The healthcare reform bill is shit.

[B_VinylBoy]

Not a problem
No public option

I already addressed that several times on this board. I was a major supporter of a public option. Again, not noticed by you because you were too busy paying attention to the bickering between the Hatfields and the McCoys.

- No direct cost controls
- Not universal....CBO estimates 24 million uninsured by 2019

Already addressed by many other people.
The CBO estimate will most likely change as more revisions are made to the bill. That is, unless, you honestly think the Health Care Bill will not ever be addressed or amended again.

- Essentially the same as 1994 GOP plan, hasn't aged well

You're starting to get rhetorical here. Don't bore me, for once you actually have my interest.

- Also very similar to Mass. plan, where tons of people forego treatment due to cost

Even if you managed to cover everyone, there will still be people who will forego treatments due to cost. The costs for many surgical procedures are not going to magically disappear just because people would have insurance. These problems goes beyond health care reform, and focuses on other financial issues that affect the citizens of our nation.

- Excise tax will lead to shittier corporate plans

If something like an excise tax affects current corporate plans, it has nothing to do with the reform itself but the CEOs and presidents of these companies who will then sacrifice quality of care for their employees just to protect their own profits. I could careless whether or not a multi-million dollar corporation starts to feel the pinch. Not every quarter can bring in a bigger profit than the last one. You have other interesting ideas, but anyone could have told you that this bill wasn't going to include every single one we could think of.

There's a start. I'm happy to discuss the bill on specific points, but nobody even tried.

Correction - you never noticed... and that's your OWN damn fault.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

I already addressed that several times on this board. I was a major supporter of a public option. Again, not noticed by you because you were too busy paying attention to the bickering between the Hatfields and the McCoys.

I checked on several pages of this board, I'm not going back farther than that.

Already addressed by many other people.
The CBO estimate will most likely change as more revisions are made to the bill. That is, unless, you honestly think the Health Care Bill will not ever be addressed or amended again.

When do we get this congress that is more progressive than the current one? After the Democrats lose a bunch of seats in November? You're talking about a time line measured in years, at least.

You're starting to get rhetorical here. Don't bore me, for once you actually have my interest.

It's a valid point. Even David Frum has pointed out that it was silly for conservatives to be opposing this bill, since they would have been for it, if it had been proposed by McCain(parts of it were).

Even if you managed to cover everyone, there will still be people who will forego treatments due to cost. The costs for many surgical procedures are not going to magically disappear just because people would have insurance. These problems goes beyond health care reform, and focuses on other financial issues that affect the citizens of our nation.

Not true. In no other 1st world nation is this an issue, and I don't think you understand the scope of the problem.

21% of Mass residents forego treatment(including 12% of children)
18% are insured but can't afford to use their coverage.
(source)

This is a huge issue, and does not bode well for a bill that is largely based on this system.

The problem with our current system is that care is rationed based on ability to pay, rather than need, and the fact that you hand-wave this problem away without really addressing is disturbing.

Let me repeat...people going without treatment because they cannot afford it is a situation unique to America. Forty other nations have figure it out.

If something like an excise tax affects current corporate plans, it has nothing to do with the reform itself but the CEOs and presidents of these companies who will then sacrifice quality of care for their employees just to protect their own profits. I could careless whether or not a multi-million dollar corporation starts to feel the pinch. Not every quarter can bring in a bigger profit than the last one.

Again, you wave away a major issue. Yes, companies will cut benefits to escape the excise tax, that is the reason why I said the excise tax is bad.

An interesting idea would be to leave the excise tax out, but it was put in

You have other interesting ideas, but anyone could have told you that this bill wasn't going to include every single one we could think of.

None of them are new or controversial, and if you think they're "interesting" at all, you're not nearly as well informed on this subject as you pretend you are. They're all extremely old and boring ideas that aren't remotely radical or impossible. They're not in the bill, not because "we couldn't put every idea in", but because we didn't put any real reform in. The people who wrote the bill are hugely in the pocket of industry, and Obama hismelf cut a deal with the industry to kill many key reforms.

Correction - you never noticed... and that's your OWN damn fault.

I meant in this thread.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I checked on several pages of this board, I'm not going back farther than that.

In other words, you're lazy. Thanks for admitting that.

When do we get this congress that is more progressive than the current one? After the Democrats lose a bunch of seats in November? You're talking about a time line measured in years, at least.

Doesn't matter.
Common sense should tell you that when Democrats win in states that are usually Conservative, their viewpoints will not be as far left as the rest. You honestly think someone as left wing as Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean would have a chance in a state where a more moderate to conservative Democrat is now in the seat?

It's a valid point. Even David Frum has pointed out that it was silly for conservatives to be opposing this bill, since they would have been for it, if it had been proposed by McCain(parts of it were).

But you knew conservatives were simply playing party politics as the opposition, with their sole intention being to prevent any kind of bill from passing. That way, they could have campaigned this year that the Democrats did nothing while in power. As feeble minded as most people tend to be on political matters (as you so "adamantly" implied on your OP), do you think Democrats would have faired better if they didn't pass anything at all, during an election year, thanks to a few overly idealistic provisions presented by a number of overzealous progressives that thought it was free season in Congress?

While it would have been nice to see them all rally behind one another in such partisan unity to pass the ultimate left leaning Health Care Bill, you knew it wasn't going to happen... did you?

At least, I hope you knew that.

Not true. In no other 1st world nation is this an issue, and I don't think you understand the scope of the problem.

21% of Mass residents forego treatment(including 12% of children)
18% are insured but can't afford to use their coverage.
(source)

Here's what you don't know... I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN MASSACHUSETTS. At one time, I was on a state funded program for health care in the state. I know this shit first hand. You can quote all of the stats you want from their websites in an attempt to look witty, but it still doesn't address all the REAL issues surrounding Health Care. I lived it. You can only read about it. So pay attention.

The reason why people forgo treatment, as you stated before, is because they can't afford it. You don't need a government poll to figure this out. But why can't they afford it? It's more than just the rising costs of health care. It's their rent, their utility bills, their low paying jobs and limited access to better paying ones, their daily necessities... ALL OF THAT plays a factor, son. Even if you're able to find a full time job that offers you health benefits or are on a government funded program, the mass majority of people still have immediate everyday expenses that cannot be ignored. These take priority for many before any health insurance bill. This is the plight that faces poor people everyday. They look at five bills, look at their finances, and figure out which three are more important and hope the other two can wait awhile until the next check. Expensive, life or death treatments are not going to dramatically drop in price just because we put a Public Option in the Health Care bill, so what are these people supposed to do if anyone of them needed heart surgery tomorrow?

The problem with our current system is that care is rationed based on ability to pay, rather than need, and the fact that you hand-wave this problem away without really addressing is disturbing.

You seriously don't do research on anyone you debate around here do you, son? Here's a link where I brought that same exact argument up against someone else, and if you weren't too busy thinking you were the only one bringing insight to the Health Care Debate you'd realize that you're only repeating things that many other people before you already voiced.

Let me repeat...people going without treatment because they cannot afford it is a situation unique to America. Forty other nations have figure it out.

You are SO naive if you think this only goes on in the United States. This even happens in the 40 other nations you want to scream about right now.

Again, you wave away a major issue. Yes, companies will cut benefits to escape the excise tax, that is the reason why I said the excise tax is bad.

I didn't "wave it away". I injected reality to the ideology. You know corporations are going to cut costs to protect their profits, and it's the employees that will suffer. So, instead of talking about how bad the excise tax would be, HOW would you resolve it?

This is where the REAL discussion begins, son... you listed the bullet points albeit in a style which suggests you copied/pasted it from a blog. Now, provide your ideas. How will these things be implemented? Projections for economic growth? Did you think this far yet?

None of them are new or controversial, and if you think they're "interesting" at all, you're not nearly as well informed on this subject as you pretend you are.

So sayeth the pseudo-progressive who says that 21% of people skip on health care treatment, yet DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY REAL MEANS FOR A SOLUTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM. Spare me what you think I don't know... because clearly, beyond the ideological hype you don't think at all.

They're all extremely old and boring ideas that aren't remotely radical or impossible. They're not in the bill, not because "we couldn't put every idea in", but because we didn't put any real reform in.

There is real reform in the bill as it stands. Not a lot of it, but it's there. You just didn't get all that you wanted... and now, you're bitching about it.
I don't care how many times you try to say that it doesn't do anything. The reality doesn't add up to your ideology.

The people who wrote the bill are hugely in the pocket of industry, and Obama hismelf cut a deal with the industry to kill many key reforms.

It's common knowledge that many people involved in writing the bill were receiving financial contributions from the insurance companies. You just figuring that out now? However, if you're going to blame that on Obama when the issue really festered in the Senate then you need to provide your sources. Otherwise, stop with the ideological psychobabble.

I meant in this thread.

Perhaps if you read other threads, this one wouldn't have been necessary?

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Doesn't matter.
Common sense should tell you that when Democrats win in states that are usually Conservative, their viewpoints will not be as far left as the rest. You honestly think someone as left wing as Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean would have a chance in a state where a more moderate to conservative Democrat is now in the seat?

Not sure how this answers my question. When exactly do you expect congress to become progressive enough to enact real reform?

But you knew conservatives were simply playing party politics as the opposition, with their sole intention being to prevent any kind of bill from passing. That way, they could have campaigned this year that the Democrats did nothing while in power. As feeble minded as most people tend to be on political matters (as you so "adamantly" implied on your OP), do you think Democrats would have faired better if they didn't pass anything at all, during an election year, thanks to a few overly idealistic provisions presented by a number of overzealous progressives that thought it was free season in Congress?

You're showing your centrist bias here, by describing what is literally the most conservative of actual reforms as "overly idealistic provisions presented by a number overzealos progressives"

Be more accurate. You mean the provisions that would upset the people paying for all of this.

While it would have been nice to see them all rally behind one another in such partisan unity to pass the ultimate left leaning Health Care Bill, you knew it wasn't going to happen... did you?

At least, I hope you knew that.

I expected a bill that was going to suck, but not be a complete blowjob to the healthcare industry. I guess "shitty" was setting the bar too high.

Here's what you don't know... I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN MASSACHUSETTS. At one time, I was on a state funded program for health care in the state. I know this shit first hand. You can quote all of the stats you want from their websites in an attempt to look witty, but it still doesn't address all the REAL issues surrounding Health Care. I lived it. You can only read about it. So pay attention.

OH MY GOD YOU LIVED THERE PLEASE AWE ME WITH YOUR ANECDOTES THAT ARE TOTALLY BETTER THAN ACTUAL DATA.

Don't be a tool, you know as well as I do that having lived there does not allow you to throw out statistics.

The reason why people forgo treatment, as you stated before, is because they can't afford it. You don't need a government poll to figure this out. But why can't they afford it? It's more than just the rising costs of health care. It's their rent, their utility bills, their low paying jobs and limited access to better paying ones, their daily necessities... ALL OF THAT plays a factor, son. Even if you're able to find a full time job that offers you health benefits or are on a government funded program, the mass majority of people still have immediate everyday expenses that cannot be ignored. These take priority for many before any health insurance bill. This is the plight that faces poor people everyday. They look at five bills, look at their finances, and figure out which three are more important and hope the other two can wait awhile until the next check. Expensive, life or death treatments are not going to dramatically drop in price just because we put a Public Option in the Health Care bill, so what are these people supposed to do if anyone of them needed heart surgery tomorrow?

No shit. I'm aware of all of that. Congratulations on "living it", so you can bring me the most basic information about what is wrong with our healthcare system. Whatever would I do without your firsthand account?

All you're saying is that the Mass system doesn't really solve any of the underlying issues with our system, which is exactly what I'm saying, and a valid criticism of the national system that's partially based on it.

You are SO naive if you think this only goes on in the United States. This even happens in the 40 other nations you want to scream about right now.

Feel free to give me another 1st world nation where 45,000 people die every year due to lack of healthcare. Feel free to give me another 1st world nation where anyone goes bankrupt because of medical costs. Feel free to give any other 1st world nation where you can be denied necessary medical care due to your inability to pay.

I didn't "wave it away". I injected reality to the ideology. You know corporations are going to cut costs to protect their profits, and it's the employees that will suffer. So, instead of talking about how bad the excise tax would be, HOW would you resolve it?

This is where the REAL discussion begins, son... you listed the bullet points albeit in a style which suggests you copied/pasted it from a blog. Now, provide your ideas. How will these things be implemented? Projections for economic growth? Did you think this far yet?

I'd increase the capital gains tax, and increase top marginal tax income tax rates, perhaps adding an upper bracket or two. I'm aware that's already being done somewhat with the current bill, but not as much as I'd like.

You could also make an argument for a VAT to help fund this, but you'd probably want to restructure the entire tax system at the same time to offset the regressiveness...having said that, a national health system is a really good reason to overhaul the tax system.

So sayeth the pseudo-progressive who says that 21% of people skip on health care treatment, yet DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY REAL MEANS FOR A SOLUTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM. Spare me what you think I don't know... because clearly, beyond the ideological hype you don't think at all.

Ah yes, clearly I've thought nothing of this. If only I had you to put the 21% in perspective. Here I thought that they just loved being sick and decided to skip treatment for no reason at all.

I think you've been arguing conservatives too long, and it's ruined your ability to argue with people who are farther left than you.

There is real reform in the bill as it stands. Not a lot of it, but it's there. You just didn't get all that you wanted... and now, you're bitching about it.
I don't care how many times you try to say that it doesn't do anything. The reality doesn't add up to your ideology.

The only things I really like in this bill are the increased government assistance to the poor and those on the margins. That's the only real reform in there. A lot of the other language is too lose and open for creative interpretation.

My ideology is that this bill was 99% a handout to the industry, the group that is the major cause of the system's underlying problems. It further entrenches them, while giving a shallow veneer of progressiveness. It hurts the movement towards progressiveness by A)putting money in the pockets of the businesses which will resist further change and B) Convincing low-info citizens that reform has been enacted, so they are less likely to push for further reforms, at least in the short term.

This is completely in line with what I've posted and reflected in the bill.

It's common knowledge that many people involved in writing the bill were receiving financial contributions from the insurance companies. You just figuring that out now? However, if you're going to blame that on Obama when the issue really festered in the Senate then you need to provide your sources. Otherwise, stop with the ideological psychobabble.

I know it's common knowledge, which is why your stance of "we couldn't just put everything in" made no sense. We didn't try to put everything in. We tried to keep everything out. Don't jump all over me for providing simple, obvious explanations for your silly excuses.

As for Obama, I'm actually surprised you're questioning me on that. I thought everyone even vaguely following the debate was aware of his deal with PhRMA, and strong hints about a deal to kill the public option.

Perhaps if you read other threads, this one wouldn't have been necessary?

Given the tired centrist rhetoric that you've been spouting in this thread, I imagine they didn't play out much differently than this. If you want to argue in another thread, feel free to dredge one up, otherwise, continue to engage in this one.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

I'd increase the capital gains tax, and increase top marginal tax income tax rates, perhaps adding an upper bracket or two. I'm aware that's already being done somewhat with the current bill, but not as much as I'd like.

You could also make an argument for a VAT to help fund this, but you'd probably want to restructure the entire tax system at the same time to offset the regressiveness...having said that, a national health system is a really good reason to overhaul the tax system.

Of course we could also stop invading places and cut military spending, but I suppose I have to be somewhat realistic here.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Not sure how this answers my question. When exactly do you expect congress to become progressive enough to enact real reform?

That may never happen. If it didn't with the majorities we had in place at the start of this presidency, then why expect it?

You're showing your centrist bias here, by describing what is literally the most conservative of actual reforms as "overly idealistic provisions presented by a number overzealos progressives"

You should really stop trying to put a label on me. I've made it a point since the age of six to shake those kinds of stereotypical definitions and I'm REALLY good at that. I'm not as moderate as you think. You continually forget that I agreed with you that the bill didn't go far enough. But there is an idealistic and realistic side to things in life and I look at them both. That allows me not to get caught up on the imagery and pay attention to the details.

Also, since when is trying to find the common ground between two factions considered a "bias"? Centrism, by definition, is the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes. Their actions assume the middle ground, regardless if their beliefs lean slightly towards Democratic or Republican ideology. To have a bias, by definition, is to demonstrate prejudice in favor of one thing, person or group, sometimes to the point where it may be considered unfair. On paper, the one thing a centrist could be "biased" about is the ideology of getting two different groups to work together and come up with a compromise. What's wrong with that?

I expected a bill that was going to suck, but not be a complete blowjob to the healthcare industry. I guess "shitty" was setting the bar too high.

Comments like this will always make you look more rabidly bitter than you need to be. Of course the bill wasn't perfect. And yes, you're trying to be funny. But you went to the well with this "joke" too many times so now I have reason to question just how fringeworthy you may be.

OH MY GOD YOU LIVED THERE PLEASE AWE ME WITH YOUR ANECDOTES THAT ARE TOTALLY BETTER THAN ACTUAL DATA.

Sarcasm only works when you're mentality is not on the level of a bitter, little punk who parades about as if they didn't get the Cha-Cha heels they wanted for Christmas. Believe me, I know you're upset.

Numbers on a piece of paper are just one form of cognition on the subject matter. Actual personal experience is another. Only a fool rejects knowledge just because it comes in a way they don't like. You don't have to like me in order to consider anything I say to be factual or with any substance. But if you actually was a mature adult as you pretend to be, you'd know when to do it.

Don't be a tool, you know as well as I do that having lived there does not allow you to throw out statistics.

Don't be an idiot. I didn't throw out statistics. Facts are not just proven with percentages, Einstein.

Congratulations on "living it", so you can bring me the most basic information about what is wrong with our healthcare system. Whatever would I do without your firsthand account?

You'd be exactly where you are right now. Bitter, childish, immature and voluntarily ignorant, arguing how some liberal minded people are not as liberal as you. Metaphorically speaking, you've thrown your dick on the table and are chastising people for not being as big or as thick as you. And you wonder why people may not see things your way? Seriously, how stupid are you?

All you're saying is that the Mass system doesn't really solve any of the underlying issues with our system, which is exactly what I'm saying, and a valid criticism of the national system that's partially based on it.

No, I didn't say that it didn't solve any of the issues within our system. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. If you paid attention, you'd understand that a major way to solve the problem of healthcare is to extricate or cut down other financial burdens affecting people. You do that through jobs, affordable housing and education among other things. It's not enough to say everyone gets free healthcare or put people on a public option when the costs for medical procedures and medicine continue to rise. Even if you put a cap on those prices to prevent them from going up dramatically, eventually you'll have people on a government plan who STILL can't afford it. The problem of people foregoing healthcare would still exist.

I'd increase the capital gains tax, and increase top marginal tax income tax rates, perhaps adding an upper bracket or two. I'm aware that's already being done somewhat with the current bill, but not as much as I'd like.

You could also make an argument for a VAT to help fund this, but you'd probably want to restructure the entire tax system at the same time to offset the regressiveness...having said that, a national health system is a really good reason to overhaul the tax system.

Now, if I was as shortsighted as you I would have demanded that you show me some "statistics". Funny how the same accusations you propose to me can be reflected right back at you, eh?

Right now this all sounds like a bunch of randomly thrown ideas with no structural plan for implementation... a bunch of big words to portray an insightful image, with nothing underneath it to maintain any kind of stability. It's certainly an idea, one that I know would receive much opposition just on the fact that you'd plan to raise taxes. Although I don't get terribly worked up on the idea that taxes may go up, there are other ways to address the issue so that when taxes do go up it's not so dramatic.

Ah yes, clearly I've thought nothing of this. If only I had you to put the 21% in perspective. Here I thought that they just loved being sick and decided to skip treatment for no reason at all.

You really are a pathetic tool, trying to twist a statistic like that into some kind of morality bomb. Is this the best you can do? Try to act as if I don't care about the sick because I don't side with you on hating the current HCL? Shut the fuck up. You're about as bad as a rabid theologist who molests scripture to pass their own bigoted agendas.

I think you've been arguing conservatives too long, and it's ruined your ability to argue with people who are farther left than you.

Here's the problem, son... you're NOT farther left than me. How many times do I have to say that I agree with you that the bill didn't go far enough before you actually comprehend that? Where we differ lays within the implementation of such a progressive agenda. I don't mind that reform is coming to us in small doses because that's how government works. I don't expect miracles, nor do I expect everything to rotate a complete 180% whenever power switches in Congress. Even when the slaves were freed, it took them nearly a century before anyone of them got their rights. Something for you to think about... if you dare.

You want everything now and bitch if it doesn't go your way. That doesn't make you "far left"... it makes you impatient, unrealistic, and completely incapable of discussing this matter in an objective manner.

The only things I really like in this bill are the increased government assistance to the poor and those on the margins. That's the only real reform in there. A lot of the other language is too lose and open for creative interpretation.

OMG... you're starting to look HUMAN again! Perhaps there's some hope after all?

I know it's common knowledge, which is why your stance of "we couldn't just put everything in" made no sense. We didn't try to put everything in. We tried to keep everything out. Don't jump all over me for providing simple, obvious explanations for your silly excuses.

Again, barking more ideological nonsense.
The bill was NEVER going to have everything you wanted in it, nor was the bill going to be as progressive as you expected. All one had to do was look at the people in play back when the legislation first started. You had an opposition that was determined to obstruct, enough "Conservative Democrats" in the Senate that could greatly affect the vote, plus a President who was hellbent on making a bill bipartisan yet you still couldn't figure out what the outcome was going to be. That's not an excuse... that was the REALITY of the situation and you happily ignored that just because you were wanking yourself off to the ideal of a "super majority", and a bunch of Democrats blindly voting in unison without any real thought about their own ideologies and convictions. Is that my fault?

Given the tired centrist rhetoric that you've been spouting in this thread, I imagine they didn't play out much differently than this. If you want to argue in another thread, feel free to dredge one up, otherwise, continue to engage in this one.

ROTFLMAO... after all of the pages of heated debate and arguing, you still can't categorize me properly. That speaks more volumes about your own deeply harbored bigotry than anything I could have ever said. Ideology never becomes a reality without having a clear grasp of the situation. You're so blinded by yours that you can't even realize that we virtually stand side by side on this issue. If that's happening right here on a penis site, I can only imagine what it may be like in Congress.

Are you through beating your Casio keyboard MIDI Drum of revolution yet? Watching fake-ass patriots prance about really bore me.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

That may never happen. If it didn't with the majorities we had in place at the start of this presidency, then why expect it?

I don't. That's why I don't think the "it's a good start we'll fix it later" argument is a good one.

You should really stop trying to put a label on me. I've made it a point since the age of six to shake those kinds of stereotypical definitions and I'm REALLY good at that. I'm not as moderate as you think. You continually forget that I agreed with you that the bill didn't go far enough. But there is an idealistic and realistic side to things in life and I look at them both. That allows me not to get caught up on the imagery and pay attention to the details.

When you refer to basic, common sense reforms as idealistic and overzealous, how I am supposed to NOT think you're a centrist?

Also, since when is trying to find the common ground between two factions considered a "bias"? Centrism, by definition, is the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes. Their actions assume the middle ground, regardless if their beliefs lean slightly towards Democratic or Republican ideology. To have a bias, by definition, is to demonstrate prejudice in favor of one thing, person or group, sometimes to the point where it may be considered unfair. On paper, the one thing a centrist could be "biased" about is the ideology of getting two different groups to work together and come up with a compromise. What's wrong with that?

A centrist bias is a perfectly reasonable term. Not every situation has a middle ground. In healthcare, as far as congress goes, there's the liberal solution, which is conservative, and the conservative solution, which is extremely conservative. If you're not starting from 2 extremes, trying to find a middle for the sake of finding a middle looks a lot like someone who'd prefer to not rock the boat, so they can claim to be in the majority on all issues.

Comments like this will always make you look more rabidly bitter than you need to be. Of course the bill wasn't perfect. And yes, you're trying to be funny. But you went to the well with this "joke" too many times so now I have reason to question just how fringeworthy you may be.

This bill had everything the industry could possibly ask for. I don't feel it's rabidly bitter at all. Do you want to actually engage the point of the sentence, or criticize my style?

I stopped making fun of your patronizing "son" tone after the first few posts, when I realized you thought it was either clever or effective, and let you run with it.

Numbers on a piece of paper are just one form of cognition on the subject matter. Actual personal experience is another. Only a fool rejects knowledge just because it comes in a way they don't like. You don't have to like me in order to consider anything I say to be factual or with any substance. But if you actually was a mature adult as you pretend to be, you'd know when to do it.

I never rejected your knowledge, but you made the mistake of presenting your anecdote while treating statistics dismissively. That's a fundamentally anti-intellectual stance.

Nothing you said was news, or contradictory of the statistics I included, so it didn't really add anything to the conversation, other than to stroke your ego of having firsthand experience, as if that somehow made you more of an expert.

Don't be an idiot. I didn't throw out statistics. Facts are not just proven with percentages, Einstein.

Actually, they are. That's kind of the point of data. If you want though, I'll go tell some scientists writing a peer reviewed research paper that they're barking up the wrong tree by using percentages.

The plural of anecdote is not data. You sound exactly like people who claim that the poor are lazy because they knew some lazy poor people. The fact that your anecdote did not dispute the data doesn't make your above quote any less stupid.

You'd be exactly where you are right now. Bitter, childish, immature and voluntarily ignorant, arguing how some liberal minded people are not as liberal as you. Metaphorically speaking, you've thrown your dick on the table and are chastising people for not being as big or as thick as you. And you wonder why people may not see things your way? Seriously, how stupid are you?

Apparently not stupid enough to try and say that statistics aren't facts.

The best part of this quote is that you point out that your anecdote added nothing, because without I'd be in exactly the same place.

Also, I never complained that people weren't as liberal minded as me. I complained that the bill was shit, and too many people were unaware of how bad it is.

No, I didn't say that it didn't solve any of the issues within our system. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. If you paid attention, you'd understand that a major way to solve the problem of healthcare is to extricate or cut down other financial burdens affecting people. You do that through jobs, affordable housing and education among other things. It's not enough to say everyone gets free healthcare or put people on a public option when the costs for medical procedures and medicine continue to rise. Even if you put a cap on those prices to prevent them from going up dramatically, eventually you'll have people on a government plan who STILL can't afford it. The problem of people foregoing healthcare would still exist.

There are many reasons that the cost of healthcare is continuing to rise, and many of them are faults of the existing system. To accept a bill that addressed none of these problems, and then say "but stuff costs too much we have to fix those problems" shows a fundamental ignorance of the issue.

Lets look at why healthcare costs so much.

Limited Risk pools? Not addressed by the bill at all.
Unnecessary profit motive? Not addressed by the bill.
High drug costs? Solution specifically kept out of the bill.
Unnecessary and redundant administration? Not addressed by the bill.
Poor record Keeping? Somewhat addressed by the bill.
Lack of focus on preventative care? Somewhat addressed by the bill.

The for-profit system is the cause of our high expenses, not an innocent bystander. You can't ignore that fact and then say we have to look elsewhere to help people afford healthcare. Our system costs twice as much per capita as any other system in the world, be it single-payer like the UK, or a heavily regulated private system like Germany. The key difference is lack of regulation and for-profit medicine, both of which were not addressed in the bill.

For the record, there are many other social problems that are hurting people's ability to pay, and I'm quite aware of them, but I'd rather focus on the healthcare system in this thread, as it's the one that costs twice as much as everyone elses.

Now, if I was as shortsighted as you I would have demanded that you show me some "statistics". Funny how the same accusations you propose to me can be reflected right back at you, eh?

Now you're being childish, since I can't provide statistics for a system that hasn't been implemented.

However, if you'd like some examples from other countries, you can look at the NHS Finance Manual, or this overview of their income, and this overview of UK taxation.

If you'd like a bill that I support fully that would answer all of your questions regarding implementation and finance, look up HR676.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Hit the character limit, part II:

Right now this all sounds like a bunch of randomly thrown ideas with no structural plan for implementation... a bunch of big words to portray an insightful image, with nothing underneath it to maintain any kind of stability. It's certainly an idea, one that I know would receive much opposition just on the fact that you'd plan to raise taxes. Although I don't get terribly worked up on the idea that taxes may go up, there are other ways to address the issue so that when taxes do go up it's not so dramatic.

Are you asking me to put out a precisely detailed tax policy to justify my belief in systemic reforms that exist in pretty much every civilized country in the world? It looks more to me like you are using it as a rhetorical device, so that no matter what I type, it's not specific enough, and you can claim victory by me not having an entire legal document ready to go.

If you have questions or are confused by terms, feel free to ask me to clarify, rather than performing a meta analysis of my responses(like I did of yours in the paragraph above).

You really are a pathetic tool, trying to twist a statistic like that into some kind of morality bomb. Is this the best you can do? Try to act as if I don't care about the sick because I don't side with you on hating the current HCL? Shut the fuck up. You're about as bad as a rabid theologist who molests scripture to pass their own bigoted agendas.

You probably shouldn't be so defensive. You clearly missed my point, as I was accusing you of painting me as someone who doesn't understand the plight of the poor. Try to keep up.

Here's the problem, son... you're NOT farther left than me. How many times do I have to say that I agree with you that the bill didn't go far enough before you actually comprehend that? Where we differ lays within the implementation of such a progressive agenda. I don't mind that reform is coming to us in small doses because that's how government works. I don't expect miracles, nor do I expect everything to rotate a complete 180% whenever power switches in Congress.

This isn't a "who's farther left" dickwaving contest, and if so the "politics test" thread could probably settle that.

Having said that, I never said I wanted everything now. That's a strawman you've created out of whole cloth, because it's easier for you to argue against. I said I wanted more than we got. I never expected Single Payer to come out of this. I at least expected some kind of prescription cost controls, and stronger recission language. I didn't get that, even.

Even when the slaves were freed, it took them nearly a century before anyone of them got their rights. Something for you to think about... if you dare.

Really, you think I'm a pretentious leftist looking down my nose, and then you try to accuse me of being ignorant of the historical perspective of social movements?

You want everything now and bitch if it doesn't go your way. That doesn't make you "far left"... it makes you impatient, unrealistic, and completely incapable of discussing this matter in an objective manner.

I never said I wanted everything now, and I am clearly capable of discussing this in an objective manner. Perhaps you're confusing me with the strawman you want to be arguing with?

OMG... you're starting to look HUMAN again! Perhaps there's some hope after all?

Of the two of us, I haven't been the one making up dehumanizing strawman caricatures the entire thread.

Again, barking more ideological nonsense.
The bill was NEVER going to have everything you wanted in it, nor was the bill going to be as progressive as you expected. All one had to do was look at the people in play back when the legislation first started. You had an opposition that was determined to obstruct, enough "Conservative Democrats" in the Senate that could greatly affect the vote, plus a President who was hellbent on making a bill bipartisan yet you still couldn't figure out what the outcome was going to be. That's not an excuse... that was the REALITY of the situation and you happily ignored that just because you were wanking yourself off to the ideal of a "super majority", and a bunch of Democrats blindly voting in unison without any real thought about their own ideologies and convictions. Is that my fault?

No, I never said I expected an ultra-progressive bill with my wishlist inside of it, but I expected more than what I got, even accounting for Blue Dogs.

If you were content to put it like that, I'd agree, but you're making silly "we can't just put everything you want in all at once" arguments that are irrelevant, as I never claimed that was what I expected.

ROTFLMAO... after all of the pages of heated debate and arguing, you still can't categorize me properly. That speaks more volumes about your own deeply harbored bigotry than anything I could have ever said. Ideology never becomes a reality without having a clear grasp of the situation. You're so blinded by yours that you can't even realize that we virtually stand side by side on this issue. If that's happening right here on a penis site, I can only imagine what it may be like in Congress.

Are you through beating your Casio keyboard MIDI Drum of revolution yet? Watching fake-ass patriots prance about really bore me.

You must have come up with this part while you were deleting the parts where I sourced examples of Obama taking a direct hand in killing parts of the bill, or asked you to support your statement that other countries have the same issues I described we had.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^wow... Is this how nerds battle?

:swordfight:

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

^wow... Is this how nerds battle?

:swordfight:

more accurately policy-wonks

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't. That's why I don't think the "it's a good start we'll fix it later" argument is a good one.

I disagree.
The lifting of the ban on Gays in the Military is a perfect example. Clinton pushed for it in the 90s and didn't get the entire thing. DADT was the compromise. Not the best thing in the planet by any means, but without it we wouldn't be here right now talking about the repeal of it altogether. If Clinton and the rest of the hard left was adamantly pushing for the repeal back in the 90s, given the circumstances in Congress at that time, they wouldn't have gotten anything. You learn to take what you get. Because over time, newer issues arise and we get another chance to examine what's been done and adjust.

The same thing will happen with Health Care, as it did with Civil Rights and any other major reform done in this country. It's always been done in doses.

When you refer to basic, common sense reforms as idealistic and overzealous, how I am supposed to NOT think you're a centrist?

What you're suggesting isn't basic common sense. Even if you want it all, only a fool would enter into an argument with an all or nothing strategy. That doesn't make me a centrist, because I did want the bill to be more progressive. But unlike you, I have patience. To get ahead in this world you have to have it. Making demands all the time will only get you so far. That's why you're quick to write off what happened with Health Care up to this point as crap, and are quick to label me as something that I'm not.

Ideologies give you the conviction to fight for what you want. HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT is completely different. Until you learn the differences, you're not capable to discuss this topic with an objective mind.

A centrist bias is a perfectly reasonable term. Not every situation has a middle ground.

Oh, I BEG to differ. There's always a middle ground. The problem is, those on the extremes are too greedy & stubborn to see it. You need people to play the center, otherwise our world would constantly be at war.

In healthcare, as far as congress goes, there's the liberal solution, which is conservative, and the conservative solution, which is extremely conservative. If you're not starting from 2 extremes, trying to find a middle for the sake of finding a middle looks a lot like someone who'd prefer to not rock the boat, so they can claim to be in the majority on all issues.

And you wonder why I called you a bigot? Your last paragraph is a perfect example of it. You're WAY too partisan and uncompromising to survive in the political arena. You're only seeing the issue from binary, and it doesn't help anyone. Which really sucks because you do have good ideologies surrounding health care.

This bill had everything the industry could possibly ask for. I don't feel it's rabidly bitter at all. Do you want to actually engage the point of the sentence, or criticize my style?

I'm doing both. Try to keep up, son.
You're not completely right here. In order to truly see what I'm saying, you have to step away from your phony-ass, "hard left persona" and do something you claim to be worthless... try meeting me in the middle. See the argument from the Democratic and the Republican side. You can still have a completely Progressive agenda regardless of it, because I do. But from here, you'll at least be more informed of the situation and propose a better means for getting the job done.

I stopped making fun of your patronizing "son" tone after the first few posts, when I realized you thought it was either clever or effective, and let you run with it.

Of course you wouldn't find my jabs at you to be funny, McFly. Most personal attacks usually aren't flattering. I wasn't trying to win YOUR approval with those comments, and if by some strange way you thought I was then you're even more vacuous than I thought.

I never rejected your knowledge

Yes you did. Sarcasm is a clear indicator of rejection which implies that somehow I insulted your intelligence by telling you what I personally experienced.

but you made the mistake of presenting your anecdote while treating statistics dismissively. That's a fundamentally anti-intellectual stance.

Bzzzzzzzt!
I never once dismissed your statistics. Did I ever call them irrelevant? Did I say that your numbers were lies? The problem is, you posted a bunch of percentages and thought that was the end of it. Only a fool would simply go by percentage numbers as if this was the tell all to a political scenario. You know who also does this? Trinity. Get the picture?

Nothing you said was news, or contradictory of the statistics I included, so it didn't really add anything to the conversation, other than to stroke your ego of having firsthand experience, as if that somehow made you more of an expert.

I most certainly know more about the health care situation in Massachusetts than you do. I was born and raised there. I had to use it myself. You just read about it on a government website and pretend to be all knowing. How socially ignorant of you.

I would read the rest of your post(s), but to be brutally honest we've been repeating the same shit over and over again. Right now, you're just trying to get the last word... and trust me, I won't let you have it. It's one of those silly, childish things I like to deny people from time to time. But just remember, this whole thing wouldn't have even transpired if it wasn't for you trying to suggest that I was "the problem" with the way America is today. If anything, being a pompous, thick headed, stubborn, pseudo-progressive who is quick to label people based on their own bigotry and sectarian beliefs as to what is Democratic and what is Republican is what's wrong with this country. People are more alike than most tend to believe. You just have to be mature enough to see it, and you clearly aren't.

Wake me up when you get mad enough to rush Washington, OK?

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

All you've done is respond to my calm, reasoned arguments with personal attacks and posturing. Twice you asked for sources, and I provided both times, which you promptly never responded to again, along with my request for examples from you.

It's obvious that you'd be happy to argue with your strawman of me, rather than engage with the actual me.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

All you've done is respond to my calm, reasoned arguments with personal attacks and posturing.

Just because you're "calm" doesn't mean that you're not insulting. You think it's only a personal attack when someone types the word dummy, stupid or ignorant? Think again. In the last few pages, you've used "creative writing" to try and typecast me as being a Centrist, a reason why America "moves to the right", an apologist (that one was hysterical), naive, and ignorant among other insanely, laughable comments which suggest that you could be Trinity's evil twin brother. You were the one who attacked me first. And you wonder why I could be attacking back? ROTFLMAO!!

Twice you asked for sources, and I provided both times, which you promptly never responded to again, along with my request for examples from you.

As I'm supposed to write out in every single post that I acknowledge your sources. As if you're the one in control of this thread and can dictate how the debate flows. I don't give a damn if you started this thread.. you're not a moderator nor are you the authority.

Besides that, most of the major arguments surrounding Health Care Legislation are ideological at best: Whether or not access to quality health care is a right or a privilege? How do we make health care affordable to all or do we make people fend for themselves?

Percentages and links to statistics do nothing more but encourage one side or another either support the cause or go against it. Your percentages tell a LOT about who isn't covered and how the bill doesn't protect everyone, but NONE of them tell us how we're going to fix the problem, how much it's going to cost, what the government plan will (or should) cover if there is one, and how we as a nation will generate the revenue to pay for it. You also do a good job in spinning your percentages into personal attacks too. It was a major laugh riot when you tried to imply that I didn't care for the sick a few posts ago.

You argue just as badly and putridly as a "hard right winger".

It's obvious that you'd be happy to argue with your strawman of me, rather than engage with the actual me.

Coming from someone who can't even post a picture of himself on this board, I find this statement to be the most laughable of all. Engage with the real you? Right now, to me you're just a silhouette of a man with no substance. Why don't you put down the bullshit tough guy act for once and let us all know who you really are? I'm sure this can't be getting you laid.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Just because you're "calm" doesn't mean that you're not insulting. You think it's only a personal attack when someone types the word dummy, stupid or ignorant? Think again. In the last few pages, you've used "creative writing" to try and typecast me as being a Centrist, a reason why America "moves to the right", an apologist (that one was hysterical), naive, and ignorant among other insanely, laughable comments which suggest that you could be Trinity's evil twin brother. You were the one who attacked me first. And you wonder why I could be attacking back? ROTFLMAO!!

I didn't attack you at all. I apparently wanted to argue a subject that you felt was dead, and you've since been blatantly insulting.

As I'm supposed to write out in every single post that I acknowledge your sources. As if you're the one in control of this thread and can dictate how the debate flows. I don't give a damn if you started this thread.. you're not a moderator nor are you the authority.

Generally when people ask for sources, receive them, and never mention them ever again, they're trying to not acknowledge they were wrong, so they can save space.

When I ask someone for sources, and they never mention that again, I assume it means they were full of shit.

Besides that, most of the major arguments surrounding Health Care Legislation are ideological at best: Whether or not access to quality health care is a right or a privilege? How do we make health care affordable to all or do we make people fend for themselves?

Percentages and links to statistics do nothing more but encourage one side or another either support the cause or go against it. Your percentages tell a LOT about who isn't covered and how the bill doesn't protect everyone, but NONE of them tell us how we're going to fix the problem, how much it's going to cost, what the government plan will (or should) cover if there is one, and how we as a nation will generate the revenue to pay for it. You also do a good job in spinning your percentages into personal attacks too. It was a major laugh riot when you tried to imply that I didn't care for the sick a few posts ago.

I never implied you don't care about the sick. Please read what I actually write. I'm not looking at percentages only, I'm very familiar with the the entire issue, and they also tell me how to fix the problem. If they don't help, perhaps we could look at every single other 1st world country.

Or HR676, which was a perfectly viable plan.

Coming from someone who can't even post a picture of himself on this board, I find this statement to be the most laughable of all. Engage with the real you? Right now, to me you're just a silhouette of a man with no substance. Why don't you put down the bullshit tough guy act for once and let us all know who you really are? I'm sure this can't be getting you laid.

I'm not trying to act tough, and I have no desire to post my image, as it's completely irrelevant to the argument. You're trying to conflate my anonymity with a lack of substance, but you're not debating the substance of my posts at all. Like I said, you're arguing against a strawman of what you think I'm saying and what you'd like me to be, because it's a lot easier than considering me a rational, nuanced individual.

For what it's worth, I used to have a picture on here but I took it down. Several LA members have met me a while back. What do your pictures add to the discussion?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I didn't attack you at all. I apparently wanted to argue a subject that you felt was dead, and you've since been blatantly insulting.

I already pointed it out to you where you did so stop acting innocent.

Generally when people ask for sources, receive them, and never mention them ever again, they're trying to not acknowledge they were wrong, so they can save space.

Nice assumption, kid. But again, you're wrong.
The reason why I haven't addressed them is because I accept them for what they are. You constantly forget that we do agree on a variety of things on this thread. I already know the amount of people who weren't covered before HCL passed and how many people it leaves out. You hear these numbers repeated everyday on blogs and on evening news shows on MSNBC. Believe me, if I had a problem with your findings you would have known about it.

When I ask someone for sources, and they never mention that again, I assume it means they were full of shit.

Again, nice assumption. One of these days you'll learn not to do that... or you'll continue to make incorrect ones about me and look like an ass. On top of that, you can post a bunch of links that I may agree with and I still think you're full of shit. That's because your ideology is completely devoid of realism. You still haven't given me an answer as to how you would have expected a very progressive health care bill, to your desired specifications, would pass in the current Congress knowing that there were enough Conservative Democrats in the Senate willing to vote it down, as well as a president that was more than dedicated in making the bill bipartisan. Dare to wrestle with that one? Believe me when I say that poll figures from any website won't help you here.

I never implied you don't care about the sick. Please read what I actually write.

Another lie. The implication is here. And just in case you're too lazy to click on the link, here's the statement. Recognize the underlined passage: Ah yes, clearly I've thought nothing of this. If only I had you to put the 21% in perspective. Here I thought that they just loved being sick and decided to skip treatment for no reason at all.

Your argumentative style, as well as your political beliefs are completely partisan. Therefore every statement you make takes the stance of the opposite for your adversary. Don't think I can't pick up on one's actions, son. You're not original and I can read your antics like a book. Since I know you're too proud to admit that you're wrong, I'll just tell you to STFU again and find another strategy.

I'm not trying to act tough, and I have no desire to post my image, as it's completely irrelevant to the argument.

Missing the point, as always.
You made a shallow comment about arguing with the "real you", yet you make it impossible for anyone to even guess what that is considering your desperate grasp to remain anonymous on this board. It's not just about this argument. Believe me, I don't give a damn what you look like. But actions speak louder than words.

For what it's worth, I used to have a picture on here but I took it down. Several LA members have met me a while back. What do your pictures add to the discussion?

And members from New York, Florida and Massachusetts have met me. That, again, is not the point.

My pictures are not on my profile to aid to the discussion. How shallowly narcissistic of you to think I would do something like that just for you. It's to let people like you know that I have nothing to hide here. That I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to let people see who they're talking to. Most of the real blowhards on this board that I have a problem with seem to all follow the same path as you. No pictures, a paranoidal sense of anonymity, a very sectarian mindset disguised as an "objective opinion", the uncanny ability to make repeated, incorrect assumptions, and a desperate need to label others based on one or two random factoids.

Like I said before, son.. you're not original. Now please, answer the question I stated earlier and please try hard not to sound like a bigot, OK?

 

[117817]

I currently have $10,000 in medical debt and no insurance. I notice that there are a lot of people who think it is a great idea to help pay other people's medical bills. As for me, I'm so tired of paying these bills. I had really wanted to take a vaccation to Europe this year, but now I can't because I have to put my extra money toward these medical bills. And this new reform will not actually take effect until after the next presidential election. I can't get any Obama money for a long time. Soooo, will all of you people who think that it is a great idea to help pay for everyone elses' medical care please pay my $10,000 bill for me now? And just so you know, the doctors could not find anything wrong with me after $10,000 worth of tests. So, I need MORE tests which means MORE money, which I know you will not mind paying for me. I really wanted to go back for so different tests, so I also need you to pay an additional $10,000-$50,000 for me to visit a couple different doctors and ease my worried mind to know that nothing is really wrong with my health. I know that you are such kind, compasionate, enlightened liberal people that it would be your delight pay my medical bills for me. So, all of you who want to pay my bills for me, you can go ahead and PM me your bank account numbers and then I'll go ahead and wire your money over into my account right away. Thank you!!! Hooray for Obamacare!!! Hooray for liberals!!! Hooray for all you wonderful people who are delighted to pay my outrageous bills for me!!!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Hooray for watching you make a complete ass of yourself!!!

 

[117817]

The same way you assume people voted for Obama because he was black, we can easily make the same ignorant assumption that you voted for McCain/Palin because they were White. If you deny this, you could have still voted based on your own bigotry towards Democrats/Liberals which is just as shameful. So take your pick... either way, you still look foolish. BTW, my initial vote was for Clinton, so think very carefully on your response.

About 50% of whites voted for Obama. About 95% of blacks voted for Obama. Where is the racism here?

White support for Obama is dynamic. White support for Obama waxes and wains as various aspects of Obama's job performance become apparent. Black support for Obama never changes no matter what he does. Is this support racist? Such an extreme bias is certainly NOT due to random chance. The nation-wide approval rating for Obama averages something approximately like 50% lately. So, there is some influence going on beyond the job performance to cause such abnormally extreme black support for Obama. Otherwise, black support for Obama should more resemble white support for Obama; something more like 50% and dynamicly changing as Obama works.

Actually what we have in this circumstance is a correlation, not causation. We know white support for Obama is divided and dynamic while black support is universal and static. What actually causes this phenomenon is VERY hard to determine. However, the "coincidence" of near unanimous black support for Obama suspiciously resembles the dreaded racism (gasp).

 

[117817]

Hooray for watching you make a complete ass of yourself!!!

I thought you said that people who didn't support helping out on health care were greedy. You're not greedy are you? So come on and send me some money.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I currently have $10,000 in medical debt and no insurance. I notice that there are a lot of people who think it is a great idea to help pay other people's medical bills. As for me, I'm so tired of paying these bills. I had really wanted to take a vaccation to Europe this year, but now I can't because I have to put my extra money toward these medical bills. And this new reform will not actually take effect until after the next presidential election. I can't get any Obama money for a long time. Soooo, will all of you people who think that it is a great idea to help pay for everyone elses' medical care please pay my $10,000 bill for me now? And just so you know, the doctors could not find anything wrong with me after $10,000 worth of tests. So, I need MORE tests which means MORE money, which I know you will not mind paying for me. I really wanted to go back for so different tests, so I also need you to pay an additional $10,000-$50,000 for me to visit a couple different doctors and ease my worried mind to know that nothing is really wrong with my health. I know that you are such kind, compasionate, enlightened liberal people that it would be your delight pay my medical bills for me. So, all of you who want to pay my bills for me, you can go ahead and PM me your bank account numbers and then I'll go ahead and wire your money over into my account right away. Thank you!!! Hooray for Obamacare!!! Hooray for liberals!!! Hooray for all you wonderful people who are delighted to pay my outrageous bills for me!!!

If one of the procedures is having you fixed then I would gladly pay. I would suggest you get a lobotomy but after reading your post a second time I realized that you already had one.
Say hi to your sweetie Trinsanity when he gets home troll.