|
Cerebral Bore posted:I can understand being all FYGM about something that's helped you personally, but when you start to insist that said thing must be without flaw it crosses the line into some pretty cultish behaviour. Nobody has said this. Lightning Knight posted:Because ACA was such a badly designed system that not only did it not help a lot of people who do need help, it was also trivial for Republicans to dismantle it. So post ACA wasn't better than before the ACA?
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Better implies good. it does not. being covered in ants is better than being covered in bullet ants. that does not imply being covered in ants is good. quote:Better is a comparison between one state and another. it is. however, that doesn't mean one of the states in the comparison is good. quote:The ACA was good because it was an improvement on the current state. What the gently caress is wrong with people where an improvement on something isn't good? You would never say something getting better is bad. it's not good cause while it was an improvement on the current state in some ways, it had significant issues as well, such as the mandate, insane deductibles, and more. being better than the status quo circa 2007 does not mean that aca is good on its own, or that it left us in a good place. Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So post ACA wasn't better than before the ACA? No, it was better. But the ACA is also a house of cards and offering people what amounts to temporary, means-tested healthcare that lasts until Republicans pull at the seams is pretty poo poo actually. Edit: basically the ACA is an achievement in the same way being able to jump a six-inch hurdle is an achievement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's not good cause while it was an improvement on the current state in some ways, it had significant issues as well, such as the mandate, insane deductibles, and more. being better than the status quo circa 2007 does not mean that aca is good on its own, or that it left us in a good place. Lightning Knight posted:No, it was better. But the ACA is also a house of cards and offering people what amounts to temporary, means-tested healthcare that lasts until Republicans pull at the seams is pretty poo poo actually. theperfectistheenemyofthegood.txt
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:theperfectistheenemyofthegood.txt The thing at issue is not “was the ACA an improvement over the previous status quo.” The answer to that is yes. The thing at issue is “was the ACA the best they could really do?” No, not it wasn’t. And delivering suboptimal systems for healthcare literally kills people so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:theperfectistheenemyofthegood.txt how so hyl?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The thing at issue is not “was the ACA an improvement over the previous status quo.” The answer to that is yes. The thing at issue is “was the ACA the best they could really do?” No, not it wasn’t. And delivering suboptimal systems for healthcare literally kills people so. K, so why push back so hard against people that think it is good, but have no issue with the second half of the statement? Cause that's what has happened here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Better implies good. Better is a comparison between one state and another. The ACA was good because it was an improvement on the current state. What the gently caress is wrong with people where an improvement on something isn't good? You would never say something getting better is bad. Being shot in hand is better than being shot in the head. Does that mean being shot in the hand is good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:K, so why push back so hard against people that think it is good, but have no issue with the second half of the statement? Cause that's what has happened here. Because if the ACA wasn’t the best they could do it represents one of the greatest single instances of political malpractice in generations and should be a national scandal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:K, so why push back so hard against people that think it is good, but have no issue with the second half of the statement? Cause that's what has happened here. because the people in question do in fact have a problem with the second half of the statement, and wander into threads loudly proclaiming how we'd rather they just died? you wouldn't be being pushed back against hyl if you hadn't wandered in here declaring that i didn't understand that people were saved by ppaca and that i wanted it gone and people to die
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” I say as I water down the ACA with Republican amendments and end up with no Republican votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Because if the ACA wasn’t the best they could do it represents one of the greatest single instances of political malpractice in generations and should be a national scandal. lets try this again and see how it goes. The ACA was good. theCalamity posted:Being shot in hand is better than being shot in the head. Does that mean being shot in the hand is good? it's good compared to being shot i the head. yes . This is very simple and should not be hard to understand. Condiv posted:because the people in question do in fact have a problem with the second half of the statement, and wander into threads loudly proclaiming how we'd rather they just died? If you prefer the ACA to have never passed, then yeah you prefer that these people just died. If you agree that it was a good thing to have passed, then you don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Is not being able to go to the doctor because you can't afford your seven thousand dollar deductible better than being able to go to the doctor because you can't afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars before the ACA? If you are an Excel spreadsheet absolutely but actual humans tend to focus on the fact that they get to watch themselves or a loved one die of a preventable condition under either system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Is not being able to go to the doctor because you can't afford your seven thousand dollar deductible better than being able to go to the doctor because you can't afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars before the ACA? If you are an Excel spreadsheet absolutely but actual humans tend to focus on the fact that they get to watch themselves or a loved one die of a preventable condition under either system. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing... Nobody said it couldn't have been better, but that does not preclude it from being good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Regardless of the inherent issues with the ACA and payment, the fact that it relied on the good will of Republican Governors was so goddamned stupid I don't even know. Democrats are going to leave this Trump administration STILL thinking that there are good Republicans who care about this country and its inhabitants and those people are infinitely more influential and powerful than everyone else which is endlessly frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:lets try this again and see how it goes. The ACA was not good enough. That is the point. Democrats could’ve killed the Republican Party for a generation and ensured a world with no Trump, and they flinched. They either don’t take the threat of Republicans seriously, in which case they are fools, or they don’t want to remove the threat, in which case they are evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it's good compared to being shot i the head. yes . This is very simple and should not be hard to understand. but this is not what you said. you said the ACA was good. period. not in comparison to the pre-aca status quo, not in comparison to anything. you literally said "the aca is good. period" don't get upset at us cause you don't understand how the english language works the aca was better than the status quo of 2007. it's not good though quote:If you prefer the ACA to have never passed, then yeah you prefer that these people just died. If you agree that it was a good thing to have passed, then you don't. i never said i prefered the ACA never passed. you pulled that out of your rear end when you ran into the thread hyperventilating cause someone criticized the ACA
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Regardless of the inherent issues with the ACA and payment, the fact that it relied on the good will of Republican Governors was so goddamned stupid I don't even know. That was an artifact of the judicial process, not a deliberate policy choice by Democrats. Republicans basically re-wrote fifty year's worth of law there in order to make the changes optional rather than mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
if i were to say something about the ACA and passing, i'd say I wish they took it off the table and went for a bolder proposal that actually reformed poo poo when it was obvious the republicans wouldn't play ball instead of sticking to compromise legislation even though the repubs refused to compromise. but i'm fully aware that the ACA was the dream legislation for the dems, with huge handouts to the private insurance cos, a mandate that punished people who didn't pay the private insurance cos, and more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That was an artifact of the judicial process, not a deliberate policy choice by Democrats. Republicans basically re-wrote fifty year's worth of law there in order to make the changes optional rather than mandatory. Fair enough I thought that the medicaid expansion was opt in but looks like I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
The ACA was an improvement if you are part of the petit bourgeoisie where several thousand and several hundred thousand is a meaningful price difference. For the 80% of the country that can't cover an unplanned expense of a thousand dollars or more they both are more money then you have. Oh unless you are black, then ambulance drive might just assume that you can't pay and refuse to take you to the hospital. https://www.nbc-2.com/story/38775332/florida-mom-medics-didnt-take-daughter-to-hospital-assuming-she-couldnt-afford-it
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:Fair enough I thought that the medicaid expansion was opt in but looks like I was wrong. Yeah, and it also really can't be overstated how bad that decision was, it was basically the Republican justices waving a wand and maliciously sabotaging the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
the medicare expansion was one of the good pieces of ppaca.letting the possibility of there being a subsidy hole in the case where medicare expansion wasn't carried out was one of the hugely bad parts. ppaca would've been better if the subsidy hole was not a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:The ACA was an improvement if you are part of the petit bourgeoisie where several thousand and several hundred thousand is a meaningful price difference. For the 80% of the country that can't cover an unplanned expense of a thousand dollars or more they both are more money then you have. Again, for people who fall in the "medicaid gap", where they qualify for neither medicaid nor the ACA, the Medicaid expansion was a HUGE boon, and those people are (mostly) not "petit bourgeoisie" but the actual poor. OF course Medicaid isn't a panacea either but depending on what you need it often does provide complete coverage. Condiv posted:the medicare expansion was one of the good pieces of ppaca.letting the possibility of there being a subsidy hole in the case where medicare expansion wasn't carried out was one of the hugely bad parts. ppaca would've been better if the subsidy hole was not a possibility. -caid not -care
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:-caid not -care yep, typo on my part
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm not getting into this again Then why are you still posting, other than to insist that you don't care if people here don't think you're a progressive, while getting visibly upset over it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, and it also really can't be overstated how bad that decision was, it was basically the Republican justices waving a wand and maliciously sabotaging the law. Yeah when the Republicans talk about activist judges it's more projection. Pretty much every conservative judge just invents poo poo all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah when the Republicans talk about activist judges it's more projection. Pretty much every conservative judge just invents poo poo all the time. hell, originalism itself is invented from whole cloth. if the proponents actually believed in it, they'd not make rulings on constitutionality, since that isn't in the loving constitution
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah when the Republicans talk about activist judges it's more projection. Pretty much every conservative judge just invents poo poo all the time. Being a judge is in and of itself a personality-warping job because 1) You're always, definitionally, the least informed person in the room (apart from the jury, when there are juries) -- the litigants and witnesses have first hand knowledge, the attorneys for each side have second hand knowledge, you have third hand knowledge 2) Everyone bows and scrapes and tells you you're brilliant all the time 3) You are definitionally always right (within your courtroom). All judges engage in motivated reasoning all the time because they're human beings and that's what human beings do, but at least with left-wing judges the motivations are less frequently poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Again, for people who fall in the "medicaid gap", where they qualify for neither medicaid nor the ACA, the Medicaid expansion was a HUGE boon, and those people are (mostly) not "petit bourgeoisie" but the actual poor. OF course Medicaid isn't a panacea either but depending on what you need it often does provide complete coverage. I'm talking about the ACA, not the Medicaid gap. If 4/5ths of the country can't actually afford to use their insurance, why the gently caress should it matter if they are "actually poor" or not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Being a judge is in and of itself a personality-warping job because Roberts went into it knowing exactly what he was going to do. He had plans to gently caress the VRA since he was a young Republican lad working for Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Gonna have to ask for your source on that one. Okay, consider this hyperbolic-but-accurate analogy. Imagine that a law was passed back when the US practiced chattel slavery that allowed 1/3 of slaves to become sharecroppers through military service. People then said "What the gently caress, this is absurd; there are still millions of slaves and even the people who were helped are still getting a pretty bad deal. They should just end slavery." 1860 HootTheOwl then says "um, excuse me, some former slaves were freed by this law." You'd probably think "why is this guy being contrary in a context where people are upset about a super obvious and large-scale injustice which had its ending pointless prolonged by a dramatically insufficient half-measure?" Basically people are understandably wondering why in the world someone would take a contrary tone when they're expressing displeasure with the continued existence of a large-scale injustice and a law that allowed it to continue. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Better implies good. Better is a comparison between one state and another. The ACA was good because it was an improvement on the current state. What the gently caress is wrong with people where an improvement on something isn't good? You would never say something getting better is bad. lol, what? No it doesn't. Not even in a basic logical way. Like that's just wrong in a "2+2=5"-sorta way completely divorced from ideology/politics. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So post ACA wasn't better than before the ACA? You're ignoring the opportunity cost. There is an inherent harm to letting time pass without adequately solving a problem. (This is actually an issue common to most centrist/center-left politics. Because the people in question are usually privileged, they only view things in an abstract "it's fine as long as the goal is reached at some point" way and ignore the fact that every year spent without solving a problem involving countless people continuing to suffer. So in the case of the ACA they think "it's technically better and therefore a step in the right direction, so there is nothing to complain about." They can do this because they can ignore the many people who will go bankrupt or lose their lives in the years before the next improvement to American healthcare.) Lightning Knight posted:The thing at issue is not “was the ACA an improvement over the previous status quo.” The answer to that is yes. The thing at issue is “was the ACA the best they could really do?” No, not it wasn’t. And delivering suboptimal systems for healthcare literally kills people so. I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here. You can say the same thing about something like single-payer/MfA, in that it's an improvement but still not as good as an NHS would be. I think you have to take into account the degree of improvement relative to what should be feasible. The ACA's biggest issue is that it doesn't even mostly fix the issue; it's not just "not ideal," but only puts a small dent in the bigger problem of people being wrecked financially by healthcare expenses. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:I'm talking about the ACA, not the Medicaid gap. If 4/5ths of the country can't actually afford to use their insurance, why the gently caress should it matter if they are "actually poor" or not? The Medicaid gap would have been eliminated as part of the PPACA if not for Republican judicial fuckery, so those two things are, like, the same thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it's good compared to being shot i the head. yes . This is very simple and should not be hard to understand. Being shot at all is bad you dingbat
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it's
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
HY!L! for someone who likes to constantly brag about how far he's come in the last two years you sure have got your head stuck way up your own rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:K, so why push back so hard against people that think it is good, but have no issue with the second half of the statement? Cause that's what has happened here. Ah, but this is where you're not paying attention! Look back at how these discussions usually play out. It's nearly always started by someone (like HootTheOwl in this case) getting upset at someone who attacked the ACA. It usually isn't started by someone pushing back against someone else complimenting the ACA, but rather someone pushing back against someone else attacking the ACA. This can actually be expanded to almost all these intra-left arguments. They are usually started by a more center-left/centrist person getting upset/irritated at people attacking the Democrats. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it's good compared to being shot i the head. yes . This is very simple and should not be hard to understand. You're moving goalposts. Most people understand that "good" when used by itself is referring to an absolute good. As other people mentioned, literally anything can be called "good" in comparison to something else that is worse. It's like if a criminal was holding a group of people hostage, released half of them, and when someone said "hey, this rear end in a top hat is holding people hostage!" one of the released people said "excuse me, they saved my life! are you saying my life doesn't matter?" Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here. You can say the same thing about something like single-payer/MfA, in that it's an improvement but still not as good as an NHS would be. I think you have to take into account the degree of improvement relative to what should be feasible. The ACA's biggest issue is that it doesn't even mostly fix the issue; it's not just "not ideal," but only puts a small dent in the bigger problem of people being wrecked financially by healthcare expenses. I meant more so in the context of the level of power they had in 2009-2010. Progressives today have far less leverage than Democrats did in the midst of the recession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Medicaid gap would have been eliminated as part of the PPACA if not for Republican judicial fuckery, so those two things are, like, the same thing No it isn't. Like at all. Unless I stroked out and there was some version of the PPACA with a universal Medicaid provision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:No it isn't. Like at all. Unless I stroked out and there was some version of the PPACA with a universal Medicaid provision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:00
|
|
