whether or not FactCheck.org contains unbiased critical analysis of the political landscape?  :lol

So you normally judge a book by its cover or do you it's more wise to dig a little deeper first before giving an opinion I expect to be reliable.  You're dismissing a site immediately because of ads it has displayed.  Open your mind a bit. Don't be such a government shill.

You can suck on government's teets all you want.  It's not for me.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2013, 02:55:20 PM »
Who said anything about being dumped for an inferior plan? The plans that are getting dumped are rock bottom plans, and the likelihood is that the pool will offer better.  And thankfully, Mr. Yeshua just demonstrated that very point.

Likelihood...but it's not guaranteed.  This could, in the end, be a big mistake and no one can assuredly say otherwise. This is a risk for a lot of people.  These are five articles alone that do not paint a pretty picture so far.  I am sure I can find plenty more too. 

http://watchdog.org/114137/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare/

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

http://kdvr.com/2013/11/06/nearly-250000-colorado-healthcare-plans-cancelled-under-obamacare/

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-signs-that-obamacare-is-going-to-wreck-the-u-s-economy

Read through them, and I find most of them without any real good analysis.

There's almost this assumption being made by those articles that everythign that's happening is going to be static. It's not. It's a dynamic market place taht will change and evolve over time. This is especially true for our health care system. Single-payer would be so much better, but one thing the ACA does do is start addressing the problem of preventive care. Which is so much cheaper, and helps lower the costs of the health care in the country, for everyone.

Here's what happens under a system where we don't give everyone access to health care:

People who can't afford access to a doctor or get professional health care when they need it, end up ignoring things that are good to address. By not addressing them, they develop into more serious conditions. When this happens, something bad could happen, and this person ends up in an ER. At this point, you can either let people die if they don't have the money, or give them the care they need to survive. Letting them die is about the most unethical thing you can do, so we take care of them. This is always more expensive then it would have been if that same person got the issue checked out and noticed early. And, since they can't pay for it, someone has to find away to fill that gap. The way I think it was found in the old system is that hospitals charged insurance companies more for their procedures, thereby raising the premiums everyone else pays for their insurance. Meaning, of course, that in any civil society, in the health care market place, people who can afford access to health care will be paying for the people who can't afford access to health care.

This kind of problem is exactly why this country was founded. To promote the general welfare of this country.

Of course, all those news articles you linked to, or which were found in the blog, don't take this into consideration. They don't evaluate the 'problems' they're bringing up, they just put them out there. A lot of the problems brought up were problems before the ACA, and it is a pure list of negative things, without any mention of the positives. Of those that are genuinly because of the ACA, there is no future analysis or even analysis of what kind of real effect that's going to have. It's a beginning, not an end.




Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2013, 03:09:05 PM »
That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!
Dude, by and large I've thought you posting here was pretty solid, whether I agree with it or not. This is pretty awful, though. If you can't see the difference between the government running something and the government telling you to buy it from the open market, then I'm not real sure there's much point continuing.

And how can you be so hazy on Factcheck.org? They have a pretty long history of objectivity and doing exactly what a person who claims to want unbiased information should be interested in.
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: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2013, 04:16:46 PM »
That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!
Dude, by and large I've thought you posting here was pretty solid, whether I agree with it or not. This is pretty awful, though. If you can't see the difference between the government running something and the government telling you to buy it from the open market, then I'm not real sure there's much point continuing.

And how can you be so hazy on Factcheck.org? They have a pretty long history of objectivity and doing exactly what a person who claims to want unbiased information should be interested in.

I never said I wouldn't check out the article completely including the sources.

And you're right.  I didn't address it properly when I called it "government run." Government mandated isn't any better though. I don't feel people should be forced to choose anything. He flat out lied when he said people would be able to keep their insurance and admitting he lied doesn't lessen the fallacy. Who knows what other untruths will reveal themselves eventually.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8953
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: ACA
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2013, 04:26:12 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.

When I get home, I will look at the sources at the bottom of the article to see if I can glean any hard evidence. 

Regardless, it is still government mandated.  NOT FOR ME.


"Hard evidence" of what?  You posted a collection of links, at least one of them from a doomsday prognosticator who's pimping gold, silver, rare coins and other shit so that you can hole up in some cave next week when the rapidly approaching apocalypse completely eviscerates the entire world economy and you're worried about whether or not FactCheck.org contains unbiased critical analysis of the political landscape?  :lol

So you normally judge a book by its cover or do you it's more wise to dig a little deeper first before giving an opinion I expect to be reliable.  You're dismissing a site immediately because of ads it has displayed.  Open your mind a bit. Don't be such a government shill.

You can suck on government's teets all you want.  It's not for me.

Tone it down!

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2013, 04:27:29 PM »
No, you were given a link to a widely-recognized, non-partisan, fact-checking website.

When I get home, I will look at the sources at the bottom of the article to see if I can glean any hard evidence. 

Regardless, it is still government mandated.  NOT FOR ME.


"Hard evidence" of what?  You posted a collection of links, at least one of them from a doomsday prognosticator who's pimping gold, silver, rare coins and other shit so that you can hole up in some cave next week when the rapidly approaching apocalypse completely eviscerates the entire world economy and you're worried about whether or not FactCheck.org contains unbiased critical analysis of the political landscape?  :lol

So you normally judge a book by its cover or do you it's more wise to dig a little deeper first before giving an opinion I expect to be reliable.  You're dismissing a site immediately because of ads it has displayed.  Open your mind a bit. Don't be such a government shill.

You can suck on government's teets all you want.  It's not for me.

Tone it down!

Noted.  :tup

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2013, 04:43:09 PM »
That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!
Dude, by and large I've thought you posting here was pretty solid, whether I agree with it or not. This is pretty awful, though. If you can't see the difference between the government running something and the government telling you to buy it from the open market, then I'm not real sure there's much point continuing.

And how can you be so hazy on Factcheck.org? They have a pretty long history of objectivity and doing exactly what a person who claims to want unbiased information should be interested in.

I never said I wouldn't check out the article completely including the sources.

And you're right.  I didn't address it properly when I called it "government run." Government mandated isn't any better though. I don't feel people should be forced to choose anything. He flat out lied when he said people would be able to keep their insurance and admitting he lied doesn't lessen the fallacy. Who knows what other untruths will reveal themselves eventually.
I don't think mandated is any better, either. At the same time, given the choices I laid out last night, it's probably the best of them.

And Factcheck.org is solid. They usually come up the most during campaign season, when they analyze all of the ads; the majority of which are FoS.
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 Orthogonal

  • Posts: 916
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2013, 05:12:37 PM »
That is just a bunch of nonsense, my friend. Call it whatever you wish.. "government-sponsored", "government mandated", "tax-payer funded", I don't care.  Color a piece of shit all you want, underneath it still stinks of bureaucracy and bullshit!
Dude, by and large I've thought you posting here was pretty solid, whether I agree with it or not. This is pretty awful, though. If you can't see the difference between the government running something and the government telling you to buy it from the open market, then I'm not real sure there's much point continuing.

And how can you be so hazy on Factcheck.org? They have a pretty long history of objectivity and doing exactly what a person who claims to want unbiased information should be interested in.

Except it isn't an open market. It is an oligopolized special interest market. Best described as a racket.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18354
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2013, 05:26:21 PM »
I certainly considered my usage of "open market" when I posted that. What I decided is that it's no different than what we have now (an oligopolized special interest market (or racket)), and people seem to think that's an open market.
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 hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40224
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2013, 03:29:24 AM »
It's an opener market than it used to be.

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: 16585
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2013, 04:54:41 AM »
So I read through the article a couple of times and even read through a couple of the sources on the bottom.   The article lays out some basic facts about ACA and that's it.  Nothing there dissuades me from thinking it's wrong to force someone to use something and fine them when they refuse.  Oh, and if they don't pay the fine the deductions will be taken from tax returns, etc. 

The bottom line is that this guy flat out lied and now there are millions of people who have to absorb the effects of it.  Where there is one lie, many will follow.  Don't fool yourself into believing that there was just ONE lie about ACA.  No one can predict what will happen over the coming months regarding this bill, but the signs so far are not good. In the end it comes down to what people believe is good for this country, regardless of facts and deceptions.  More government interference is NOT what we need.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9277
Re: ACA
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2013, 08:44:57 AM »
But how many of these millions are parasitic freeloaders? My aunt and uncle are two of them and I have zero sympathy.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2466
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: ACA
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2013, 09:09:52 AM »
But how many of these millions are parasitic freeloaders? My aunt and uncle are two of them and I have zero sympathy.
Quite a few less than many conservatives would lead everyone to think, but of course there are some.