Politics

[connor_in]

Do you think anyone will thing that they are caving on their principles if they acknowledge that going 0-40 is enough to define this argument as over. What exactly ARE their principles on this topic? That the law is bad and will doom America? That is not principles, its speculation. Instead of all the time, effort and funding that has gone into defeating this law after the fact, perhaps they should offer an alternative that is as or more effective. They don't do that. Is that because of their principles? If so, what should be made of the fact that their principals will result in 30 million people having the opportunity to have health insurance taken from them? I wonder how the Republicans would have reacted under the Bush administration if the Democrats held the economy hostage until the GOP agreed to raise taxes on the 1 percent? I guess we will never know, because the Democrats were never that cavalier about their responsibilities to the whole country, or that crazy to think that they could get what they wanted by taking the economy to the brink with no thought of how it is going to hurt families in this nation.

I love how you keep going back to the 40 times. You know what that says about how riduculous the Senate is, right? Has it ever been presented in the Senate? Also, I love your logic on ACA. We can't know if it works or is good or bad until its fully in place? For how long? Is that like we can't know what is in it until we pass it? Maybe we should vote for more wars and military action because we won't know how it will help us until after we blow stuff up, right?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Absolutely. If it fails, I'll say it failed. But if it fails because half of the government is trying to cut the knees out from under it before it gets a head of steam, that is hardly reasonable. It IS the law, and we should expect our government try to make it work -- not try to work against it. And for the record, I do not believe your knuckles drag.

No no no...leftists won't be allowed to point the finger at republicans in 2022, 2024, whatever when this tornado touches ground. I won't allow it haha. What would be reasonable is listening to the healthcare professionals who oppose this and why, the evidence we have of what it's doing to businesses and families now, and start over before it's too late.

 

[GoIrish41]

I love how you keep going back to the 40 times. You know what that says about how riduculous the Senate is, right? Has it ever been presented in the Senate? Also, I love your logic on ACA. We can't know if it works or is good or bad until its fully in place? For how long? Is that like we can't know what is in it until we pass it? Maybe we should vote for more wars and military action because we won't know how it will help us until after we blow stuff up, right?

Oh you want certainty? OK. We know that the pre-ACA system sucked. Rates skyrocketed, healthcare quality suffered and millions and millions of people did not have health insurance. Those people went to emergency rooms to receive the most expensive healthcare there is, and we all footed the bill. Is that what you want? Because I'm not seeing you offer any alternatives -- just get rid of Obamacare. I personally believe it will work and will greatly expand the security of countless Americans and help to keep insurance companies from ripping people off as a matter of course. I also think that in the long term, costs will be controlled. If I were king for a day, we wouldn't go the ACA route, we'd be doing a single payer system that would really control costs. That didn't happen because it was politically impossible, so Obama and the Dems opted for a compromise position that was devised by the GOP. On your last question: I think that is what the Bush administration was doing ... Spoiler alert: It didn't work.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

It is the law, for now. Guess what else is? All spending bills originate in the House. I think I qualify as young at 28. I'd like Congress to participate in obamacare, I'd like zero exemptions across the board, and I'd also like all my SS money back that has been taken out of my taxes since 1999 when I started working. Lord knows I'll never see a SS check.

A fair indication that the country wanted the law to be enacted? Not hardly. The country re-elected by VERY SLIM margin because they weren't convinced Romney had a better economic plan than Obama. Electoral college is garbage. Look at the votes tallied.

If the law remains and IS "successful", depending on how you define it, I will come on here and eat crow. I'm a man of my word. I'll call myself a backwards, knuckle dragging conservative and you can say, "Told ya so."


And if it fails either in practice or in simple economics, the left wing in this country will 100% have to OWN IT. And where will you be when that happens?

Obama won by 5 Million votes.

 

[connor_in]

Also, forgot I wanted to mention one other thing. Yes, Obama was re-elected, and while I wish it wasn't the case it happened. However, at the same time the members of the House were elected just as legally and fairly and there is nothing in the Constitution or their oaths that says they are required to do exactly as the majority in the Senate or the President tells them to do. We the People in our infinite wisdom have once again elected a split party government. Heck, many people prefer it as a check on govt power.

 

[GoIrish41]

No no no...leftists won't be allowed to point the finger at republicans in 2022, 2024, whatever when this tornado touches ground. I won't allow it haha. What would be reasonable is listening to the healthcare professionals who oppose this and why, the evidence we have of what it's doing to businesses and families now, and start over before it's too late.

If you want to listen to healthcare professionals (doctors) I would be all for it. Hell, let's listen to them now. They overwhelmingly believe we should be in a single-payer system that would really reduce costs and unfair treatment. I know you believe that Obamacare is somehow affecting people right now, but you are mistaken. If anything, it is the businesses who are pre-emptively reacting before Obamacare is in place because they have been so misinformed by your party about the absolute doom that is staring them in the face. You want to start over, offer a solution. Going back to what ACA is designed to fix is a step in the wrong direction. Getting rid of this program with nothing to replace it would ensure that we have a horrible system.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obama won by 5 Million votes.

Right. A 51% to 47% margin. Reagan took the 1984 election with a 58% to 40% margin, because the country was on an upward swing. Imagine that...a man came into a crappy economy, a recession, foreign policy struggles, and turned things around without blaming the last president once a week. Crazy huh?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If you want to listen to healthcare professionals (doctors) I would be all for it. Hell, let's listen to them now. They overwhelmingly believe we should be in a single-payer system that would really reduce costs and unfair treatment. I know you believe that Obamacare is somehow affecting people right now, but you are mistaken. If anything, it is the businesses who are pre-emptively reacting before Obamacare is in place because they have been so misinformed by your party about the absolute doom that is staring them in the face. You want to start over, offer a solution. Going back to what ACA is designed to fix is a step in the wrong direction. Getting rid of this program with nothing to replace it would ensure that we have a horrible system.

We have a system that is imperfect. It is not horrible. And where are you getting this information that doctors overwhelmingly want a single payer system? Are they all in Canada or the UK???

My greatest fear is that if thing steamrolls forward there will be no alternatives, no starting over, no fall back and start from scratch. It will be etched in stone forever until it crumbles like the rest of the entitlement programs (medicare, medicaid, SS, etc).

 

[connor_in]

Oh you want certainty? OK. We know that the pre-ACA system sucked. Rates skyrocketed, healthcare quality suffered and millions and millions of people did not have health insurance. Those people went to emergency rooms to receive the most expensive healthcare there is, and we all footed the bill. Is that what you want? Because I'm not seeing you offer any alternatives -- just get rid of Obamacare. I personally believe it will work and will greatly expand the security of countless Americans and help to keep insurance companies from ripping people off as a matter of course. I also think that in the long term, costs will be controlled. If I were king for a day, we wouldn't go the ACA route, we'd be doing a single payer system that would really control costs. That didn't happen because it was politically impossible, so Obama and the Dems opted for a compromise position that was devised by the GOP. On your last question: I think that is what the Bush administration was doing ... Spoiler alert: It didn't work.

You want certainty? Read an elementary level math book. I never claimed I wanted certainty...STRAWMAN ALERT.

Also I love how this suddenly became an all or nothing debate. There have been ideas floated. That you say there are none means that you haven't tried to pay attention. Whether that is what youthink about W or not is irrelevant the factthat you admit the logic is flawed but doesn't give you pause on ACA is both telling and scary.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Right. A 51% to 47% margin. Reagan took the 1984 election with a 58% to 40% margin, because the country was on an upward swing. Imagine that...a man came into a crappy economy, a recession, foreign policy struggles, and turned things around without blaming the last president once a week. Crazy huh?

I posted that Obama won by 5 Million votes because you said he won by a "very slim margin."

 

[BobD]

Right. A 51% to 47% margin. Reagan took the 1984 election with a 58% to 40% margin, because the country was on an upward swing. Imagine that...a man came into a crappy economy, a recession, foreign policy struggles, and turned things around without blaming the last president once a week. Crazy huh?

That just proves he learned some sh!t while he was a democrat.

 

[GoIrish41]

Right. A 51% to 47% margin. Reagan took the 1984 election with a 58% to 40% margin, because the country was on an upward swing. Imagine that...a man came into a crappy economy, a recession, foreign policy struggles, and turned things around without blaming the last president once a week. Crazy huh?

You know what is really crazy? He had Democrats who didn't pout because he won and they actually worked with him to make the government work. Regan got a lot done, but he had Tip ONeil to thank for a lot of it. I know you are only 28 and might not remember, but government was not always this disfunctional and ridiculous. It was the Bush administration who sent us down the insanely partycentric road we are traveling on today. You might remember him as the guy who was re-elected by a margain far less than the one you note above and coming on television a day later later like a jacka@@ telling the American people he just earned some political capital and that he intended to spend it. It is a bit ironic that the GOP is so offended by the ACA being passed in by a Democratic majority in both houses and the presidency, when he used the same situation to ram the Bush tax cuts down the throats of the American people while they were funding two wars that he refused to put in his budget so he could pretend he was fiscally responsible. You want someone to blame for the ACA ... blame Bush. He made people so disgusted with his administration that the Dems captured both houses of the Congress. Incidently, Reagan was a proponent of universal healthcare and would likely have supported the legislation.

 

[phgreek]

actually, the Rebublicans not only conceived and wrote most of the legislation, they also field tested it in Mass. (read the GOP presidential candidate Romney) to demonstrate that it would work. If the GOP was so rabidly against this idea, why did they propose it as an alternative to what the Clinton's were trying to do pre-Bush II. This whole argument is silly season. IT WAS THERE IDEA. They didn't like it until Obama embraced it. Get over it. It is the law. If you want to change it, offer an alternative that provides health ensurance to the same number of people. Just getting rid of it is a massive step backward for this country.

...AGAIN....I will point you to the fact that my major issue is lack of planning...granted, I don't now, nor did I ever think it particularly wise for the government to manage ANYTHING but defense. However I know sometimes people will need to test that theory to remember why. As for this particular legislation, the sentiment was ok, but the thought that went into the fiscal side was to mislead...not to get it right. At a time when we have horrific issues with government spending, deficit, and debt...we do this. So I DON"T CARE WHO CONCEIVED IT...I DON"T CARE WHO TRIED IT...I CARE THAT WE CAN"T AFORD IT, and like all guvment programs, this one will be fraught with fraud, waste, abuse, and incompetence...the infuriating part is we will spend trillions before its over replacing a functional system that had flaws with one that will fail, and will further drive us in the red...why can't you understand that not all good ideas need to be programs RIGHT NOW!

 

[phgreek]

Not a single occupy protest took money out of my pocket or food out of the mouths of my family. This year, I've already lost thousands of dollars and depending on how stubborn and stupid these idiots are willing to be, who knows how much more? These people are perfectly willing to push the economy to the brink to get their own way. They engage in a campaign to misinform the public about ACA and how it is going to doom the country, even though the exchanges that are at the heart of the program don't even open until Tuesday. The law hasn't been implemented yet, but they have convinced themselves (hoping against hope that it fails) that failure is the only possible outcome for this law. That is disturbing enough. That this is happening in the open and there are people too blind to see it is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all.

NO ONE EVER COLLECTED ANY MONEY FROM THEM...and if you live in a city where they "occupied" you bet your a$$ they cost you...who do you think paid to clean it up...the same money fairy who pays for healthcare I guess....


whats more disturbing is you support LEGISLATION like its R&D...are you fvcking serious?

 

[GoIrish41]

You want certainty? Read an elementary level math book. I never claimed I wanted certainty...STRAWMAN ALERT.

Also I love how this suddenly became an all or nothing debate. There have been ideas floated. That you say there are none means that you haven't tried to pay attention. Whether that is what youthink about W or not is irrelevant the factthat you admit the logic is flawed but doesn't give you pause on ACA is both telling and scary.

You said:
Maybe we should vote for more wars and military action because we won't know how it will help us until after we blow stuff up, right?

I said:

I think that is what the Bush administration was doing ... Spoiler alert: It didn't work.

I don't my logic is flawed. As I said, I am confident it will work. I'm equally confidnet that those who voted for it think it will work. That the GOP doesn't think it will work, does not make it "flawed logic" on the Dems' part. It means, IMO, that the GOP is wrong. To go back to your silly analogy (which I was making a joke about, by the way) we are not blowing things up. We are trying to fix things based on a system that has been proven effective by your party's last presidential candidate when he was the Mass. governor. We know that it works, and we know that people there like it. We have, as I decribed earlier, a field test. If I were a Republican, I'd be bragging about coming up with the idea, not trying to destroy the law that will help people in this country. It is about the country, right?

 

[GoIrish41]

...AGAIN....I will point you to the fact that my major issue is lack of planning...granted, I don't now, nor did I ever think it particularly wise for the government to manage ANYTHING but defense. However I know sometimes people will need to test that theory to remember why. As for this particular legislation, the sentiment was ok, but the thought that went into the fiscal side was to mislead...not to get it right. At a time when we have horrific issues with government spending, deficit, and debt...we do this. So I DON"T CARE WHO CONCEIVED IT...I DON"T CARE WHO TRIED IT...I CARE THAT WE CAN"T AFORD IT, and like all guvment programs, this one will be fraught with fraud, waste, abuse, and incompetence...the infuriating part is we will spend trillions before its over replacing a functional system that had flaws with one that will fail, and will further drive us in the red...why can't you understand that not all good ideas need to be programs RIGHT NOW!

Universal healthcare has been a heated topic of discussion since the Truman administration. If not now, when?

 

[GoIrish41]

NO ONE EVER COLLECTED ANY MONEY FROM THEM...and if you live in a city where they "occupied" you bet your a$$ they cost you...who do you think paid to clean it up...the same money fairy who pays for healthcare I guess....


whats more disturbing is you support LEGISLATION like its R&D...are you fvcking serious?

I don't live in a city ... so ... they didn't cost me a dime. If you live in a city, I'm sure they just lost your address and that's why you didn't get a thank you card.

I'm not supporting legislation like it is R&D. As I have continuously said: I am confident it will work. That said, there is no certainty in anything. I'd say I'd be even more confident if the GOP would stop trying to kneecap this legislation and try to make it work as if it was, I don't know, the law of the fvcking land.

 

[connor_in]

You said:
Maybe we should vote for more wars and military action because we won't know how it will help us until after we blow stuff up, right?

I said:

I think that is what the Bush administration was doing ... Spoiler alert: It didn't work.

I don't my logic is flawed. As I said, I am confident it will work. I'm equally confidnet that those who voted for it think it will work. That the GOP doesn't think it will work, does not make it "flawed logic" on the Dems' part. It means, IMO, that the GOP is wrong. To go back to your silly analogy (which I was making a joke about, by the way) we are not blowing things up. We are trying to fix things based on a system that has been proven effective by your party's last presidential candidate when he was the Mass. governor. We know that it works, and we know that people there like it. We have, as I decribed earlier, a field test. If I were a Republican, I'd be bragging about coming up with the idea, not trying to destroy the law that will help people in this country. It is about the country, right?

All those that voted for it think it will work? Really? Is that why they had to twist arms and buy votes of D's in Congress?

 

[GoIrish41]

All those that voted for it think it will work? Really? Is that why they had to twist arms and buy votes in Congress?

Yeah, you are right. They voted for it because they think it will be a complete failure and they want that anvil tied around their neck for the rest of their respective political careers.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I posted that Obama won by 5 Million votes because you said he won by a "very slim margin."

5 million votes doesn't sound like a landslide in a country of 300 million people. 51 to 47 percent. Sheesh.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That just proves he learned some sh!t while he was a democrat.

Still waiting Bob. Three days and counting...

 

[BobD]

Still waiting Bob. Three days and counting...

Keep counting. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You know what is really crazy? He had Democrats who didn't pout because he won and they actually worked with him to make the government work. Regan got a lot done, but he had Tip ONeil to thank for a lot of it. I know you are only 28 and might not remember, but government was not always this disfunctional and ridiculous. It was the Bush administration who sent us down the insanely partycentric road we are traveling on today. You might remember him as the guy who was re-elected by a margain far less than the one you note above and coming on television a day later later like a jacka@@ telling the American people he just earned some political capital and that he intended to spend it. It is a bit ironic that the GOP is so offended by the ACA being passed in by a Democratic majority in both houses and the presidency, when he used the same situation to ram the Bush tax cuts down the throats of the American people while they were funding two wars that he refused to put in his budget so he could pretend he was fiscally responsible. You want someone to blame for the ACA ... blame Bush. He made people so disgusted with his administration that the Dems captured both houses of the Congress. Incidently, Reagan was a proponent of universal healthcare and would likely have supported the legislation.

1) Reagan worked with Democrats and did so well. It's a shame our current president can tweet with Islamic radicals but can't negotiate with republicans.

2) Bush tax cuts being compared to ACA? That's laughable.

3) Reagan a proponent of universal healthcare? What kind of revisionist history have you been reading?!

4) Still waiting on your evidence showing doctors overwhelmingly support single payer.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Keep counting. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

1993 called and wants its joke back. Let me know when you're ready to prove my arguments wrong and are capable of more than reciting headlines from MSNBC and moveon.org

 

[phgreek]

Universal healthcare has been a heated topic of discussion since the Truman administration. If not now, when?

the easy answer to that is ...not fvcking right now...I mean seriously...the easiest non-partisan means testing is the 17 Trillion reasons and then add in the "and climbing" part...and we want to "try this out"...fvvvvvvvvvvvvck me.

the easy answer to when might be good...how about when the calculus for supporting entitlements wasn't in a negative trajectory...ie more folks contributing than taking, in conjunction with lockbox legislation on entitlement piggy banks, and debt and deficit under control (as a measure of the economy...not some stooge in DC).

 

[BobD]

1993 called and wants its joke back. Let me know when you're ready to prove my arguments wrong and are capable of more than reciting headlines from MSNBC and moveon.org

Says the douche that posts articles by other people containing their speculation and doesn't have any common sense to know that. You are now shut off little boy, I'm bored with you.

 

[BobD]

That's better.

 

[phgreek]

I don't live in a city ... so ... they didn't cost me a dime. If you live in a city, I'm sure they just lost your address and that's why you didn't get a thank you card.

I'm not supporting legislation like it is R&D. As I have continuously said: I am confident it will work. That said, there is no certainty in anything. I'd say I'd be even more confident if the GOP would stop trying to kneecap this legislation and try to make it work as if it was, I don't know, the law of the fvcking land.

...work...hmmm...within what fiscal parameters? any?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Says the douche that posts articles by other people containing their speculation and doesn't have any common sense to know that. You are now shut off little boy, I'm bored with you.

No need for name calling. I posted articles containing fact, not speculation. If you'd entertain us all to take a minute and point out any of that, it'd give you some sort of credibility. Until then...yawn.

 

[GoIrish41]

1) Reagan worked with Democrats and did so well. It's a shame our current president can tweet with Islamic radicals but can't negotiate with republicans.

2) Bush tax cuts being compared to ACA? That's laughable.

3) Reagan a proponent of universal healthcare? What kind of revisionist history have you been reading?!

4) Still waiting on your evidence showing doctors overwhelmingly support single payer.

It's not really the point that Reagan worked with the Dems, it is that the Dems worked with Reagan. They didn't act like a bunch of spoiled children ... they got on with the business of the country and they got things done. Compromise wasn't a dirty word and common sense wasn't a occasional proposition. A group of representatives in the lower house of Congress are today strongarming their own party into taking drastic measures to get their way. Many of the GOP believe they are going too far. They are right. How would the GOP react if the Dems threatened to tank the economy over raising the minimum wage? They would refuse to negotiate because doing so would mean that minimum wage was on the table for negotiation and they are fundamentally opposed to raising the minimum wage. Obama and the Senate are rightly saying no to the suggestion that this law is up for negotiation (just as the GOP would do). Introducing a conversation that Obama had with Iran's new leader is just dumb. They are making overatures to get rid of their nuclear program. For him not to talk to them would be irresponsible, and you and your party would be the first to point that out.

I'm not comparing ACA and Bush tax cuts. I'm comparing tactics used by an administration to get their way when the political deck was stacked in their favor ... but you already knew that and are trying to change the subject.

It was Reagan who signed the law that required any hospital who accepts Medicare funds to treat every person who came to an emergency room for treatment. It is often referred to as the Reagan mandate and it meant that hospitals could no longer send people away without treatment to avoid being stuck with the bill. That means that every person in the country was entitled to healthcare. That is universal healthcare -- albeit in its most inefficient form. With that law, Reagan paved the way to where we are today, on the cusp of enacting the ACA.

Here is an article on the latest Reuters poll of helthcare providers on universal healthcare: Doctors support universal health care: survey | Reuters