Politics

[GoIrish41]

Never forget everyone, Bob is an independent, NOT a liberal... he just happens to think republicans are to blame for everything, San Francisco is the greatest city on Earth, and that Obama is an infallible demi-god... but, he’s not liberal.

Two out of three ain't bad.

 

[BobD]

Never forget everyone, Bob is an independent, NOT a liberal... he just happens to think republicans are to blame for everything, San Francisco is the greatest city on Earth, and that Obama is an infallible demi-god... but, he’s not liberal.

I'm definitely an independent, not necessarily liberal ( I'm for gay marriage, against legalizing pot, I struggle ( on the fence) about the abortion issue). Everything is OUR fault, not the politicians...We elect them. San Francisco is the greatest city in the world, Boston is second. Obama is a better politician and salesman than anything the Republicans have been able to find, but far from a God.

 

[GoIrish41]

? What?

Just joking about the wording of your post about polling. Mitt Romney ignored all the polls and he (shockingly) lost the election. Bad joke probably.

Here's the thing though.

If you take the individual piece of Obamacare and poll on those, each one gets way more than half of the respondents saying they are great rules. Indeed, if you poll and ask if they prefer the Affordable Care Act OR Obamacare, they overwhelmingly support the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that they are the same thing. It is more about hating the man than it is about hating the law.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm definitely an independent, not necessarily liberal ( I'm for gay marriage, against legalizing pot, I struggle ( on the fence) about the abortion issue). Everything is OUR fault, not the politicians...We elect them. San Francisco is the greatest city in the world, Boston is second. Obama is a better politician and salesman than anything the Republicans have been able to find, but far from a God.

Haha,... The fact you took that seriously speaks volumes... strongly disagree on cities... and i mean STRONGLY... but that's okay, we're all used to you being bat-****-crazy on most issues by now anyway.

 

[irishpat183]

Just joking about the wording of your post about polling. Mitt Romney ignored all the polls and he (shockingly) lost the election. Bad joke probably.

Here's the thing though.

If you take the individual piece of Obamacare and poll on those, each one gets way more than half of the respondents saying they are great rules. Indeed, if you poll and ask if they prefer the Affordable Care Act OR Obamacare, they overwhelmingly support the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that they are the same thing. It is more about hating the man than it is about hating the law.

Uhhhh...No. The whole thing is a trainwreck. And I haven't seen any polls that support the ACA.

Are there nuggets that make sense?? Sure. But you could've passed those without the ACA.


Don't go down the path of ignorance with the race card. The ACA, or Obamacare, suck no matter WHAT you call it.

 

[connor_in]

Just joking about the wording of your post about polling. Mitt Romney ignored all the polls and he (shockingly) lost the election. Bad joke probably.

Here's the thing though.

If you take the individual piece of Obamacare and poll on those, each one gets way more than half of the respondents saying they are great rules. Indeed, if you poll and ask if they prefer the Affordable Care Act OR Obamacare, they overwhelmingly support the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that they are the same thing. It is more about hating the man than it is about hating the law.

Here's another couple of things though...

The reason the ACA gets better poll numbers than Obamacare is because opponents constantly referred to it as Obamacare in their denouncing of it to make sure it was tied to him and the D's. So, especially low information voters out there, have heard the bad sentiments expressed about Obamacare, but haven't heard people attack the Affordable Care Act. Obama even resisted calling it Obamacare for the longest time. Also, they chose the name Affordable Care Act, on purpose. Anyone referring to the item that way includes the connotation that it is both affordable and that they care. Ever see a sign that says free puppies? The connotation, awwwww sweet little puppies. However, once you stop and see them and discover they are rot/doberman/pitbull mixes with a history of violent attacks, the warm fuzzy connotation is forgotten in light of the reality.

Also, as far as the polling on the individual items within the ACA (aka Obamacare), you are right. People say how great it would be to have A-Z! However, when you get down to reality and you look at the cost of those items, that is when things hit home. Who doesn't like the incredible homes of rich celebrities and athletes. They're amazing and lovely and the epitome of luxury. However, when you go to purchase a house yourself, most people don't even look at those and they feel lucky to find a nice 4 bedroom 3 bath ranch with a finished basement (ahem...ND fan cave), a deck and maybe a pool that they can live with the price of. {Note: Most people, can't even afford that nice of a place.} So, yeah, people will say they would LOVE to have this or that coverage, but the cost of having it all is prohibitive and most would say no and figure out the items they want most and find what fits for themselves.

 

[ACamp1900]

Calling this thing the 'Affordable Care Act' is like calling the Iraq War "The Peace, Love and Hope Tour"

 

[irishpat183]

Here's another couple of things though...

The reason the ACA gets better poll numbers than Obamacare is because opponents constantly referred to it as Obamacare in their denouncing of it to make sure it was tied to him and the D's. So, especially low information voters out there, have heard the bad sentiments expressed about Obamacare, but haven't heard people attack the Affordable Care Act. Obama even resisted calling it Obamacare for the longest time. Also, they chose the name Affordable Care Act, on purpose. Anyone referring to the item that way includes the connotation that it is both affordable and that they care. Ever see a sign that says free puppies? The connotation, awwwww sweet little puppies. However, once you stop and see them and discover they are rot/doberman/pitbull mixes with a history of violent attacks, the warm fuzzy connotation is forgotten in light of the reality.

Also, as far as the polling on the individual items within the ACA (aka Obamacare), you are right. People say how great it would be to have A-Z! However, when you get down to reality and you look at the cost of those items, that is when things hit home. Who doesn't like the incredible homes of rich celebrities and athletes. They're amazing and lovely and the epitome of luxury. However, when you go to purchase a house yourself, most people don't even look at those and they feel lucky to find a nice 4 bedroom 3 bath ranch with a finished basement (ahem...ND fan cave), a deck and maybe a pool that they can live with the price of. {Note: Most people, can't even afford that nice of a place.} So, yeah, people will say they would LOVE to have this or that coverage, but the cost of having it all is prohibitive and most would say no and figure out the items they want most and find what fits for themselves.

So wait?? That BMW isn't "free"??

Nevermind, I didn't want it THAT bad...


There is an actual video of morons thinking it was free. But of course, that was all by design. Get the morons out there to show support (and yes, you are a moron if you supported it to begin with, as you didn't read it and know governments track record with these matters) and get it passed.

But....it was highly unpopular even WITH support of said morons...

Poll: Obamacare remains highly unpopular as implementation looms - First Read


NBC. Not Fox.

 

[irishpat183]

Calling this thing the 'Affordable Care Act' is like calling the Iraq War "The Peace, Love and Hope Tour"

It's affortable to the peopel that don't pay for **** anyway. Go figure.

 

[phgreek]

More "tolerance" from leftists at MSLSD. Stay classy, Martin.

MSNBC's Bashir: Sarah Palin Should Be Defecated, Pissed On | RealClearPolitics

He is a real badass...love for him to face her in a debate...then 3 rounds in the ring...guy is a total fraud in every way pertinent to being a man.

 

[ACamp1900]

He is a real badass...love for him to face her in a debate...then 3 rounds in the ring...guy is a total fraud in every way pertinent to being a man.

He'll also be the first in line crying sexism when a person of the right disagrees with Hil-dog over policy, without calling her names or insulting her mind you...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Calling this thing the 'Affordable Care Act' is like calling the Iraq War "The Peace, Love and Hope Tour"

Bahahahahaha

 

[phgreek]

Just joking about the wording of your post about polling. Mitt Romney ignored all the polls and he (shockingly) lost the election. Bad joke probably.

Here's the thing though.

If you take the individual piece of Obamacare and poll on those, each one gets way more than half of the respondents saying they are great rules. Indeed, if you poll and ask if they prefer the Affordable Care Act OR Obamacare, they overwhelmingly support the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that they are the same thing. It is more about hating the man than it is about hating the law.

DUDE...that's basically what we've been saying...the sentiment is good...many of those issues could have been dealt with w/o...the cluster we find ourselves in at the moment...I don't understand why folks are so reticent to recognize the failing in the Plan/Approach. Put the damn funding back into medicare, put those who qualify for coverage assistance on Medicaid, implement the good stuff through targeted legislation, and back away from the ACA ledge. Implement targeted cuts in 15 that must have a budget neutral plan for all of this, with a REAL budget...and lets get on with life...

Now lets talk about Obama Care vs ACA...HE LIED HIS A$$ OFF to get the support he needed, and set the stage for the biggest partisan ramjob in the history of ramjobs...Partisan "R" folks were gonna be mad...now his cronies look STUPID, and are in jeopardy of losing their career cushy DC gig...in addition MORE people will se a net reduction in services at an increased cost because of ACA....OF COURSE people are angry at anything "OBAMACARE".

 

[phgreek]

He'll also be the first in line crying sexism when a person of the right disagrees with Hil-dog over policy, without calling her names or insulting her mind you...

...That guy made my list of people I'd B!tch-Slap on site long ago. This Sarah Palin thing just means I may curb stomp him too...

I'm neutral on Sarah Palin...I think she overdoes the mama bear thing, the persona asks for some barbs for sure...but she seems genuine, and she isn't dumb.

I'd guess her IQ is higher than 2/3 of those who criticize her as well as the lib darlings DWS, Landrieu, and Pelosi...and she actually has executive government experience...

I'm so sick of the likes of Bashir, everyone MSNBC, and Mahr engaging in this collective and ongoing verbal masturbation session at her expense...and yes its about like watching public deviates waiting for the next hustler to come out....2008 is over...what say you fvcktards find another centerfold....hmmm?

 

[Black Irish]

I'm definitely an independent, not necessarily liberal ( I'm for gay marriage, against legalizing pot, I struggle ( on the fence) about the abortion issue). Everything is OUR fault, not the politicians...We elect them. San Francisco is the greatest city in the world, Boston is second. Obama is a better politician and salesman than anything the Republicans have been able to find, but far from a God.

I haven't been to San Fran, so I can't speak to where it falls on the awesome scale. It's been awhile for Boston, but I liked what I remember. I agree that most of this is the electorate's fault for not being more aware and vigilant and holding politicos responsible. I can't disagree that Obama is better salesman/politician than what the GOP has offered. And that's saying something, because Obama is terrible as both a politician and a salesman.

I'm not just saying that because I am knuckle-dragging right-wing nut job either. I give credit where it is due (Bill Clinton). But Obama's political skills are middling at best. He can give a great canned speech, but he has an obvious distaste for dealing with the rough and tumble of political sausage making. Obama is great when he is being fawned over by his fans, but once the going gets rough, he turns into an exasperated, arrogant finger waver who can't be bothered to deal with those who dare question him.

 

[GoIrish41]

DUDE...that's basically what we've been saying...the sentiment is good...many of those issues could have been dealt with w/o...the cluster we find ourselves in at the moment...I don't understand why folks are so reticent to recognize the failing in the Plan/Approach. Put the damn funding back into medicare, put those who qualify for coverage assistance on Medicaid, implement the good stuff through targeted legislation, and back away from the ACA ledge. Implement targeted cuts in 15 that must have a budget neutral plan for all of this, with a REAL budget...and lets get on with life...

Now lets talk about Obama Care vs ACA...HE LIED HIS A$$ OFF to get the support he needed, and set the stage for the biggest partisan ramjob in the history of ramjobs...Partisan "R" folks were gonna be mad...now his cronies look STUPID, and are in jeopardy of losing their career cushy DC gig...in addition MORE people will se a net reduction in services at an increased cost because of ACA....OF COURSE people are angry at anything "OBAMACARE".

the conversation I was replying to had to do with polling numbers. The leaping from one line of thought to the next -- politics to policy -- on this board can be difficult to follow. While I certainly fully agree with the sentiment of this law, that had little to do with my response. I fully agree that this law has been very poorly implemented so far and that certainly adds to the unhappiness that people have with it. That is fully on Obama and his administration. That said, what the polling indicates is a lack of understanding by people being polled about what the law is. It's pieces are all good, but it is not popular as the sum of its parts.

 

[GoIrish41]

I haven't been to San Fran, so I can't speak to where it falls on the awesome scale. It's been awhile for Boston, but I liked what I remember. I agree that most of this is the electorate's fault for not being more aware and vigilant and holding politicos responsible. I can't disagree that Obama is better salesman/politician than what the GOP has offered. And that's saying something, because Obama is terrible as both a politician and a salesman.

I'm not just saying that because I am knuckle-dragging right-wing nut job either. I give credit where it is due (Bill Clinton). But Obama's political skills are middling at best. He can give a great canned speech, but he has an obvious distaste for dealing with the rough and tumble of political sausage making. Obama is great when he is being fawned over by his fans, but once the going gets rough, he turns into an exasperated, arrogant finger waver who can't be bothered to deal with those who dare question him.

I think these comments are basically fair, although I think we disagree on some nuances. While I can appreciate and understand your perspective, I'd argue that he is a tremendous politician in that he has proven through two elections cycles to be a master of organizing the electorate and getting out the vote. I think he has shortcomings when it comes to turning his ideas into policy that can make a difference. I think this has more to do with his propensity for caving too soon during critical negotiations to appear as though he is above the fray than him being an arrogant finger waver. This has bit him in the *** more than once during the past 5 years and I suspect it will continue to do so moving forward because it is who he is at his core. No matter who is right or wrong about the "why" it is difficult to argue that he has been largely ineffective (even though I hope he doesn't stop trying to turn the corner). That said, hatred aimed at this guy is often way, way over the top in some circles. I believe strongly that he is essentially a good man trying to do right by the country, and he is villified far more than is appropriate. As ineffective as anyone believes he is, there have been others who have been far more ineffective presidents.

 

[Ndaccountant]

the conversation I was replying to had to do with polling numbers. The leaping from one line of thought to the next -- politics to policy -- on this board can be difficult to follow. While I certainly fully agree with the sentiment of this law, that had little to do with my response. I fully agree that this law has been very poorly implemented so far and that certainly adds to the unhappiness that people have with it. That is fully on Obama and his administration. That said, what the polling indicates is a lack of understanding by people being polled about what the law is. It's pieces are all good, but it is not popular as the sum of its parts.

Here is the thing for me.

This program was a giant leap closer to socialized medicine. I am not saying it IS socialized medicine, but it was a huge step in that direction. People are finally coming to the realization that being closer to socialized medicine means:
1. For this to work, premiums/deductibles MUST increase
and /or
2. Costs have to be slashed. For costs to be slashed, options on doctor networks we need to be limited, services will have to be reduced and/or everyone in the medical field needs to take a hefty haircut.

Unlike tax changes that usually only impact higher wage earners, everyday Americans will feel this impact and they will not like it. They certainly like the idea of Obamacare and the theory behind it. But when it comes to what it means to them individually, they don't like it one bit. Can you imagine what will happen if the employer mandate results in people losing their employer coverage?

What will also really **** people off is that there will still be a huge disparity in actual medical access for the wealthy compared to everyone else. Those who can afford to pay in cash will do it. Those you can afford to keep top notch group coverage, will. It's as simple as that.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here is the thing for me.

This program was a giant leap closer to socialized medicine. I am not saying it IS socialized medicine, but it was a huge step in that direction. People are finally coming to the realization that being closer to socialized medicine means:
1. For this to work, premiums/deductibles MUST increase
and /or
2. Costs have to be slashed. For costs to be slashed, options on doctor networks we need to be limited, services will have to be reduced and/or everyone in the medical field needs to take a hefty haircut.

Unlike tax changes that usually only impact higher wage earners, everyday Americans will feel this impact and they will not like it. They certainly like the idea of Obamacare and the theory behind it. But when it comes to what it means to them individually, they don't like it one bit. Can you imagine what will happen if the employer mandate results in people losing their employer coverage?

What will also really **** people off is that there will still be a huge disparity in actual medical access for the wealthy compared to everyone else. Those who can afford to pay in cash will do it. Those you can afford to keep top notch group coverage, will. It's as simple as that.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Why are we lagging behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to ensureing our citizens receive healthcare? It boggles the mind.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't think this is a bad thing. Why are we lagging behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to ensureing our citizens receive healthcare? It boggles the mind.

Well, the impact of moving in that direction is obviously not sitting well with Americans.

 

[irishpat183]

I don't think this is a bad thing. Why are we lagging behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to ensureing our citizens receive healthcare? It boggles the mind.

The goal should not be to "insure" our citizens under the government. That's where you and the left, fail.

Getting as many people to sign up for a ****** system is dumb.


Offering the best health care, by the best docs, should be the goal.

And we're a country of 300 million. Stop comparing us to countries the size of Texas. What works somewhere else doesn't work over here.

 

[GoIrish41]

The goal should not be to "insure" our citizens under the government. That's where you and the left, fail.

Getting as many people to sign up for a ****** system is dumb.


Offering the best health care, by the best docs, should be the goal.

And we're a country of 300 million. Stop comparing us to countries the size of Texas. What works somewhere else doesn't work over here.

Offering the best health care, by the best docs, TO EVERYONE should be the goal.

 

[irishpat183]

Well, the impact of moving in that direction is obviously not sitting well with Americans.

And another great point!

The public said NO. So are you ignoring Americans to get your ideology passed?

 

[irishpat183]

Offering the best health care, by the best docs, TO EVERYONE should be the goal.

Umm...it was. You just had to pay for the service, sometimes a lot.

Welcome to life.

 

[GoIrish41]

Umm...it was. You just had to pay for the service, sometimes a lot.

Welcome to life.

An increasingly larger number of people in this country cannot afford to pay a lot for the service. Jesus, Pat, everything with you is so cut and dried. You come off like a dumb, cold, uncaring dude. I'm pretty sure you are none of those things, so I'm so confounded by your lack of perspective on anyone else's circumstances but your own. We live in a collective society, not as a massive civilization of individuals who fall or fail on their own merit evenly distributed across the spectrum. Some people were born a million miles from a position from which they can make their way in the world. They need help. It is not just about you and what you want. There are millions of people who would be helped by socialized medicine, and you are willing to say, fvck them as long as I get mine. I simply refuse to believe you are that heartless and mean. I've defended you countless times in this thread and in others because I appreciate your candor and willingness to put your opinion out there no matter if it is popular or not, but it seems to me that this blunt persona you've created for yourself has overtaken any sense of humanity.

 

[palinurus]

An increasingly larger number of people in this country cannot afford to pay a lot for the service. Jesus, Pat, everything with you is so cut and dried. You come off like a dumb, cold, uncaring dude. I'm pretty sure you are none of those things, so I'm so confounded by your lack of perspective on anyone else's circumstances but your own. We live in a collectivist society, not as a massive civilization of individuals who fall or fail on their own merit evenly distributed across the spectrum. Some people were born a million miles from a position from which they can make their way in the world. They need help. It is not just about you and what you want. There are millions of people who would be helped by socialized medicine, and you are willing to say, fvck them as long as I get mine. I simply refuse to believe you are that heartless and mean. I've defended you countless times in this thread and in others because I appreciate your candor and willingness to put your opinion out there no matter if it is popular or not, but it seems to me that this blunt persona you've created for yourself has overtaken any sense of humanity.

FIFY.

Just having fun with that but, seriously, the problem is that this plan will not help millions over the long term, and possibly the short term, there will be fewer doctors, fewer smart people who want to become doctors (we see them leaving practice even now), less incentive for inventors to create life-saving and life-extending products, longer waits, and bureaucratic influence and decisionmaking about medical decisions and care. This is a step away from what I think is the most we can hope for, which is better care for more people. You can see it in the fact that costs are increasing, plans (and people) are being dropped and losing coverage they like, medical personnel is diminishing, and the bureaucrats are taking control.

 

[GowerND11]

Question: Couldn't we have just made a push to go after the health insurance companies and tell them to lower premiums, and allow preexisting conditions into programs, and whatnot. Maybe get healthcare more affordable that way which, in turn, could result in companies offering better policies like they used to?

I see it like a cap similar to credit card companies. Limit the costs by putting a ceiling over the companies which in turn could make healthcare affordable.

BTW I'm by no means the most well informed. Comments on this would be appreciated.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Question: Couldn't we have just made a push to go after the health insurance companies and tell them to lower premiums, and allow preexisting conditions into programs, and whatnot. Maybe get healthcare more affordable that way which, in turn, could result in companies offering better policies like they used to?

I see it like a cap similar to credit card companies. Limit the costs by putting a ceiling over the companies which in turn could make healthcare affordable.

BTW I'm by no means the most well informed. Comments on this would be appreciated.

The insurers need to take in more money then they spend. By eliminating caps on pre-existing conditions or by making certain exams "free" (i.e., no co-pays or 80/20 split), the insurers will now spend more money on reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. To compensate, they need to take in more money by either expanding the number of people enrolled in coverage and/or increasing premiums. If you limit the premiums, the only lever the insurance companies have left to pull to make profit is negotiated payments with hospitals networks / doctors. The insurance companies would lower their payouts, which would in turn, limit the number of doctors willing to accept that insurance. If they did not accept it, they would either leave the practice or start taking payments in cash.

In reality, the insurance costs are not the biggest issue here but more the actual cost of care. There are many reasons as to why the cost of care is so high and I don't have the time now to get into all of them.

 

[GoIrish41]

Question: Couldn't we have just made a push to go after the health insurance companies and tell them to lower premiums, and allow preexisting conditions into programs, and whatnot. Maybe get healthcare more affordable that way which, in turn, could result in companies offering better policies like they used to?

I see it like a cap similar to credit card companies. Limit the costs by putting a ceiling over the companies which in turn could make healthcare affordable.

BTW I'm by no means the most well informed. Comments on this would be appreciated.

I think this is a fair question and it is something that those against obamacare have made repeatedly after the law was passed. I believe it is a hollow argument, however. In the nearly 50 years that led up to the passing of the ACA, the government did exactly nothing to bring about the types of changes that you are talking about here. That is largely because the right was always there to defelect any attempts to fix the mounting problems with skyrocketing costs. Eventually it became clear that any attempt to sew a workable plan together one piece at a time was going to mean a knock-down, drag-out fight every single time. Politically, it just became clear that it was easier to have one big fight instead of 100 big fights when the conditions were set for victory. Where others have failed in getting a more comprehensive plan through the system (Clinton), Obama succeeded and I think we would have forgotten about this discussion already if his administration didn't fumble so badly on the initial implementation of the law. As I have said in several posts over the past couple of weeks in this thread, the various pieces that make up Obamacare are very popular ideas, but it would have been a protracted war to make any more than a piece or two at a time into policy, let alone something that is more comprehensive. At the end of the day, lets be honest, this is a program to give poor people access to healthcare. Some would argue (and it is people on the left and the right who would do so) that this access comes at the expense of richer Americans. Heck, Bill Mahr called it a "Robin Hood program" months ago. I think that is accurate. What it really comes down to is whether you are for it being a Robin Hood program or against it. I personally am OK with it. Would it have been easier to target the problems that existed in the old system one at a time? Maybe, but I just don't think the political atmosphere would have allowed it.

 

[GoIrish41]

The insurers need to take in more money then they spend. By eliminating caps on pre-existing conditions or by making certain exams "free" (i.e., no co-pays or 80/20 split), the insurers will now spend more money on reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. To compensate, they need to take in more money by either expanding the number of people enrolled in coverage and/or increasing premiums. If you limit the premiums, the only lever the insurance companies have left to pull to make profit is negotiated payments with hospitals networks / doctors. The insurance companies would lower their payouts, which would in turn, limit the number of doctors willing to accept that insurance. If they did not accept it, they would either leave the practice or start taking payments in cash.

In reality, the insurance costs are not the biggest issue here but more the actual cost of care. There are many reasons as to why the cost of care is so high and I don't have the time now to get into all of them.

we have disagreed on this subject many times, because I think that mixing profit motive with what I view as a funamental human right is in contrast to a system that could possibly function properly. The last think I care about when I'm sick is who is going to profit from it. That said, I think your explanation is spot on -- even if it is describing a system that offers no chance of ever working.