patrick.net

debyne says

Wealth redistribution and entitlements only work when most of society contributes sufficiently into the communist system. Anybody have data as to whether the US is a good candidate for that?

smaulgld says

The problem with advocating and endorsing the use of force to satisfy the will of the people, it may one day turn on you

Wealth redistribution happens constantly, every day. We could not have a society without wealth redistribution.

If you don't own a car you are paying for roads that you don't use.

If you use public transportation, others are helping to pay your fare.

If you've never had a fire at your home, you're paying for the fire department.

If you have kids, people without kids are paying for their education.

A society without any wealth redistribution may be a Libertarian's wet dream, but it isn't possible.

Homeboy says

Bullshit. The republicans have absolutely ZERO ideas. They were busy saying "We already have the best healthcare system in the world". Their big "idea" was to do nothing and leave the system broken.

That's mostly true. But ruining it didn't help at all. Dems should have held for single payer- but once Kucinich caved it was over

smaulgld says

That's mostly true. But ruining it didn't help at all. Dems should have held for single payer- but once Kucinich caved it was over

Now we agree. I think where we disagree is that I believe, even with the federal website glitches, that we are better off than we were with the completely broken system we had before. A website can be fixed. Going back to the broken system we had before could NOT be fixed.

Homeboy says

A website can be fixed. Going back to the broken system we had before could NOT
be fixed.

I view Obamacare as a bridge to single payer NHC. If we go back from it now - we will never get another chance. The market would have sorted it out - but with the legal barriers in place - AMA, Insurance, etc... the market correction would have been rough on public health.

Homeboy says

I think where we disagree is that I believe, even with the federal website glitches, that we are better off than we were with the completely broken system we had before. A website can be fixed. Going back to the broken system we had before could NOT be fixed.

It's not just the website it goes to not thinking the whole thing through, it only starts with the website.
Nancy P said it all when she said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Congress didn't read it or write it

smaulgld says

Congress didn't read it or write it

Congress doesn't read or write anything it passes.

zzyzzx says

That is essentially correct, albeit ridiculously over-dramatic. We get insurance from mostly for-profit companies, who are regulated by the states, who in turn are regulated by the federal ACA law.

If you're even the slightest bit honest with yourself, you have to acknowledge that the free market insurance system we had DID NOT WORK. We had double-digit annual increases in premiums, millions of people who were denied insurance altogether, medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy, and poor people who had to clog up the ERs because they couldn't get primary care. What kind of idiot thinks we were better off with THAT?

I haven't seen a single alternative suggestion from a right-winger that wasn't patently ridiculous. Some of the gems I've seen here are:

I'll just go to India if I get sick.

We should stop licensing doctors.

We should just have an all cash system.

None of these are realistic, and all of them would result in a much, much worse mess than anything ACA could cause.

If we don't have government regulation (or government "putting a gun to the insurance companies' heads" as you like to imagine it), then what exactly is your fantastic, no-government-involvement idea?

(this ought to be good...)

smaulgld says

Nancy P said it all when she said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

if you weren't a total idiot you'd know that what she meant by that was that the House wasn't calling the shots, what PPACA would end up as would be determined by what the Senate could pass.

But asking conservatives to not be total idiots is a lost cause at this point. You guys have the functional intelligence of used bubble gum.

smaulgld says

Dems should have held for single payer- but once Kucinich caved it was over

LOL. Your scenario of brave Dems would just be a repeat of 1993, no reforms for another 20 years.

smaulgld says

Nancy P said it all when she said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

Enough with the pithy sound-bites. You know perfectly well that wasn't what she meant. One democrat misspeaks and then we have to get blasted with it every day for 3 years. Jesus Christ, aren't you able to form your own argument?

zzyzzx

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

time to up some taxes on the 1%, right?

right?

smaulgld says

it still a big disaster

No it's not. PPACA coverage doesn't even kick in for 2 months, and the drop-dead deadline to apply for Jan 1 coverage is still 6 weeks away.

There's no disaster here, just bullshit from conservatives, the same bullshit we've been treated to for 5+ years, 10 if you count Iraq, 20 if you count the Gingrich takeover, and 30 if you count the Reagan Revolution of bullshit.

smaulgld says

The problem with advocating and endorsing the use of force to satisfy the will of the people, it may one day turn on you

A people get the government they deserve.

"Good and hard" as the man said.

Let's not pretend that private interests, unchecked by small-d democratic power centers, is any bed of roses either.

zzyzzx says

Cute. Except for the fact that most right-wing voters live in the reddest states, which have some of the poorest residents, and high numbers of those residents using social services, which in turn are heavily subsidized by some of the other, more economically successful states like California and New York for example.

So the irony here is that the regions that have the most people bitching about social services also use the most of those services, and use money from other and typically more liberal states.

zzyzzx says

People who screw up that badly should be fired. Of course since it's a government job, they aren't. Don't you take issue with that?

The previous administration effed up about 20X's worse... in fact, the entire previous administration itself was one giant mistake. Somehow they all kept their jobs.

Bellingham Bill says

smaulgld says

Nancy P said it all when she said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

if you weren't a total idiot you'd know that what she meant by that was that the House wasn't calling the shots, what PPACA would end up as would be determined by what the Senate could pass.

But asking conservatives to not be total idiots is a lost cause at this point. You guys have the functional intelligence of used bubble gum.

another nice comment- ignore

smaulgld says

another nice comment

if the dunce-hat fits . . .

edvard2 says

The previous administration effed up about 20X's worse... in fact, the entire previous administration itself was one giant mistake. Somehow they all kept their jobs.

You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!

smaulgld says

another nice comment- ignore

You attributed a meaning to what Pelosi said that you know is false. Then when you are corrected, you ignore it. That speaks volumes about you.

Homeboy says

smaulgld says

another nice comment- ignore

You attributed a meaning to what Pelosi said that you know is false. Then when you are corrected, you ignore it. That speaks volumes about you.

not following, please explain-what I am doing is ignoring the name calling. If you have an argument I am all ears, if I am wrong I'll listen, but I have zero attention for being called an idiot

Homeboy says

smaulgld says

Nancy P said it all when she said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

Enough with the pithy sound-bites. You know perfectly well that wasn't what she meant. One democrat misspeaks and then we have to get blasted with it every day for 3 years. Jesus Christ, aren't you able to form your own argument?

How do you know what I know perfectly well?

Starbuck CEO drops support for Obama care
No matter what your politics its hard to defend this.

Here is the story from the huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/starbucks-obamacare-off-the-rails_n_4179271.html?utm_hp_ref=business

and here it is on breitbart
Doesn't matter where its reported (on the left or the right) the point is it's not hard to see that obama care is a trainwreck.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/31/Starbucks-CEO-Jumps-Off-Obamacare-Bandwagon

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Obamacare is fatal.

My insurance provider just called me and said I have to meet them in a parking lot on other side of town with a sack of money, or they're going to dispatch Michelle Obama to pitchfork me.

I'll call the republican congressmen and ask them, once they finish with Benghazi, to lobby to get a tax credit for what you paid to your insurance company. They should also build you a memorial that won't get shut down if the government closes.

smaulgld says

Starbuck CEO drops support for Obama care

No matter what your politics its hard to defend this.

Here is the story from the huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/starbucks-obamacare-off-the-rails_n_4179271.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Way to take an article completely out of context. Nowhere in that piece or the other was there any mention that he was dropping support for Obamacare. His comments were mainly to do with the site malfunction and not the overall law itself.

Like I said before, some of you who seem to be getting all giddy with glee thinking this is a failure are going to be pretty disappointed once the kinks are all worked out and its up and running smoothly. In fact, I'll back that statement up just like the statement I made predicting the outcome of the shutdown: The GOP would lose. So in a month or two I'll come back and it will be the same and Obamacare will be doing just fine. Then of course the wingers will have once more moved onto another subject that have no chance of winning as well.

edvard2 says

Then of course the wingers will have once more moved onto another subject that have no chance of winning as well.

There is no shortage of losing causes to pursue!

smaulgld says

if people want a low cost high deductible plan why force them to take a more
expensive one. Like making someone buy a more expensive car because the
government thinks you should have a better car and the dealer needs the extra
money

Rather poor analogy. A better one would be, the government requires you to carry sufficient minimum car insurance, because that tempting low cost, high deductible, capped payout plan will not protect innocent others if you hit a row of BMWs, or a group of pedestrians incurring 7 figures of medical bills.
Nobody thinks they will hit the row of BMWs or get leukemia, but when they do, they'll be glad the government prevented them from buying a worthless policy from shysters- and even more importantly, so will the people who incurred losses.

Automan Empire says

smaulgld says

if people want a low cost high deductible plan why force them to take a more

expensive one. Like making someone buy a more expensive car because the

government thinks you should have a better car and the dealer needs the extra

money

Rather poor analogy. A better one would be, the government requires you to carry sufficient minimum car insurance, because that tempting low cost, high deductible, capped payout plan will not protect innocent others if you hit a row of BMWs, or a group of pedestrians incurring 7 figures of medical bills.

Nobody thinks they will hit the row of BMWs or get leukemia, but when they do, they'll be glad the government prevented them from buying a worthless policy from shysters- and even more importantly, so will the people who incurred losses.

We can debate the efficacy of the mandate but the part I see no value in is creating the web site to supposedly facilitate the purchase with a private insurance company.

Automan Empire says

A better one would be, the government requires you to carry sufficient minimum car insurance, because that tempting low cost, high deductible, capped payout plan will not protect innocent others if you hit a row of BMWs, or a group of pedestrians incurring 7 figures of medical bills.

It would be better one if in RL you were required to carry insurance enough to cover hitting a row of BMW or a group of pedestrians. California minimum is what 10/30?

smaulgld says

There is no shortage of losing causes to pursue!

Which is fine with me because it keeps the GOP constituency busy chasing after witch hunts and other things unrelated to actual government. Meanwhile we'll just keep on winning elections.

Automan Empire says

but when they do, they'll be glad the government prevented them from buying a worthless policy from shysters-

Here we go with the nanny state mentality- the government knows best, people are dumb and need gov't to protect them against themselves.

Yahoo just ran this article: Health Care Shoppers Aren't as Dumb as Obama Thinks They Are:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/healthcare-shoppers-aren%E2%80%99t-as-dumb-as-obama-thinks-195824524.html

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

There is no shortage of losing causes to pursue!

Which is fine with me because it keeps the GOP constituency busy chasing after witch hunts and other things unrelated to actual government. Meanwhile we'll just keep on winning elections.

"WE" yes I suppose when the Dems win "we" win!

Dems or Reps- Every way you look at it we lose.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9C1BCAgu2I8

smaulgld says

but the part I see no value in is creating the web site to supposedly facilitate
the purchase with a private insurance company.

Again, the states embraced the ACA and made their own websites are not having the problem. The Federal website had to be built out to fit 30+ different states. I don't disagree that the launch has been bollixed badly, but it is quite disingenuous of right-wingers to refuse to set up their own state's site, then point fingers of blame when the federal site to cover 30 states' asses doesn't launch smoothly. The right wing slogan should be, "Government doesn't work- elect us and we'll prove it!"
smaulgld says

Here we go with the nanny state mentality- the government knows best, people
are dumb and need gov't to protect them against themselves.

Insurers were selling people CRAP policies, resulting in personal bankruptcies, and burdening the various social safety nets, for the selfish act of choosing to get sick. What is your better solution, if not the ACA?

If Mitt Romney won and was implementing Romneycare nationally, how would you be behaving now?

Automan Empire says

If Mitt Romney won and was implementing Romneycare nationally, how would you be behaving now?

I am very amused that any criticism of Obama or Democrats results in a knee jerk reaction/assumption that the person doing the criticism is a Republican.

It really clouds your logic.

To answer your question I would be complaining and I am sure Republicans would attack me as an unamerican democrat

Automan Empire says

Nobody thinks they will hit the row of BMWs or get leukemia, but when they do, they'll be glad the government prevented them from buying a worthless policy from shysters- and even more importantly, so will the people who incurred losses

Yet still another post from an anti-choice liberal.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/healthcare-shoppers-aren%E2%80%99t-as-dumb-as-obama-thinks-195824524.html

Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month.

The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pKG4hF2xj0Q

Die hard Democrats refuse to face the facts about Obama care being a far bigger issue than the republicans "shutting down the government (i.e. the national parks)

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-big-trouble

PAY ATTENTION DEMS- From Mother Jones- hardly a Republican propaganda outlet

In Democratic districts, net incumbent approval has plummeted by 11 points, from +8 approval to +3 disapproval. In Republican districts, incumbent approval has gone down only 4 points.

smaulgld says

How do you know what I know perfectly well?

She has explained what she meant many times. Don't feign obtuse. Not buying it. This is why the repubs are going to lose big time in the next election. Everything you do is disingenuous. Thanks to the repukes, we now have a new word in the English language: "swiftboating".