RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare

RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:43:40 AM)
I would allow corporations that agree to caps on executive salary, and that reduced prices to the american public to pay no corporate taxes. The most mindnumbingly stupid thing I have heard all day.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:45:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: papassion What part of "REALITY" don't Liberals understand? You cannot give everyone, everything and think it is all going to work out. Forget what education Greece, Spain, etc, etc, etc. got from Liberal ideas. The latest CBO figures show our spending is unstainable. Perhaps the cost of the adventure in the sand box is too costly? quote: Our economy is phony and being propped up by the government printing 85 billion a month out of thin air. The only reason other countries need our dollars is because it is the "international currency" Russia and China are making deals with other countries that don't require purchases between countries in US dollars. When enough countries agree to this, we are screwed and the dollar will become almost worthless. Buy silver and gold to cover your ass when the shit hits the fan. Is there some econ book that we could look at to validate this mindnumbing stupid opinion? Papassion is right that the role of the dollar in international currency has declined over the last ten years. Google it. So fucking what? That others might value their goods and services in a manner not denominated in dollars does not devalue the dollar...only our printing presses can do that. Why is that a reason to go to fucking war?

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:48:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Probably not. Why are costs going up? We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, with a middling outcome. Where is the money going? It is not going to outcome. Why are costs going up? Huge health care conglomerates are raising prices. Is this something new or is this pretty much old news? It is very much new news, because obamacare is accelerating the trend dramatically. Doctors are selling out of individual practices and becoming employees of hospitals etc. And it is a conscious design choice of the legislation. quote: quote: Because there are too few doctor's offices competing. Doesn't the ama limits the number of doctors in the u.s.? you're arguing with me when I am saying the same thing as you? quote: quote: because federal regulations means the average cost of delivering a new drug in the us exceed 700 million. Which part of that protocol would you like to see removed? necessary fixes to that system has taken books and books. Some I've read. We will make no hay discussing it here. quote: quote: because threat of tort action makes doctors practice defensive medicine. Should incompetet doctors be protected from torts? Never said that. However when the medical procedures as a whole are proscribed merely to avoid the prospect of litigation, its a problem quote: quote: because consumers have no incentive to shop for the best price/services. Since they don't pay for it, they go for the "best" care. Why should anyone seek less than the best care? Because you can't afford it. duh. quote: quote: because hospitals pass the costs of the uninsured onto those that are insured, or pay cash. quote: And none of these things is obamacare resolving. The aca also does not address global warming,the escalating cost of fuel,or hunger in apalachia[8\|] Nonetheless it was passed with several bold proclamations If you liked your healthcare - you could keep it (false) It would control the cost of healthcare - (false) It would reduce the number of uninsured (false) Since it won't do any of thses things.. one wonders what it was passed for.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:49:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I would allow corporations that agree to caps on executive salary, and that reduced prices to the american public to pay no corporate taxes. The most mindnumbingly stupid thing I have heard all day. High praise. Thanks!

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:55:01 AM)
quote: Nonetheless it was passed with several bold proclamations If you liked your healthcare - you could keep it (false) It would control the cost of healthcare - (false) It would reduce the number of uninsured (false) Since it won't do any of thses things.. one wonders what it was passed for. At first pass, I do not know that those bold proclamations were pronounced, nor that they were the cause of its passage. Second pass, how are any of those bold proclamations false, other than in the masturbatory fantasies of the neo-nazi teabaggers and other slovenly and innumerate folk who hang on to their every unfactual imbecility uttered (which is the lot, btw)?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 7:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why are costs going up? Huge health care conglomerates are raising prices. Is this something new or is this pretty much old news? quote: It is very much new news, because obamacare is accelerating the trend dramatically. Doctors are selling out of individual practices and becoming employees of hospitals etc. cite please quote: And it is a conscious design choice of the legislation. Cite please. quote: Because there are too few doctor's offices competing. Doesn't the ama limits the number of doctors in the u.s.? quote: you're arguing with me when I am saying the same thing as you? Pay attention to the punctuation please. quote: because federal regulations means the average cost of delivering a new drug in the us exceed 700 million. Which part of that protocol would you like to see removed? quote: necessary fixes to that system has taken books and books. Some I've read. We will make no hay discussing it here. Why bring up a point that you do not wish to discuss? quote: because threat of tort action makes doctors practice defensive medicine. Should incompetet doctors be protected from torts? quote: Never said that. Please note the punctuation. quote: However when the medical procedures as a whole are proscribed merely to avoid the prospect of litigation, its a problem cite please. quote: because consumers have no incentive to shop for the best price/services. Since they don't pay for it, they go for the "best" care. Why should anyone seek less than the best care? quote: Because you can't afford it. duh. Why do you feel that ones health should be controlled by ones wallet? Isn't this what socialised meicine is all about? quote: because hospitals pass the costs of the uninsured onto those that are insured, or pay cash. And none of these things is obamacare resolving. The aca also does not address global warming,the escalating cost of fuel,or hunger in apalachia[8\|] quote: Nonetheless it was passed with several bold proclamations If you liked your healthcare - you could keep it (false) I get to keep my health care so you are mistaken. quote: It would control the cost of healthcare - (false) Cite please quote: It would reduce the number of uninsured (false) Cite please quote: Since it won't do any of thses things.. one wonders what it was passed for. Until you substantiate any of your opinions they remain unsubstantiated opinions.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 8:23:45 AM)
Huge health conglomerates...............yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssss. More evidence that the hands off approach to capitalism does not work, since the outcome will be lack of competition as the predators (not the best merchandise, not the best service, not the most altruistic) will gobble competition and destroy free markets.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 8:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Huge health conglomerates...............yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssss. More evidence that the hands off approach to capitalism does not work, since the outcome will be lack of competition as the predators (not the best merchandise, not the best service, not the most altruistic) will gobble competition and destroy free markets. I don't agree with the premise (hands off approach...) There are times hands off is appropriate, and times it is not. However, I do agree that health care conglomerates are a terrible thing. It is one of many fundamental reasons I am opposed to obamacare.

RacerJim -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 8:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But what part of 'Reality' don't 'conservatives' understand? They are borrowing and spending at massively destructive levels. With medical costs at a ridiculous amount now, Obamacare is not the answer! OK, we have the most expensive health care in the world and it's about #20 when it comes to quality. What's the answer? Unfortunately, the R controlled house has no clue. While more people will be covered under Obamacare, the most expensive health care in the world will be getting even more expensive. That was what the Forbes' article pointed out. What you said has absolutely nothing to do with my post. I wasn't, nor have I ever advocated Obamacare. My post was about the problem the R side has with running around yelling "this is bad, this is horrible" without offering up anything resembling an alternative. One alternative thing to Obamacare the R side has been repeatedly yelling is TORT REFORM, but the D side has been so adamantly opposed to that that they haven't even allowed it to be discussed.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:03:26 AM)
OH, that is pure knowing lie. Look, if they can repeal it 42 times they can pass a tort reform bill, (and it is not an alternative to obamacare) since a 2% lessening of cost due to insurance doesnt get anyone insured, is alot like an alternative in saying to overcome the difficulties with lighter than air dirigibles and explosive hydrogen, we could use cement instead.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:09:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Point = Totally Missed I didn't say they weren't trying to do those things, I said it was not their #1 priority. Their stated #1 priority was 'to make the president a 1 termer'. In January of '09, there were at least 100 things more important to the country than that but "One Term President" was the #1 priority. instead of: running the country getting us out of the sandbox creating jobs lowering the deficit making Americans safe from terrorists. fixing the decrepit infrastructure C'mon man, you have much better reading comprehension than that. You said they were and are trying to run the country. Are you sure you didn't simply make a typo and misspell 'ruin'? Point <> missed (would "/=" have been accurate?) Point = Disagreed with. [:D] All the things you said they should be doing rather than making Obama a one-term President were the ways they were going to try to make sure he was a one-term President. They aren't trying to ruin the country. They are trying to save the country from ruin. It can also be said that none of those things were #1 on Obama's list, either. His big campaign promise was to "fundamentally transform" America.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail OH, that is pure knowing lie. Look, if they can repeal it 42 times they can pass a tort reform bill, (and it is not an alternative to obamacare) since a 2% lessening of cost due to insurance doesnt get anyone insured, is alot like an alternative in saying to overcome the difficulties with lighter than air dirigibles and explosive hydrogen, we could use cement instead. Neither a tort reform bill nor a repeal passes the senate. In fact, the house passed a tort reform bill back in march? april? 2012. Predictably killed in senate by the dimocrats at the behest of their lawyer contributors.

RacerJim -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:13:07 AM)
That is absolute, complete, total and utter BS. The R side of the House can pass any/all bills they want but unless the D side of the Senate and the D in White House agree it's all for naught and you know it. Even assuming TORT REFORM would only decrease the average cost of insurance 2% that's many times over better than Obamacare increasing the average cost of insurance 25% or more, never-mind completely eliminating employer provided/subsidized insurance and full-time jobs in many cases.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail OH, that is pure knowing lie. Look, if they can repeal it 42 times they can pass a tort reform bill, (and it is not an alternative to obamacare) since a 2% lessening of cost due to insurance doesnt get anyone insured, is alot like an alternative in saying to overcome the difficulties with lighter than air dirigibles and explosive hydrogen, we could use cement instead. Neither a tort reform bill nor a repeal passes the senate. In fact, the house passed a tort reform bill back in march? april? 2012. Predictably killed in senate by the dimocrats at the behest of their lawyer contributors. Nope another knowing lie, it was touted as tort reform by the teabaggers, the first limiting damages to 250K ....LOL, fucking stupid, the second was as an amendment to a bill repealing the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. So, never tort reform, just teabagging lies at repeals and corporate welfare passed off as something who knows what.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:32:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim That is absolute, complete, total and utter BS. The R side of the House can pass any/all bills they want but unless the D side of the Senate and the D in White House agree it's all for naught and you know it. Even assuming TORT REFORM would only decrease the average cost of insurance 2% that's many times over better than Obamacare increasing the average cost of insurance 25% or more, never-mind completely eliminating employer provided/subsidized insurance and full-time jobs in many cases. And those teabaggers are passing dogshit down there a mile a minute, and no self-respecting American looking out for America is going to take that shit up. Obamcare does not increase the average cost of insurance 25% or more. That's fucking stupid.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:33:42 AM)
limiting damages for pain and suffering is tort reform ron.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:35:17 AM)
It is not reform. It is corporate capitulation. Just as repealing social security is not social security reform, nor is taking that money to be used in the stock market.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:36:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So fucking what? That others might value their goods and services in a manner not denominated in dollars does not devalue the dollar...only our printing presses can do that. Why is that a reason to go to fucking war? Paper Money is only a medium of exchange. In the fiat system we (the world) operate in, having a reserve currency sets the basis of the system. http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-being-the-worlds-reserve-currency# quote: #1 - No currency-conversion-based transaction costs on international commodity transactions. International Commodity markets prices are set in the currency of the reserve currency. As such, all transactions through the Commodity market are conducted in the reserve currency. Exchanging one's currency into the reserve currency incurrs a small transaction cost. This transaction cost is incurred by all, save for the nation which issues the reserve currency: since no currency exchange occurs prior to the transaction, no transaction costs are incurred. #2 - Marginally improved Sovereign Credit due to externally inflated currency demand. Since other nations hold the reserve currency, the market for the reserve currency is larger than if it were not the reserve currency. As such, Sovereign Bonds which pay out in the reserve currency are in higher demand (than they would be if the issuing country's sovereign currency was not the reserve currency), which drive down the interest rate paid on those bonds, resulting in a lower "Cost of Credit". Trading between countries not using the US$ means no #1 advantage. If you don't need to use US$ for exchanges, #2 disappears, too. You are correct that the value of the dollar, in terms of purchasing power, is controlled by the printing or destroying of dollars. Sadly, we've been hammering away at that since the 70's.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Obamcare does not increase the average cost of insurance 25% or more. That's fucking stupid. yes, obamacare does increase the cost of health insurance, and yes, its fucking stupid. the CBO released a report september 19: obamacare will increase the cost of healthcare 200 billion dollars next year more than if it had not otherwise been in place. of the 13 states we have insurance filings for, the average increase was 24%. Since most of the states that have already destroyed their insurance industry (california, new york) have already reported in - that number will only go up as the rest of the country report their results. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/04/interactive-map-in-13-states-plus-d-c-individual-health-premiums-will-increase-by-an-average-of-24/

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 9:52:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux If you liked your healthcare - you could keep it (false) Obamacare isn't directly stopping anyone from keeping their current physician or health care. The claim and the rebuttal of the claim are both partially correct. quote: It would control the cost of healthcare - (false) How do you know it isn't controlling the cost of health care? You might be wrong about the intended control result. [8D] quote: It would reduce the number of uninsured (false) I believe the latest CBO projection still comes out with a net increase in the number of people insured. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/Proj2012.pdf The very last page of the report is Table 17, and that shows the % of insured rising overall.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875