Don't look now, study shows Obamacare succeeding so far

[lbodel]

Re: of course it is.

So you are going to say I don't know what I'm talking about? What Clinton proposed was not what Obamacare is. It was much more government "run".

And that's the point! Many Republicans, as mentioned above, put forth a more conservative approach which is pretty much the same basis as Obamacare in RESPONSE to what Clinton had proposed. But now that plan is suddenly evil!

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Hooray for the insurance companies and those who own stock in said companies!

 

[Purdue85]

Re: how exactly would

Originally posted by qazplm:
healthcare that you have to buy from private companies "turn into" government-run healthcare?

You're right... Obama loved the private sector so much he said his goal is a 'single payer' (uh... government), and that we wouldn't get there overnight, and they contrived a government run scheme that costs TRILLIONS of dollars.

Yeah... that makes sense.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by db:
After 9,723 posts, I can't recall a single one you've made that moved any thread in the direction of "intellectually serious" conversation.

You've devolved into 100% name-calling responses, 100% of the time. As if that makes you seem somehow "clever."

I'm surprised these other earnest folks are wasting their time trying to have rational discourse with you.

So... you're stalking me. db, you wouldn't know "intellectually serious conversation" if it bit you in the arse. All you're interested in is scoring 'snark points'.

You're full of (crap). I call a spade a spade, but in your intolerant world it's "name-calling responses". Somebody get db a tissue.

Not surprisingly you've had essentially the same number of posts (!!) and the same can be said of you.

Yes... You're so surprised you repeatedly feel the need to make smart-@ss follow up posts in response to mine.

So, you don't like what I have to post? Then don't read it. db, it might surprise you to learn, you're not the model of decorum. In fact, you're a prime example of the very acts you so indignantly decry.

 

[Purdue85]

you forgot... racist.

Originally posted by lbodel:
The point is that you don't have to AGREE with them because they are Republicans. The point is you're going about ripping apart Obama and calling him all of these things, but don't put the same label on others. You accuse me of "blind loyalty"....even though I certainly don't agree with everything anyone does....but you clearly have blind hatred. It's not like I've reversed position to love something Obama does that Republicans have loved as well.

I just find it hilarious the personal hatred people have for Obama. It started before he was even President. The scare tactics, accusations of being a Muslim, not an American, etc. It's just absurd. The Republicans/Conservatives...whatever you'd like to call them never did anything to put a stop to the ridiculousness that ensued except for John McCain when he got so uncomfortable with the rhetoric, he finally said something one time.

When you finally answer a question and say you wish social security and medicare would be dismantled, I don't see you constantly railing on those 2 programs. And nobody mainstream does. But they're against big government programs. Ok. Makes no sense.

The personal insults, insinuations, etc. are pathetic. You can't have a logical discussion without throwing out scare tactics and buzz words.

On that note, I should go check on my grandma cause Obama's death panels could have pulled her plug by now!

It's hatred because... well, he's Obama. And half black. And white.

And... and... and...

It's a shame he's considered by so many independents and leftists to be so competent.

Oh, wait... he's not.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: so basically

Originally posted by qazplm:
whomever we say supported this, you'll just say, well they aren't a REAL conservative.

got it.

In other words, there's nothing else of value you have to offer.

got it.

Because, we all know, one liberal speaks for all liberals like you.

Well, that's not a fair comparison. Radical leftists don't allow independent thought.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
> ...and....?

You said, "So, they hold that position? Or did? Or ...? I don't follow them, so you'll have to provide some reference", and was provided a bit about Heritage and their influences.

In addition to Quayle or Gingrich, Paul Ryan supported a form of mandate via tax credits.

So, that's the position of "The One"?

That's why the current border crisis?

There's no real intellectual analysis of Quayle, Gingrich (really? From the 90's?) or Paul Ryan. Nor is there an analysis of how/why that's in line with conservative values.

Engage in that and you might sound like you have a point. Otherwise, you're just positioning the liberal talking points.

 

[qazplm]

was there

an actual answer to the question in that word salad?

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
> ...and....?

You said, "So, they hold that position? Or did? Or ...? I don't follow them, so you'll have to provide some reference", and was provided a bit about Heritage and their influences.

In addition to Quayle or Gingrich, Paul Ryan supported a form of mandate via tax credits.

So, that's the position of "The One"?

That's why the current border crisis?

There's no real intellectual analysis of Quayle, Gingrich (really? From the 90's?) or Paul Ryan. Nor is there an analysis of how/why that's in line with conservative values.

Engage in that and you might sound like you have a point. Otherwise, you're just positioning the liberal talking points.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: was there

Originally posted by qazplm:
an actual answer to the question in that word salad?

So you don't have a response. Got it. It's not the first time. It's got to be hell trying to defend the empty suit.

 

[Purdue85]

okay, db... a CHALLENGE for you.

Originally posted by db:
After 9,723 posts, I can't recall a single one you've made that moved any thread in the direction of "intellectually serious" conversation.

You've devolved into 100% name-calling responses, 100% of the time. As if that makes you seem somehow "clever."

I'm surprised these other earnest folks are wasting their time trying to have rational discourse with you.

Point to ANYTHING in the post to which you replied which is "100% name-calling (response)".

Anything. Anything at all in my post.

Anything.

Name-calling.

Let's see how ... "clever" ... you are.

Anything.

 

[Beeazlebub]

You don't always call people names

You just come across as an unhinged asshole. You've exhibited the characteristics of an asshole for years, and have never shown any effort to change your behavior for the better. For the sake of those with whom you interact in real life, I hope this is simply your message-board persona.

Please seek medical help.

 

[BoilerJS]

Re: You don't always call people names

Although I am a anti ACA person, the DC ruling is correct if the letter of the law is followed however, I think the UV Court got it right.
I'm just glad this is bringing more attention to how much the subsidy is. On average $264.00/month for those who qualify.
My question-where are these low income ACA users going to come up with the $10,000.00 deductible for a $4500.00/year health insurance policy? These cheap policies have to have extremely hi deductibles.
Was this subsidy for co-pay included with the ACA projected cost? If not, these figures alone could triple the projected ACA costs.

 

[lbodel]

Re: You don't always call people names

Yes, the subsidies were all apart of cost projections. The subsidies for this year fell in line with the amount projected by CBO. The overall costs have been lower than projected (so far).

Let's take the lowest coverage you can purchase as an example. Bronze plans are an avg. 20% lower than private insurance basic plans. However, the deductible is higher than the average plan by about $1,500.

You mention a $10,000 deductible. Those may exist in some extreme instances, but the average deductible for the lowest plan offered is $5,081. And while that may seem steep, again, the average basic employer health care has a deductible of $3,500.

You also have to keep in mind the cost of health care. The average hip replacement for example costs inbetween $10,00--25,000 through Medicare. So a $5,000 deductible doesn't sound all that bad in that case.

 

[threeeputtt]

Re: You don't always call people names

Isn't it wonderful that subsidies are free and no one has to pay for them!

This post was edited on 7/23 1:00 PM by threeeputtt

 

[BoilerJS]

Re: You don't always call people names

average deductible for the lowest plan offered is $5,081
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low incomers get a $5000.00 earned income tax return credit without paying any taxes. Can Uncle Sam require this be used towards the co-pay? If so this ACA may not be to bad after all. BTW I have no info on the $10,000.00, actually pulled it out of my arse to make a point that the deductible must be extremely hi for a policy that only costs $4500.00 per year.

 

[lbodel]

Re: You don't always call people names

I don't think you can require it - especially since it will vary how much of the deductible they will actually spend. Obviously it's something that would be prudent to put it towards.

The health care plans actually, in general, a pretty good deal - especially considering what you would have paid without a "pool" to get a good insurance policy prior to that.

Of course there are instances where a cost would increase or what not. And also, the people with bare bone insurance plans may have been paying $50/month, but it hardly covered anything. Overall, health insurance is not cheap and that's the reality (many people have not been fully in reality).

 

[Purdue85]

translation: Never.

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
You just come across as an unhinged asshole. You've exhibited the characteristics of an asshole for years, and have never shown any effort to change your behavior for the better. For the sake of those with whom you interact in real life, I hope this is simply your message-board persona.

Please seek medical help.

Additional translation: I post what you don't like, so you call me names.

You're a typical liberal. You whine about "tolerance"... yet you're offensively intolerant to anyone who holds an opinion or position in conflict with yours.

I've seen your type... those who whine about a 'war on women', yet call conservative women by vile, vulgar names... and claim "racism", and wish untold horrors on black conservatives.

It is you who is unhinged. You're incapable of anything but the type of discourse you've displayed.

And it's all there for all to see.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: translation: Never.

Take a poll to see how you're viewed on this board. I can't wait for the results.

 

[Purdue85]

Bring it!

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Take a poll to see how you're viewed on this board. I can't wait for the results.

So, show me.

You've demonstrated yourself to be a hate-filled name-calling poster.

I challenged db, who not surprisingly avoided the thread! Instead, you chose to insert yourself, to demonstrate where I've been calling names. You couldn't!!!

To show your tolerance, you chose to go on a hate-filled rant by calling me an "unhinged asshole". That's far lower than anything you could ever accuse me of doing. Yet, you still cannot help yourself. You still think there's something to be "won". You "can't wait for the results". Of what? Your lemmings? Input form fellow leftists who hate conservatives and call them every vile name in the books? Who have contempt and hatred for anyone daring to stray from the plantation? Those who dare to think for themselves?

Yes... If being "viewed on this board" negatively by your fellow rabid leftists is the measure, BRING IT ON! I'll gladly wear that badge of honor, Skippy!!

 

[BoilersRock]

nm*

nm
This post was edited on 7/28 8:07 PM by BoilersRock

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

> So, that's the position of "The One"?

No, I never said that. You didn't ask about that either. I did say that Heritage does not support Obamacare.

> That's why the current border crisis?

I'm not sure about the connection between mandates and the border issue, but if there is I'd like to hear more about that.

> There's no real intellectual analysis of Quayle, Gingrich (really? From the 90's?) or Paul Ryan. Nor is there an analysis of how/why that's in line with conservative values. Engage in that and you might sound like you have a point. Otherwise, you're just positioning the liberal talking points.

You asked a very specific question and was given some specific answers. Do you think those names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans. In all seriousness, please share, I'd love to hear it.

(EDIT: formatting)









This post was edited on 7/28 8:07 PM by BoilersRock

 

[ecouch]

Re: Bring it!

You're an unhinged asshole. You toss around buzzwords as if playing catch. You change the name of the President to completely unoriginal words like The One as if you were a radio shock jock reaching for the canned laughter button.

Raise the bar. Work on your presentation. Work on delivering content worth reading. Most of the time I don't even read your posts. They are nothing more than white noise, a distraction from actual discussion. The badge of honor that you so desperately want to wear isn't one of valor, it is one of ineptitude. You aren't doing your position the least bit of service. If anything, I would characterize your posts as the exact problem I mentioned in another thread. You need an adult.

This post was edited on 7/28 9:29 PM by ecouch

 

[Purdue85]

*yawn*...

Originally posted by ecouch:
You're an unhinged asshole. You toss around buzzwords as if playing catch. You change the name of the President to completely unoriginal words like The One as if you were a radio shock jock reaching for the canned laughter button.

Raise the bar. Work on your presentation. Work on delivering content worth reading. Most of the time I don't even read your posts. They are nothing more than white noise, a distraction from actual discussion. The badge of honor that you so desperately want to wear isn't one of valor, it is one of ineptitude. You aren't doing your position the least bit of service. If anything, I would characterize your posts as the exact problem I mentioned in another thread. You need an adult.

This post was edited on 7/28 9:29 PM by ecouch

You commit the very offense of which I've been charged, yet you commit a massive FAILURE in your effort to support your claim.

Grab some substance and address the SPECIFICS of what I've posted, and mount a reasoned, thoughtful, cogent, intelligent response! It's that flippin' easy! The absence of it makes you appear as you are... a blind ideologue.

If you cannot (or will not, I don't give a rip) address the points made, you're the problem. Not me!

You moronically call on me to "raise the bar", yet you fail miserably with your hypocrisy. Do it yourself!

I don't give a d@mn if you read my posts, but you sure seem to contradict yourself by acting as the authority on my posts by responding illogically with some nonsensical retort. Brilliant ineptitude!

In short, yes... "you aren't doing your position the least bit of service."

And you wouldn't know adult conversation if it bit you in the arse.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
> So, that's the position of "The One"?

No, I never said that. You didn't ask about that either. I did say that Heritage does not support Obamacare.

> That's why the current border crisis?

I'm not sure about the connection between mandates and the border issue, but if there is I'd like to hear more about that.

> There's no real intellectual analysis of Quayle, Gingrich (really? From the 90's?) or Paul Ryan. Nor is there an analysis of how/why that's in line with conservative values. Engage in that and you might sound like you have a point. Otherwise, you're just positioning the liberal talking points.

You asked a very specific question and was given some specific answers. Do you think those names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans. In all seriousness, please share, I'd love to hear it.

(EDIT: formatting)









This post was edited on 7/28 8:07 PM by BoilersRock

....and none of that really adds anything.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

You don't wish to share you opinion? Why?

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
You don't wish to share you opinion? Why?

what?

Have you been asleep at the switch?

I've been excoriated in this thread (and in others) by the limp-wristed, thin-skinned faction on this forum for doing exactly that.

If you don't think I've "(shared my) opinion", you're not paying attention.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

It's quite clear you're no fan of government run healthcare, but that's not what I've been asking about.

Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives?
Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities
between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
It's quite clear you're no fan of government run healthcare, but that's not what I've been asking about.

Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives?
Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities
between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

Better idea: Why don't you explain what conservatism IS, not WHO it is.

Then you can explain how and why government run health care is not a conservative principle.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

Again, conservatism is not defined by the actions of those you cherry pick.

Once you can adequately define conservatism, then you can begin to explain how and why government run health care is NOT a conservative principle.

I doubt you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so. Instead, you'll continue to try to frame conservatism in a different manner.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

> Again, conservatism is not defined by the actions of those you cherry pick.

Cherry pick? You asked specifically for conservatives who have supported government run healthcare in some shape or form, remember?

>Once you can adequately define conservatism, then you can begin to explain how and why government run health care is NOT a conservative principle.

No argument there, I fully understand and agree that government run health care is NOT a conservative principal.

> I doubt you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so. Instead, you'll continue to try to frame conservatism in a different manner.

I hope my previous answer, while brief, allayed any fears of that.

Do you think it's impossible for true conservatives to ever support a mandate?



This post was edited on 8/3 10:29 PM by BoilersRock

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

Again, conservatism is not defined by the actions of those you cherry pick.

Once you can adequately define conservatism, then you can begin to explain how and why government run health care is NOT a conservative principle.

I doubt you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so. Instead, you'll continue to try to frame conservatism in a different manner.

The problem with today's conservatism is that conservatives can't accurately frame it.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[lbodel]

No, it's just against anything that Obama (and to a lesser extent Democrats) is for.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
> Again, conservatism is not defined by the actions of those you cherry pick.

Cherry pick? You asked specifically for conservatives who have supported government run healthcare in some shape or form, remember?

>Once you can adequately define conservatism, then you can begin to explain how and why government run health care is NOT a conservative principle.

No argument there, I fully understand and agree that government run health care is NOT a conservative principal.

> I doubt you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so. Instead, you'll continue to try to frame conservatism in a different manner.

I hope my previous answer, while brief, allayed any fears of that.

Do you think it's impossible for true conservatives to ever support a mandate?



This post was edited on 8/3 10:29 PM by BoilersRock

Again, (and I don't know how many times you need it stated for you) define conservatism and then you will have your answer!

You keep looking for justification, while you know the outcome.

 

[Purdue85]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
Again, do you think those [Republican] names listed are not representative of conservatives? Or perhaps you'd like to expound on the differences and similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare and earlier plans.

Again, conservatism is not defined by the actions of those you cherry pick.

Once you can adequately define conservatism, then you can begin to explain how and why government run health care is NOT a conservative principle.

I doubt you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so. Instead, you'll continue to try to frame conservatism in a different manner.

The problem with today's conservatism is that conservatives can't accurately frame it.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com

Incorrect. Some Republicans and others who claim to be "moderates" don't WANT to accurately frame it.

Conservatism has never changed. Politicians have. People have. But not conservatism.

 

[Purdue85]

Originally posted by lbodel:
No, it's just against anything that Obama (and to a lesser extent Democrats) is for.

Another straw man.

Let's see Obama adopt a conservative position, instead of the radical left wing ideology he's espoused.

Your argument also applies (in reverse) to you.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Again, (and I don't know how many times you need it stated for you) define conservatism and then you will have your answer!

You keep looking for justification, while you know the outcome.

Why on earth do you need ME or anyone else to define Conservatism for you? I would think that just my listing those guys should be enough to give you an idea, if you consider each one's body of work.

Are you going to tell me that you've never given thought as to whether or not they are conservative? You could simply answer "they are" or "they aren't" or "sorta...."

Look at it this way: if you think I already know the outcome, then what do you have to lose?

 

[lbodel]

Ah yes, the radical left wing ideology like keeping Guantanamo open, being a supporter of drone strikes, adding troops in Afghanistan, lowered taxes (stimulus), propped up banks, supports the Senate immigration bill (bi-partisan bill), etc.

Very radical leftwing indeed.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: of course it is.

Originally posted by BoilersRock:

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Again, (and I don't know how many times you need it stated for you) define conservatism and then you will have your answer!

You keep looking for justification, while you know the outcome.

Why on earth do you need ME or anyone else to define Conservatism for you? I would think that just my listing those guys should be enough to give you an idea, if you consider each one's body of work.

Are you going to tell me that you've never given thought as to whether or not they are conservative? You could simply answer "they are" or "they aren't" or "sorta...."

Look at it this way: if you think I already know the outcome, then what do you have to lose?

No, genius... you're not defining it for ME. You can try to play dumb, but you won't get away from the point.

Or, maybe it's not an act....??