Goatman Sacks posted:

Oh hey it popped up on my feed today; here's my attempt at refutation.



Paul is the utter caricature of privileged; he grew up in a $300,000 income home (dad is an architect/building inspector, mom is an anesthesiologist), went to private school, had his college paid for by his parents, lived at home after that until 28 with no expenses, and now works as a clerk at his uncle's gun store, where he gets paid well north of 6 figures for running a cash register.

And of course he feels that since he succeeded anyone else is just lazy.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Paul is the utter caricature of privileged; he grew up in a $300,000 income home (dad is an architect/building inspector, mom is an anesthesiologist), went to private school, had his college paid for by his parents, lived at home after that until 28 with no expenses, and now works as a clerk at his uncle's gun store, where he gets paid well north of 6 figures for running a cash register.

And of course he feels that since he succeeded anyone else is just lazy.

Oxford Comma posted:

That entire "Welfare is Like Animal Handouts" popped up on my Mom's FB a couple days ago. I made a few snarky comments about it, she replied by saying how people on Food Stamps have no incentive to find work, etc, etc. It was going back and forth with other family members jumping in (all on her side.) Finally my 20 year old niece, who was pretty much raised by my mom, ended things when she said, "Hey! I am on food stamps."

Goatman Sacks posted:

Half of all people on food stmaps work. Only 15% are able-bodied unemployed. The rest is old people and disability.

XyloJW posted:

Him: "No, Reagan ordered him to do all that. Reagan was the traitor. Oliver North was a soldier who heroically took the fall for the Commander-in-Chief. He followed his orders and supported his country, without question."

Oxford Comma posted:

That entire "Welfare is Like Animal Handouts" popped up on my Mom's FB a couple days ago. I made a few snarky comments about it, she replied by saying how people on Food Stamps have no incentive to find work, etc, etc. It was going back and forth with other family members jumping in (all on her side.) Finally my 20 year old niece, who was pretty much raised by my mom, ended things when she said, "Hey! I am on food stamps."

Goatman Sacks posted:

Half of all people on food stmaps work. Only 15% are able-bodied unemployed. The rest is old people and disability.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Half of all people on food stmaps work. Only 15% are able-bodied unemployed. The rest is old people and disability.

Boxman posted:

Thats absolutely disgusting. Do you have a citation?

Oxford Comma posted:

she replied by saying how people on Food Stamps have no incentive to find work, etc, etc.

Cowslips Warren posted:

I love the 'don't feed the poor' poo poo. Jesus said the same thing, you know. He had all them fishes and breads and he was a smart man, and had the poor pay all their copper pieces just to smell the food, and the richest of the poors could have a few crumbs. That was how Jesus rolled, man.

Amused to Death posted:

This is obviously why then she doesn't care if she loses her job then right? She gets to live off that sweet, sweet government dole. Government gives me $5 a day to eat, living large up in here.

Choadmaster posted:

Might as well repost my edit of the strip while we're at it.

LP97S posted:

Dr Christmas posted:

Has anyone tried, "Aren't we in a recession, so there are no jobs for them to get?"

quote:

SPECULATION: THIS IS MERELY A GAMING SCENARIO: IF OBAMA THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA, THEN MIGHT HE THREATEN A JUSTICE OF THE SCOTUS TO SAVE OBAMACARE?
BETTINA VIVIANO CLAIMS THAT IN 2008 OBAMA CRONIES THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA TO GET THE CLINTONS TO BACK DOWN FROM USING THE BIRTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OBAMA.

IF THIS IS TRUE - REPEAT IF, THEN IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THESE SAME CRONIES MIGHT THREATEN TO KILL ONE OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' CHILDREN IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

THE QUESTIONING ON THE SECOND DAY LED SOME SCOTUS OBSERVERS TO BELIEVE THAT ROBERTS SEEMED MORE LIKELY THAN KENNEDY TO BE A SWING VOTE. IOW: ROBERTS - AND NOT KENNEDY - MIGHT BE THE FIFTH VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY OBAMA MADE HIS SEEMINGLY IGNORANT AND TYRANNICAL ATTACK AGAINST THE SCOTUS.

OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES KNOW - (BECAUSE OF THE DEATH THREAT) - THAT THEY WILL WIN A 5-4 DECISION, AND BY LAMELY ATTACKING THE COURT THEY SUCKERED THE GOP INTO SAYING "WHATEVER THE COURT SAYS IS FINAL."

EITHER THIS IS THE CASE, OR OBAMA'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE IMPENDING DECISION (AND HIS A.P. SPEECH) INDICATE OBAMA IS AN IDIOTIC, MISINFORMED, ARROGANT AND TYRANNICAL EGOMANIAC AND AN ANGRY POS.

quote:

ONE OF THE MANY "BIG LIES" OF THE LEFT IN THE OBAMACARE DEBATE IS THAT OBAMACARE ENABLES AMERICANS TO HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

BULLSHIT.

AMERICANS HAVE HAD UNIVERSAL COVERAGE FOR DECADES. FOR DECADES ANY HOSPITAL WHICH GETS ANY FEDERAL MONEY - IN THE FORM OF MEDICAID OR MEDICARE PAYMENTS - HAS TO PROVIDE ARE TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY OR NATIONALITY.

OBAMACARE DOESN'T EXTEND HEALTHCARE BENEFITS TO ANYONE - NOT TO PEOPLE WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, NOT TO "CHILDREN" UNDER THE AGE OF 26 WHO WANT THEIR PARENTS TO KEEP PAYING THEIR BILLS.


AND OBAMACARE DOES NOTHING FOR COST CONTAINMENT - LIKE CURBING LAWSUITS AND LIABILITY CLAIMS.

ALL OBAMACARE DOES DO IS RAISE TO COSTS OF HEALTHCARE INSURANCE BY MANDATING THAT HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANIES COVER THESE THINGS AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO - AS IN MUST- RAISE RATES.

AND MINE HAVE ALREADY GONE UP 17% BECAUSE OF THIS.

I HAVE NO PREEXISTING CONDITION. I HAVE NO CHILDREN.

I AM GETTING NO IMPROVEMENT IN MY BENEFITS; IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT I HAVE TO PAY MORE.

I WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY AND VOTE ROMNEY.

quote:

HERE'S WHY THE EFFECT OF THE ROBERTS OBAMACARE DECISION IS UTTERLY IMMORAL:

What if government were to be once again completely under the control of liberals once again - as it was from 2009-2010 - (under the control of "liberal fascists" to be exact), and a liberal president and the liberal Congress decides it wants couples to have NOT more than one baby? (They might argue that this would help the nation save national energy usage or costs, and to reduce the nation's impact on the environment).

As a result of the Roberts Decision, this liberal-run government could penalize couples with a tax for each "excess" baby - oh, let's say... hmmm... $25,000/baby. After all, every baby will enter interstate commerce, need costly healthcare and effect the "common good". And, after all, the government needs to pay-down the massive $70 trillion liability on Social Security and Medicare.

They wouldn't be forcing you to have one baby, they wouldn't be mandating that you have only one baby. They would just tax the crap out of you if you did.

That's an awfully powerful and awfully immoral government. Emphasis on awful. And that's the government that Obamacare and the Roberts Decision have now given us.


It seems to me that Obamacare and the Roberts opinion implicitly endorse China's one baby policy.

Obamacare and the Roberts Decision basically say that a government - the state - does have the power to determine the number of babies couples may have and that China's "one baby policy" is bad only because the tool they use - kinetic coercion - is bad; they should be using taxes.

Lovely.

Dr Christmas posted:

Has anyone tried, "Aren't we in a recession, so there are no jobs for them to get?"

Zwabu posted:

She is currently uninsured, her employer doesn't offer health insurance.

She was concerned about being able to afford insurance as a single working mom. The host of the show explained that he was really glad that she called in because this is one area where the new law is really helpful to her, because depending on her level of income, she would receive varying levels of government subsidy to her insurance premium, including full subsidy if she was below 30K or whatever (she never did say what she made).

Then she turns around and says, "well this is where I have a problem with it, I'm really proud of being able to take care of my family all my life without going on welfare/public assistance" and I smacked my forehead so hard it could probably be heard 3 counties away. I'm thinking "bitch, you'd rather get a 100 thousand dollar bill for a bad car accident or cancer in your family that would completely bankrupt you, but you're complaining that you can't afford insurance, and you HAVE NO INSURANCE NOW so such an event WOULD bankrupt you WTF, and lemme guess, it's all Obammy's fault right", and the host said kind of the same thing but in a much nicer and more pleasant way.

constantIllusion posted:

Usually they'll say something to the effect of "I just checked the want ads section of the newspaper/CareerBuilder.com and counted 300+ different ads, there is no reason why they can't get a job!"

Because we all know all want ads are for honest jobs that are not scams or blatant resume grabs, anyone regardless of their own educational and vocational background qualifies for every position, everyone can easily get to each job because no employer is located out in the area's exurbs, and each pays well enough and provides benefits such that TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid are not needed.

constantIllusion posted:

Chances are if her employer doesn't provide health insurance, she most likely doesn't make over $30K/year.

Conservatives who hate welfare tend to think that they will never get sick, or lose their jobs even with most states having at-will employment laws. They seriously think that "hard work" (which in some cases, means just showing up every day, and doing the bare minimum) triumphs over all.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Not an email, and not from my family (thank God), but, well...

https://twitter.com/#!/EpicABrony

Bruce Leroy posted:

How does anyone take someone who unironically uses the term "Feminazi" seriously?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Not an email, and not from my family (thank God), but, well...

https://twitter.com/#!/EpicABrony

lancemantis posted:

More on healthcare chat, about those earlier claims of people leaving Canada for healtcare, I recently ran into someone who posted this

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uplo...2011-ff0712.pdf

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Not an email, and not from my family (thank God), but, well...

https://twitter.com/#!/EpicABrony

Person 1 posted:

This quote has been attributed to Donald Trump, and a few other people. Let's see, Trump is a bombastic robber-baron who can't even comb his hair. Yes, our surgeon general is overweight....and so is 60% to 80% of our country. Until every person who smokes, drinks excessively and mindlessly eats and never exercises gets on the treadmill, our healthcare system will be lop-sided, expensive and in jeopardy. Remember when mandatory car insurance passed? People were screaming that they'd be forced to lose their cars, forced to take public transportation and FORCED to carry insurance. Somehow, we all survived and, for the most part, we're still driving (while eating, smoking and texting....but self-regulating our OWN health??? ...naah, not an issue). No president ever has been totally right, no presidency has ever been perfect, and we will survive this. Obama's election didn't trigger the bankruptcy, didn't create the self-serving wars that drained our coffers, didn't put Medicare and Social Security at risk (SS has been at risk for the past 20 years, folks) and didn't put us on a slide into chaos...we were already well on our way (thanks to BOTH Democratic and Republican mistakes) Finger-pointing by using bombastic statements like this do nothing to encourage conversation or brain-storming, they merely widen the polarizing gap we already have.

Person 2 posted:

If it's "so good" then it is GOOD for Congress, the Senate, the Vice President and his family and also the President and his family. I'll agree it's a good "tax" when each and every AMERICAN is forced to have it. Why should they be exempt and get to choose what they want as health insurance and this is shoved down our throats?

Person 2 posted:

PS to earlier post.....and everyone else in the Government!

Nth Doctor posted:

Person 2, every member of Congress had insurance through their employer and it's pretty good because there is such a broad pool of policy holders to spread the costs across. They certainly aren't exempted from the mandate.
If this post by Shirley is instead arguing that we should go the route of Medicare for all instead of the plan offered by the Heritage Foundation and the Republicans back in the '90s, then I'm all for it.

Also, this explains things pretty well:

Person 3 posted:

I work in the medical field, I've seen the ramifications of this legislation already in Medicare benefits for seniors. I've seen it in private insurance and those people "lucky enough" to now be covered under United Health Care. I know what is coming down the pike for hospitals and ancillary care providers. It's not going to be pretty. People are NOT going to have access to the care they need. There will be people going with out care, or unablel to find a provider. It's happening now, I see it all the time. It's going to get worse under the provisions in this legislation. I am not a proponent. Nothing I've read has changed my mind. A freind of mine made a good analogy... if you had a big bowl of no bake chocolate cookie dough and you added in a piece of poop, would you still eat it? No, the whole bowl would be contaminated. Same thing with the Affordable Care Act...there are some provisions that are good, but there are several teaspoons of poop in this bowl.

Nth Doctor posted:

Person 3-
That's great that you have firsthand experience with the ramifications of this bill. Rather than use analogies, I'm wondering specially what policies you mean, and from what pages of the bill they come from. The text of the bill can be found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Person 3 posted:

thanks for the link, give me some time to review it. I'll get back to you.

Person 3 posted:

Courtesy of Senator Jim DeMint-SC:
1. Imposes $800 billion in tax increases, including no fewer than 12 separate provisions breaking candidate Obama's "firm pledge" during his campaign that he would not raise "any of your taxes" (Sections 9001-9016)

2. Forces Americans to purchase a product for the first time ever (Section 1501)

3. Creates a board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending (Section 3403)

4. Pays over $800 billion in subsidies straight to health insurance companies (Sections 1401, 1402, and 1412)


‎5. Requires all individuals to buy government-approved health insurance plans, imposing new mandates that will raise individual insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 per family (Section 1302)

6. Forces seniors to lose their current health care, by enacting Medicare Advantage cuts that by 2017 will cut enrollment in half, and cut plan choices by two-thirds (Section 3201)

7. Imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits, a direct contradiction of Barack Obama’s campaign promises (Section 9001)

8. Relies upon government bureaucrats to "issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing" (Section 1311(e)(3)(B))

9. Provides special benefits to residents of Libby, Montana -- home of Max Baucus, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who helped write the law even though he says he hasn’t read it (Section 10323)

10. Imposes what a Democrat Governor called the “mother of all unfunded mandates” – new, Washington-dictated requirements of at least $118 billion – at a time when states already face budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion (Section 2001)

11. Imposes reductions in Medicare spending that, according to the program’s non-partisan actuary, would cause 40 percent of all Medicare providers to become unprofitable, and could lead to their exit from the program (Section 3401)

12. Raises premiums on more than 17 million seniors participating in Medicare Part D, so that Big Pharma can benefit from its "rock-solid deal" struck behind closed doors with President Obama and Congressional Democrats (Section 3301)

13. Creates an institute to undertake research that, according to one draft Committee report prepared by Democrats, could mean that "more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed" (Section 6301)

14. Creates a multi-billion dollar "slush fund" doled out solely by federal bureaucrats, which has already been used to fund things like bike paths (Section 4002)

15. Subjects states to myriad new lawsuits, by forcing them to assume legal liability for delivering services to Medicaid patients for the first time in that program’s history (Section 2304)

16. Permits taxpayer dollars to flow to health plans that fund abortion, in a sharp deviation from prior practice under Democrat and Republican Administrations (Section 1303)

17. Empowers bureaucrats on a board that has ruled against mammograms and against prostate cancer screenings to make binding determinations about what types of preventive services should be covered (Sections 2713 and 4104)

18. Precludes poor individuals from having a choice of health care plans by automatically dumping them in the Medicaid program (Section 1413(a))

19. Creates a new entitlement program that one Democrat called "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" -- a scheme so unsustainable even the Administration was forced to admit it would not work (Section 8002)

20. Provides $5 billion in taxpayer dollars to a fund that has largely served to bail out unions and other organizations who made unsustainable health care promises to retirees that they cannot afford (Section 1102)

21. Creates a tax credit so convoluted it requires seven different worksheets to determine eligibility (Section 1421)

22. Imposes multiple penalties on those who marry, by reducing subsidies (and increasing taxes) for married couples when compared to two individuals cohabiting together (Sections 1401-02)

23. Extends the Medicare “payroll tax” to unearned income for the first time ever, including new taxes on the sale of some homes (Section 1402)

24. Impedes state flexibility by requiring Medicaid programs to offer a specific package of benefits, including benefits like family planning services (Sections 2001(a)(2), 2001(c), 1302(b), and 2303(c))

25. Requires individuals to go to the doctor and get a prescription in order to spend their own Flexible Spending Account money on over-the-counter medicines (Section 9003)

26. Expands the definition of “low-income” to make 63 percent of non-elderly Americans eligible for “low-income” subsidized insurance (Section 1401)

27. Imposes a new tax on the makers of goods like pacemakers and hearing aids (Section 9009)

28. Creates an insurance reimbursement scheme that could result in the federal government obtaining Americans’ medical records (Section 1343)

29. Permits states to make individuals presumptively eligible for Medicaid for unlimited 60-day periods, thus allowing any individual to receive taxpayer-funded assistance ad infinitum (Section 2303(b))

30. Allows individuals to purchase insurance on government exchanges -- and to receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies -- WITHOUT verifying their identity as American citizens (Section 1411)

31. Gives $300 million in higher Medicaid reimbursements to one state as part of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” -- described by ABC News as “what…it take[s] to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform” (Section 2006)

32. Raises taxes on firms who cannot afford to buy coverage for their workers (Section 1513)

33. Forces younger Americans to pay double-digit premium increases so that older workers can pay slightly less (Section 1201)

‎34. Prohibits states from modifying their Medicaid programs to include things like modest anti-fraud protections (Section 2001)

35. Includes a special provision increasing federal payments just for Tennessee (Section 1203(b))

36. Allows individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines -- but only if politicians and bureaucrats agree to allow citizens this privilege (Section 1333)

37. Allows the HHS Secretary and federal bureaucrats to grant waivers exempting people from Obamacare’s onerous mandates, over half of which have gone to members of union plans (Section 1001)

38. Creates a pseudo-government-run plan overseen by the federal government (Section 1334)

39. Removes a demonstration project designed to force government-run Medicare to compete on a level playing field with private plans (Section 1102(f))

40. Gives the Secretary of HHS an UNLIMITED amount of federal funds to spend funding state insurance Exchanges (Section 1311(a))

41. Creates a grant program that could be used by liberal groups like ACORN or AARP to conduct “public education activities” surrounding Obamacare (Section 1311(i))

42. Applies new federal mandates to pre-Obamacare insurance policies, thus proving that you CAN’T keep the insurance plan you had -- and liked -- before the law passed (Sections 2301 and 10103)

43. Prohibits individuals harmed by federal bureaucrats from challenging those decisions, either in court or through regulatory processes (Sections 3001, 3003, 3007, 3008, 3021, 3022, 3025, 3133, 3403, 5501, 6001, and 6401)

44. Earmarks $100 million for “construction of a health care facility,” a “sweetheart deal” inserted by a Democrat Senator trying to win re-election (Section 10502)

45. Puts yet another Medicaid unfunded mandate on states, by raising payments to primary care physicians, but only for two years, forcing states to come up with another method of funding this unsustainable promise when federal funding expires (Section 1202)

46. Imposes price controls that have had the effect of costing jobs in the short time since they were first implemented (Section 1001)

47. Prohibits individuals from spending federal insurance subsidies outside government-approved Exchanges (Section 1401(a))

48. Provides a special increase in federal hospital payments just for Hawaii (Section 10201(e)(1))

49. Imposes new reporting requirements that will cost businesses millions of dollars, and affect thousands of restaurants and other establishments across the country (Section 4205)

50. Codifies 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs

The Supreme Court may have struck some of these onerous provisions, but the only way to ensure that ALL these provisions are eliminated -- and never return -- is to repeal ALL of this unconstitutional law immediately.

Nth Doctor posted:

Unless noted otherwise, all pages are the page number listed in the PDF of the text of the PPACA I linked earlier.
1. This has little to do with people not receiving care as you asserted in your first post. I also recall then Senator Obama being quite specific about raising taxes on high incomes and as section 9001 covers: those "Cadillac insurance plans". See also President Obama's initial interactions with Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

2. This is patently false. Americans have been required to purchase items in the past, specifically: firearms. Also Congress enacted mandates for sailors and ship owners to carry medical insurance: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/jan/13/einer-elhauge/harvard-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

3. A reduction of medicare spending seems like a good thing to me. I'd rather the members comprising such a board have a specific tenure, rather than running for reelection periodically, and I'd rather they be experts on health care, rather than experts on getting elected. The duties of this board is to present proposals to Congress and the President (who is to immediately forward the final proposals to Congress, see page 375), who would be making the ultimate decisions (see page 377). Oversight and limits on the board power begin on page 381, and steps to disband the board are explicitly deliniated on page 382. By inference, this board reports to Congress, and may be shut down by Congress.

4. Section 1401 and 1402 deal with helping to subsidize the insurance costs for low income Americans. See pages 95 and 102 respectively. Section 1412 deals again with income eligibility for subsidies on buying insurance on the insurance exchanges. This is as much a giveaway to the insurance industry as food assistance is to the agricultural industry. It will also help low income Americans afford their health insurance, expanding access not reducing it as your earlier post asserted.

5. Insurance documents are by their very nature complex and difficult to understand by the lay person. Setting objective requirements seems like an unqualified good thing. Skimming through the list of required services on pages 45 and 45, I don't see anything egregious, and they are all things I expect of my current insurance. I request a source including the calculations for that $2100/family cost increase. I saw nothing in the text of that section about such an increase. My guess is it is a misleading projection.

6. Section 3201 deals with Medicare Advantage benchmarks. The benchmarks represent the maximum amount that would be paid for specific services to Medicare recipients. This appears to be an instance of lowering the base benchmark for an area, and increasing it for healthcare providers who perform good service. See page 329 about Performance Bonuses, and the explanation of this section from the Congressional Research Office's document here (page 54 of pdf): http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/images/R41196_gb.pdf

7. Cadillac Plans. See my point number 1. We already talked about Section 9001.

8. Section 1311 is about insurance plans. I'm guessing that whole plain language thing deals with the insurance documentation being in plain language. I don't see a downside to that. I say guess because part e only has 2 subparts. There is no (e)(3)(B).

9. Section 10323 is called: "SEC. 10323. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS." Seems a fair section one may find in a bill about health care. Neither the words Libby nor Montana appear in the text of the bill.

10. Sets up Medicaid for people earning up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Line. This widens coverage, not limits it. I believe this also contains the one part of the law that the SCOTUS struck down: that States refusing to implement this can't have their existing Medicaid funds cut. Given that Medicaid benefits come from the Federal Government and are passed down to the states, I doubt this is "unfunded".

At this point, it's 2am, and I'm only 20% of the way through your list of points. I have yet to find a single piece of cited evidence you have given to support your claim that people will recieve less access to Health Care, but I will revisit this tomorrow.

Person 3 posted:

Nth Doctor I appreciate your view, and the information you have provided. Fundamentally, I do not agree with this bill, I do not support government control over health care.

Like I said before, I work in the industry and this bill is going to make delivering efficient, APPROPRIATE health care very difficult. There will be an overall reduction in benefits and available treatments, I am seeing it already.

Proponents continually tout, "everyone will have access to health care" unfortunately, Everyone will not necessarily have access to the care they NEED. The government will be deciding your level of care and what treatments/diagnostics you are eligible for. As a citizen, I am not a proponent of that ideology. I don't believe in socialism, and I don't want the United States government controlling my Health care and forcing me to pay more "taxes" even if I don't buy in to their plan.

"Good Service" is based on parameters and benchmarks and outcomes that are inappropriate and unrealistic, and in the end will makes access to the NEEDED care unattainable. You think there are loopholes and voids in care now, it will be worse. The LEVEL of care will decrease.

I don't want to continue this long thread on OP's wall. I don't agree that this plan is good for this country.

Nth Doctor posted:

Fair enough, Person 3. It's been a pleasure.

Person 1 posted:

Thank you, BOTH of you, Person 3 and Nth Doctor....this is the kind of intelligent, thoughtful, respectful dialogue that informs, defines and gives folks perspective...thank you both for doing SO much research, and for reading, reading, reading through the bill (I'm still slogging through it between learning new information for an upcoming job), but I'm going to copy/paste both your posts to keep w/ the bill I already saved. (mandatory car insurance is already on the books, y'all) Thank you OP for having such lovely friends....

Nth Doctor posted:

Someone I know posted this on Facebook yesterday:


and then... something wonderful happened:








Yeah, they get their source from Jim DeMint, but still: this is a promising start.





I'm loving shocked that something approaching actual dialogue happened, and didn't end with ad hominems against each other.

nsaP posted:

I mean I don't know the ins and outs of it but I'm pretty sure he could have got coverage with the health care legislation...it's sad.

lancemantis posted:

More on healthcare chat, about those earlier claims of people leaving Canada for healtcare, I recently ran into someone who posted this

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uplo...2011-ff0712.pdf

constantIllusion posted:

Usually they'll say something to the effect of "I just checked the want ads section of the newspaper/CareerBuilder.com and counted 300+ different ads, there is no reason why they can't get a job!"

Because we all know all want ads are for honest jobs that are not scams or blatant resume grabs, anyone regardless of their own educational and vocational background qualifies for every position, everyone can easily get to each job because no employer is located out in the area's exurbs, and each pays well enough and provides benefits such that TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid are not needed.

quote:

1/19/82

At his seventh press conference, President Reagan responds to a question about the 17% black unemployment rate by pointing out that "in this time of great unemployment," Sunday's paper had "24 full pages of ... employers looking for employees," though most of the jobs available - computer operator, or cellular immunologist - require special training, for which his administration has cut funds by over 30%.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Not an email, and not from my family (thank God), but, well...

https://twitter.com/#!/EpicABrony