Obama the Crybaby Liberal

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

oh lord...

You are attempting to make it seem as though allocating funds is absolute power. This is factually incorrect; there is no other way to say it. They are not allowed to not allocate funds if they don't like you. They just pay doctors and other medical staff, someone actually has to manage the funds, its called bookkeeping or something in economic or accounting terms (I don't know exactly what the word is because I'm a biochemist, not an economics major).

THEY CANNOT CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE BASED OFF POLITICAL DESIRES THEY WOULD GET FIRED.

There, big capital letters, just in case you choose to ignore that again in lieu of paranoia, which you probably will.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Credge

Do you believe I should be forced to participate?

They wont answer that question most of the time.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I don't have a short memory, everything is crystal clear, the republicans defend the constitution while the dems shit all over it.

When did this miracle start? Last I looked, the entire lot give fuck all about the Constitution.

[FrenchToast]

I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.

[squeek.]

Wee!

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.

Depends on what you see as righteous. For example, do you believe in the republic? Republicans used to stand up for the republic, thus their name. Now it's all about: God, Abortion, killing terrorists, and immigration. Republic being a collection of states with rights and powers and a federal government with interest in the states. Or do you consider the check and balance system of government righteous? That being no single branch of government can obtain too much power. The House of representative representing the popular vote and interests of the people, the senate representing individual member state interests, the judicial checking powers against the constitutional frame work and the presidency overseeing administration and defense.

Democrats could care fuck all about the republic and most of the constitution. Its archaic.

If you cared more about the benefit government promises you than the framework laid out 200 years ago, that seeks to balance power - then it would not seem very righteous at times.

So it depends on how you look at it. Another example: Right now the administrative branch basically bribed the legislative branch into passing a bill that was rushed through both houses that forces individuals and states to buy a product and deliver services dictated by congress. Some states say they cannot fund these services AND the clause in the constitution (commerce) Obama and Nancy used to justify their incredible use of federal powers is not appropriate and not constitutional (legal). So 15 States so far are going to sue the Federal Government. And I am behind that action, even though there could be some benefit to people in general.

I say "could be" because most of the time our government tries to produce a benefit they fuck it up. For example, Obama had this person at the bill signing whos mother died because she could no longer afford health care. Guess what was promised decades ago to prevent this from happening? Medicaid/Medicare. I am probably the only one in the USA thinking Obama is parading around an example of failed policy, and he doesn't even know it.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.

The Constitution provides the framework for the preservation of essential liberties, protection of natural rights and the defined roles of the Federal Govt and how it should protect and serve the people. I think that most people who view the US Constitution in this manner see the Fed as only serving itself and growing its power.

[stray kitten]

So your point is that Obama changed the bill to better suit the opinions of the people who were voting it into law? Seriously? That's your point? You're right, it sucks when the democratic process works exactly as it should and you have to eat crow. You can't have it both ways dude.

The argument I was referring to happened after the bill was voted into law. It was an effort to appeal the decision even though this part of the bill was already removed.

Not to back track but I missed this. A little lost here?

First off - HE DID NOT CHANGE THE BILL, that would have meant he couldn't pass it last weekend. It was more important to get it passed than get it right. At the end they did anything to get it passed because they did not have the votes from his own party, but Republicans are painted the "evil" ones. Truth is last Sunday and even today. no one knows what the fuck is totally in this bill. Even Nancy is famously quoted: "We Need To Pass This Bill So You Can See What's In It." Try looking up something like seeing what it will cost you etc. After about 2 hours and a headache, as far as I can tell my insurance just SKY ROCKETED. If you weren't paying for health insurance you now have to by LAW or face the IRS and it could be between 2-4 and 6-9 percent of your annual income. NOT SURE YET.

And I am not talking about looking at White House propaganda bullshit, the actual bill flipping back and forth between tax code, this law and that law etc, the old bill - the reconciliation house bill, reconciliation senate bill, the order etc. You say that is democracy? Passing a very encompassing law with promises of an order and promises of a follow up bill that neither was a guarantee. Without the dealing and bribery this bill wouldn't have passed and Obama knew that. Pretty slick he is. More cunning than I ever believed. I Just got up so the latest "fix" may have already passed. you might like it but I don't like 1/6 of the economy being manipulated in such a manner and forcing a government all encompassing national laws down my throat.

But my point was simple you stated there is nothing in the bill that addressed federal support of abortion. And attacked those who believe it does as being dishonest. I demonstrated that even democrats have issues with the contents of pro abortion and Obama made a deal with them to get their votes. That is if they vote yes then Obama will sign a presidential order to ensure funding is controlled because THE BILL DID NOT. So perhaps what you stated was false and dishonest?

That's all.

People were bitching about Bush circumventing congress. But as long as the perception is "I" get some kind of benefit it's ok. And I don't know what you are referring to as having it both ways? And BTW, let's take this presidential order. How can a presidential order over rule what is contained in a congressional law? Is that democratic process? I haven't looked at what angle he is using yet.

And this has nothing to do specifically with democrats or Obama, I made this same arguments with the patriot act and then the creation of The department of Homeland Security. By mostly the same people. We are pretty much fucked all around these days.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

You are attempting to make it seem as though allocating funds is absolute power. This is factually incorrect; there is no other way to say it. They are not allowed to not allocate funds if they don't like you. They just pay doctors and other medical staff, someone actually has to manage the funds, its called bookkeeping or something in economic or accounting terms (I don't know exactly what the word is because I'm a biochemist, not an economics major).

THEY CANNOT CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE BASED OFF POLITICAL DESIRES THEY WOULD GET FIRED.

There, big capital letters, just in case you choose to ignore that again in lieu of paranoia, which you probably will.

I would say in general he who holds your money has the power. You just handed them so much. This has nothing to do with allocation of funds that's what insurance companies already do.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

I would say in general he who holds your money has the power. You just handed them so much. This has nothing to do with allocation of funds that's what insurance companies already do.

I agree. Within this context what other elements would equate to power? Violence or the perceived ability to carry out such? Given that power exerted via money is employed far more often than violence I'm OK with power and money being directly associated. To split this hair seems worthless to me.

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

I would say in general he who holds your money has the power.

What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.

For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.

For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.

I'm just curious who implied that acceptance or denial would be based on your professed political alignment in this thread. Perhaps I missed it? Your post reads as if you're issuing a blanket response to such people.

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I'm just curious who implied that acceptance or denial would be based on your professed political alignment in this thread. Perhaps I missed it? Your post reads as if you're issuing a blanket response to such people.

Acceptance or denial of what exactly? specifics would be helpful.

The only purpose of that response was to point out that this whole idea of giving the government some huge degree of power with which they can do insidious things is ludicrous, and based off paranoid musings. Not sure if that addresses the question, but it is the only point of my post.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Acceptance or denial of what exactly? specifics would be helpful.

The only purpose of that response was to point out that this whole idea of giving the government some huge degree of power with which they can do insidious things is ludicrous, and based off paranoid musings. Not sure if that addresses the question, but it is the only point of my post.

Acceptance or denial of medical care. Since health care is what this thread is about that's what I was posting about. The comments from others have focused on government having this power in general. It seems like you're the only one drifting towards partisanship. I get that you don't or can't see why this is so very dangerous. What I don't see is you expressing any interest in understanding that view. Your posts have been mocking. Are you interested in learning or are you just trolling?

[GenghisTron]

Post from another political forum I post at;

Originally Posted by SkateAndBake

Why is the bill stupid? How is there nothing good about it? Show me in the policy why health insurance costs will rise

The point of the bill is to get people who otherwise couldn't afford insurance, to be able to afford insurance. As I'll demonstrate below, this bill actually HURTS those that need it the most, and will only serve to lessen the efficiency and quality of those that ALREADY have insurance. If you ask me, that's a pretty big failure.

It will not extend the solvency of Medicare, it WILL contribute to the deficit through the 'Doc Fix', and over the long term, according to CBO. These are the main reasons why we were supposed to support the bill. It wasn't going to impact the deficit (Lie), it won't affect Medicare (Lie), it won't affect those that have insurance already (Lie),

Perhaps most stunningly, according to the CBO, health reform will spike "in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP" which, using the current GDP numbers, is $600 billion. So in 20 years, our deficit will spike $600 billion, just because of this one bill.

Originally Posted by SkateAndBake

Show me where in the legislation this preverse pokicy is created.

That's easy. Someone already did that for me.

Originally Posted by WashingtonPost.com Article

Ezra Klein - The Baucus Bill: The Worst Policy in the Bill, and Possibly in the World

And it actually gets worse. The employer pays more if the low-income worker needs subsidies for his family as opposed to just himself. So it not only discriminates against low-income workers, but it particularly discriminates against low-income parents. Single mothers will get the worst deal, as they have lower incomes, and as you might expect, children who need health care.

The penalty itself is a bit confusing, and if anything, even worse than one might imagine: The employer will pay the lesser of A) the average subsidy in the exchange times the number of subsidized workers or B) $400 times the total number of workers. Two examples should clarify this:

Originally Posted by NationalReview.com Article

The Real Reason NOW Should Oppose the President's Health-Care Bill - Carrie Lukas - Critical Condition on National Review Online

Section 4980H (under Title 1, Subtitle F, Part II, Section 1513) of the Senate's bill stipulates large employers that fail to provide employees and their dependents access to insurance meeting the government's “minimum essential coverage” definition face penalties if at least one full-time employee obtains insurance using a government subsidy. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein explains (while calling the provision “the worst policy in the bill, and possibly in the world”), the penalties could be considerable, and will create disincentives for hiring poor parents.


Surely legislation penalizing the hiring of single moms meets NOW's definition of “anti-woman.” Defenders could argue the intent is not to penalize hiring, but to encourage companies to provide benefits to employees. Yet these are the kinds of unintended consequences inevitable in a bill that tries to micromanage so many aspects of a very complicated system. Mandates are supposed to ensure adequate coverage, but inevitably drive up costs. Cost-cutting measures are supposed to encourage efficiency, but will inevitably reduce the quality and quantity of care that's available. Expanding health-insurance coverage helps the uninsured, but means that as a nation we'll be consuming more health care and paying more for it.

There are more perverse incentive, as well. The CBO has already stated that under 'Obamacare', health care premiums would be higher under Obamacare, than if we did nothing. So what will end up happening is, insurance premiums will rise, but you know that little tax you get for not getting insurance (Something like 2.6% of your income, or a $2,600 fine, per year) will actually be CHEAPER than buying insurance.

Incentives vs. Intentions, Arnold Kling | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

As Bryan points out, the incentives in the new health care legislation should discourage people from getting health insurance and discourage employers from providing health insurance. The intent of the legislation is to reduce the number of people who are uninsured.


As of now, a rational individual would not choose to obtain health insurance, and a rational new business would not offer health insurance. In both cases, that is because the legislation has made it illegal for health insurers to discriminate against people on the basis of health status. So the cost of obtaining health insurance while you are healthy will stay high--in fact, market forces should send it higher--while the cost of remaining uninsured has dropped dramatically.


Is it time to bet that there will be more Americans uninsured two years from now than there are today? Or will the law produce results that are consistent with intentions, regardless of incentives?

How Many Employers Will Stop Providing Health Insurance?, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Why is employer-provided health insurance so prevalent? Economists usually point to the tax code. Cash is taxed; health benefits aren't. One interesting side effect of Obamacare is that it's going to put the standard view to the test.

How so? If preliminary summaries of Obamacare are true, it looks like individual health insurance will soon be a better deal than employer-provided health insurance. In the individual market, you can now wait until you're really sick to buy insurance: "Heads I win, tails I break even." Firms won't have that gimme - and it seems more valuable than premiums' tax deductibility. Admittedly, Obamacare imposes a small penalty on individuals who don't buy insurance, and a moderate penalty on firms that don't provide it. But it still seems like it will be in the financial self-interest of many firms and their workers to get rid of insurance, and split the (cash savings minus penalties).

I seriously doubt that prominent institutions like GMU or Microsoft will take advantage of this golden opportunity during the next few years. The outcry would be too great, and they care about their image. But if most lower-profile employers take the bait, the stigma might melt away.

The big question, then, is: Will lower-profile employers stop insuring their workers? Financially it seems like it makes sense (though the legislation is complicated enough that I could be mistaken). If you buy into Robin Hanson's "showing that you care" model of health altruism, however, you've got to think twice. People still get married despite the tax disadvantages; apparently people will pay thousands of dollars every year to avoid hurting each others' feelings. Will employers and employees make a comparable choice - to leave thousands of dollars on the table every year to show how much they mean to each other?

Originally Posted by SkateAndBake

How is medical innovation going to be shipped oversees, that doesnt even make sense. Health care is not being outsourced...

The reform bill mandates that insurance companies provide a 'minimum essential coverage' for their clients. Of course, that 'minimum essential coverage' is Government mandated, and when you give companies a 'minimum' amount of anything to aspire to, you create laziness. In a free market, insurance companies would be forced to provide new medical innovations constantly, to keep up with competitors. In this system, you'll see insurance companies get lazy, and become slower to adopt new technology. This is quite common in Medicare/Medicaid... they're extremely slow to adopt new technologies because... they don't really have to. They have no profit motive, and therefore don't care about gaining an edge over their competitors.

Basic economics here. Insurance companies care more about reaching that 'minimum essential coverage' threshold, rather than pleasing it's customers now.

Originally Posted by SkateAndBake

How does this make insurance and pharmaceutical companies rich?

Well first of all, when you insulate any company from market competition, you increase it's profitability through an 'inefficiency monopoly'. Inefficiency monopolies always increase costs, whereas efficiency monopolies decrease costs. Second, this bill effectively decreases administrative costs for insurance companies by making it easier to dispense treatment, once again, because of the 'minimum essential coverage' threshold.

Also, pharmaceuticals will always continue to profit, their profit margins are 22%. Back in December, Democrats voted against importing drugs from Canada (Oh right, the Democrats are LOOKING OUT FOR THE COMMON MAN) which would decrease drug prices, and further allow big pharmaceuticals to keep their monopoly on premium drugs. 33 million more people on insurance will mean more pills will be sold. Remember, Pharmaceuticals aren't being punished by 'health reform', they're going to massively profit. In fact, they're exstatic, let's hear it straight from the horses' mouths'!

Drug lobby applauds 'reform' passage | Washington Examiner

Drug Lobby applauds 'reform' passage

Last night, President Obama cheered the House passage of the health-care bill, and, as normal, claimed "We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests.... We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people." At the same time, the largest industry lobby in the country, also gave the House a standing O:

We continue to believe that comprehensive health care reform will benefit patients and the future of America. That’s why we have been involved in this important public policy debate for more than a year and why we support action by the House to approve the Senate-passed bill along with the amendments found in the reconciliation legislation....


Today’s important and historic vote in the House will help to expand health care coverage and services to tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured and often forced to forego needed medical treatments.


For your convenience, Doug Bandow at the American Spectator has provided an annotated version. The all-caps sections are Bandow's additions:


PhRMA Statement on Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), WHICH INVESTED $100 MILLION TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, issued the following statement today on passage of comprehensive health care reform and accompanying reconciliation legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives:
"We continue to believe that comprehensive health care reform will benefit OUR MEMBERS BY INCREASING INSURANCE COVERAGE AND THUS THE NUMBER OF PILLS SOLD. FOR THE RECORD, WE ALSO CLAIM THAT THE LEGISLATION WILL BENEFIT patients and the future of America. TAKING CARE OF OUR MEMBERS IS why we have been involved in this important public policy debate for more than a year and why we CUT A DEAL WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

If that wasn't bad enough, here's some more bullshit.

Obama gives sugar plums to the special interests | Washington Examiner

"Tonight," President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, "we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. ... We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people."

But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America -- whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history -- hailed the health package as "important and historic."


The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama's underdog tale is all bark and no bite.


The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street.


Yet all along Obama has claimed the opposite. The Democrats' party-line Senate vote for the bill represented "standing up to the special interests," Obama said in December -- just before the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical political action committees hosted fundraisers for Martha Coakley to try to preserve the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority.


Throughout March, as momentum built for passing the bill, and as Democrats adopted the mantra, "You're either with the American people, or you're with the insurance companies," health insurance stocks climbed in tandem with the bill's odds of passing. The health sector outperformed every other sector in the S&P 500 over the last month.
And once the bill passed, health care stocks rallied. Insurance giant Aetna -- whose product you are now required by law to own -- hit its 52-week high the morning after. Drug maker Pfizer rose 4 percent Monday and Tuesday, increasing its market capitalization by $3.8 billion -- almost a two-hundredfold return on the company's $21.9 million lobbying effort.


In Washington, talk of who's getting rich or taking a hit often distracts pointlessly from substantive issues. But it's important here for two reasons.


First, there's the unsettling but unavoidable conclusion that our president is willing to deceive us if he thinks he can get away with it. He knew the drug makers were on his side -- after all, he cut a private deal with top drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin. He also knew that the media would consider any big government proposal a blow to big business.


Second, showing who benefits most makes clear that this "reform" wasn't designed to "work for the people," as Obama claims. It works for the deep-pocketed companies who wrote it. Come January, you will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medicines with your health savings account money -- if you want the tax deduction, you'll need to get more costly prescription drugs. That hurts customers and taxpayers while driving up health care spending -- but it profits Big Pharma.


The bill is loaded with sugar plums for the drug industry:


o Taxpayers will subsidize drug makers even more.

o Employers will be forced to give prescription-drug insurance to workers.

o Generic versions of biologic drugs will be kept off the market for 12 years.

o States will be forced to subsidize drugs through Medicaid.

o Americans will still be prohibited from importing cheaper drugs from China.

o Medicare will continue overpaying for drugs.


If the bill's actual provisions paint a different picture from Obama's rhetoric, so does the money trail.


Standing behind Obama at the bill signing Tuesday were Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the leading Senate and House recipients, respectively, of health-sector political action committee money in this election cycle. The 2008 champs of health PAC fundraising, Max Baucus and Charlie Rangel, were also on stage.
And the man with the pen in his hand had received more money from drug companies and health insurance companies than any politician in the history of the country.
We won't know for years whether Obama was right about the effects of this law. But we already know that Obama's story of how we got here -- the people triumphing over the special interests -- is a tall tale.

Originally Posted by SkateAndBake

From Reuters (neutral): Insurance companies will get 31 million more customers, many of them subsidized by the federal government. However, in addition to new coverage regulations, insurers will be required to spend a minimum of 85 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for large group plans and 80 cents on every premium dollar for individual and small group plans.

By requiring everyone to obtain insurance, hospitals will have fewer cases of uncompensated care. Many people without insurance seek care at hospital emergency centers because they do not turn away patients. When patients are unable to pay, hospitals make up those losses by charging more to those with insurance.

So basically insurance companies will get more money but will be required to spend it on providing care. Hospitals will get more business but ultimalte save money as opposed to losing it due to losses created by the uninsured.

Even if this were true, I honestly don't think it holds a candle to the very obvious, and gigantic negatives of this bill. I've already demonstrated how this will be a very big boon to the pharmaceutical and insurance industry. I mean, look at the stocks of these companies, nearly all of the insurance companies that are supposedly being 'punished' by the Democrats for recission are hitting 52-week highs, coincidentally, the day following the passage in the Congress. The market knows this bill is nothing but a cash cow for these companies.
Oh, and another nail in the coffin, Harvard economist Greg Manikw puts in perspective the Democrats' magical accounting feats that allow them to claim this is 'deficit neutral', and then follows up by saying "my judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems".

His analogy;

Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Problem with Deficit Neutrality

Friend: I am going to take off a few days from work and fly down to Bermuda for a quick vacation.

You: But isn't that expensive? Won't that just add to your growing debts?

Friend: Yes, it is expensive. But my plan is deficit-neutral. I have decided to give up that half-caf, extra-shot caramel macchiato I order at Starbucks twice every day. I really don't need that expensive drink. And if I give it up for the next three years, it will pay for my Bermuda trip.

You: Well, then, how are you going to solve the problem of your growing debts?

Friend: I am going to figure that out as soon as I return from Bermuda.

You: But in light of your budget problem, maybe you should give up Starbucks and skip the Bermuda vacation. Giving up Starbucks could be the easiest way to start balancing your budget.

Friend: You really aren't any fun, are you?

This conversation is meant to illustrate why claims of deficit-neutrality in the healthcare reform bill should not give much comfort to those worried about the U.S. fiscal situation. Even if you believe that the spending cuts and tax increases in the bill make it deficit-neutral, the legislation will still make solving the problem of the fiscal imbalance harder, because it will use up some of the easier ways to close the shortfall. The remaining options will be less attractive, making the eventual fiscal adjustment more painful.

Then of course, there's this bit;

There has been a lot of talk lately about the CBO scoring of the health bill. Here is one thing people should understand about their numbers: When they estimate the budget impact of a bill like this, they assume the path of GDP is unchanged.

Recall that the bill raises taxes substantially. Some of these tax hikes are the explicit tax increases on capital income to pay for the insurance subsidies. Some of these tax hikes are the implicit marginal rate increases from the phase-out of the insurance subsidies as a person's income rises. Both of these would be expected to reduce GDP growth.

Indeed, to be very wonkish about it, these tax changes could have especially large GDP effects. Some people like to argue that taxes have small GDP effects because income and substitution effects offset each other. But if you give someone a subsidy and then phase it out, both the income and substitution effects work in the direction of reducing work effort.

Why does CBO assume no change in GDP? It is not because the CBO staffers necessarily believe that result. Rather, it is just one of the conventions of budget scoring. Their estimates should come with a warning label:

So on top of the fact that, in 20 years, the budget deficit caused by this bill will become extremely large, the GDP will have shrunk because of the Economic havoc wrought by this bill. Look at the brightside, if this bill shrinks the GDP, that means that the percentage of GDP we spend on paying for the deficit will be less than if our GDP grew!

[YomMamasHouse]

Your posts have been mocking. Are you interested in learning or are you just trolling?

Neither, because the opinion that letting the government manage the money is giving them some dangerous form of power is not deserving of that much esteemed treatment. If I attempt to learn anything from that point of view I might as well learn organic chemistry form an alchemist, geography from a person who believes the earth is flat, or internal medicine from someone who believes in the four-humor theory.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Neither, because the opinion that letting the government manage the money is giving them some dangerous form of power is not deserving of that much esteemed treatment. If I attempt to learn anything from that point of view I might as well learn organic chemistry form an alchemist, geography from a person who believes the earth is flat, or internal medicine from someone who believes in the four-humor theory.

So understanding the opposing view has no value? Is that really what you're saying? That doesn't sound terribly open-minded. Isn't that the exact same behavior you decry in those holding divergent opinions? I think it's possible to learn and understand your opponent's view without becoming "brain-washed". It doesn't sound like you do.

[YomMamasHouse]

I understand what he is saying, he explained it to me and other people several times. Having evaluated what he said, I am left only with what I have said already.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

I understand what he is saying, he explained it to me and other people several times. Having evaluated what he said, I am left only with what I have said already.

So sounding clueless about the opposition is just an act? Wait...scratch that. Carry on...you're absolutely right. Those of us opposing this are complete idiots.

[Lost]

See, Ghengis knows his shit, or copied it from a post someone else made who knows their shit. While I approve of the some of the things this law brings to those of us who can't get good insurance, there are aspects that worry me as well. I am especially fond of the removal of discrimination in the medical professions where insurers can no longer pay less to one doctor in a given medical field than they pay a doctor in another for the exact same treatment.

Wouldn't it have been easier for the government to just set up its own health insurance provider and give everyone in the country the option to use it? They could have really named it Obama-care and everyone would have cheered!