patrick.net

"The National Retail Federation supports the Senate bill because it would effectively repeal the employer mandate, eliminate the ACA taxes and expand flexibility for increasingly popular health savings accounts."

Thats What you Republicans have been parroting for years. So what's the big hold up? Why weren't you better prepared?

Not a Republican (have never voted for a GOP presidential candidate).

As for the GOP, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are senators who have already withdrawn support for AHCA, so I suspect the AHCA will be modified to gain the support it needs to pass the senate.

12 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jun 27, 11:43am

The problem is that the Senate bill has lost support from both moderates and hard core conservatives. Not sure how you fix that.

Unless you give up on conservatives and work on the centrist Dems.

13

curious2 2017 Jun 28, 4:28pm

14

curious2 2017 Jun 28, 4:36pm

Personally, I feel skeptical of the Senate bill. I suspect it would increase the deficit because the tax "cuts" are immediate and retroactive, while most of the spending cuts would only happen years in the future (if ever). Both major parties tend to collude towards larger deficits, with the result that the debt is now expanding exponentially: each of the two most recent presidents, ostensibly of opposite parties, doubled the national debt. In nominal terms, each borrowed more than all of his predecessors combined. No republic can continue on such a path, and yet I suspect the Senate bill would tend towards that effect.

Cliffs notes--

Take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Color me...

partisan. Democrats had power 2009-11, and enacted the current legislation that takes money from the poor and gives it to rich lobbyists and executives and shareholders at AHA and PhRMA, and overpaid specialists in AMA. So, in your partisan frame, Democrats took money from the working poor to pay the rich. By Cliff's Notes, which is a trademark for a study aid, you seem to mean instead Talking Points Memo, which is designed to mislead you. Each operates as designed, but neither can substitute for the other.

15 bob2356 2017 Jun 28, 7:08pm

Goran_K says

There are only 11 million enrolled in ObamaCare. How are 14 million going to be kicked off O-Care?

O-care expanded medicaid and made employers add health care in addition to the exchanges. You somehow didn't know that? Try something called google sometime, it's a cool tool. For example you could type in who will lose health insurance and find out the answer so you could avoid looking foolish on the forum.

16 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jun 28, 7:56pm

partisan. Democrats had power 2009-11, and enacted the current legislation that takes money from the poor and gives it to rich lobbyists and executives and shareholders at AHA and PhRMA, and overpaid specialists in AMA. So, in your partisan frame, Democrats took money from the working poor to pay the rich. By Cliff's Notes, which is a trademark for a study aid, you seem to mean instead Talking Points Memo, which is designed to mislead you. Each operates as designed, but neither can substitute for the other.

No, I mean Cliff's notes as in a quick summary. Whatever the Dems bill did in the past is not relevant to the discussion about THIS bill. The Republican bill, in its current form, is absolutely a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The only partisan appears to be you. Why else are you bringing up what the Dems did? We're talking about the current bill.

17

curious2 2017 Jun 28, 8:00pm

Why are you bringing up what the Dems did? We're talking about the current bill.

The current bill would amend (some say "replace") "what the Dems did." You can't understand one without the other. Of course, if all you want to do is blame "the other" side, then understanding doesn't really matter to you.

a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

After you finish explaining how the Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, perhaps you might explain these wealthy poor you speak of. You seem to live in an antimatter universe.

I mean Cliff's notes as in a quick summary.

Then you aren't very good at saying what you mean, nor at summarizing. You can see two quick summaries here and here.

18 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jun 29, 4:58am

"You can't understand one without the other. Of course, if all you want to do is blame "the other" side, then understanding doesn't really matter to you."

I think you can, but regardless, this thread was about the current bill. Exactly how is it partisan to summarize how this bill affects people?

"perhaps you might explain these wealthy poor you speak of"

I know you think that's funny, but your logic is, again, very subpar. Poor doesn't equal zero wealth.

"Then you aren't very good at saying what you mean, nor at summarizing. You can see two quick summaries here and here."

Au contraire. I said exactly what I mean and did it well. I'm sorry the Cliff's notes reference may have gone over your head--quite possibly you're too young to get it--but it doesn't change the accuracy of my summary. I've noticed that nowhere in any of your posts do you post anything countering that the Senate bill will transfer wealth from lower income to upper incomes.

19

Tenpoundbass 2017 Jun 29, 8:19am

Why weren't you better prepared?

You still haven't noticed Trump playing it coy and cool have you?

Paul Ryan grabs the ball takes a piss on it, then rubs in on his ball sack, then laughs on his way over to Trump's office.
Trump was reported saying "Great give it to me, I know exactly where to put it!"
Ryan then realized Trump bought the best paper shredder for just such an occasion then thought about his well prepared Healthcare Overal proposal that sitting in his drawer.
Ryan knew if Trump got his hands on the house bill then Trump is officially invited into the debate. The last thing he wanted was Trump shit canning the decoy bill and replacing it with something so wonderful that by time Trump Tweeted about it. All of America would be United in Storming on Washington with lynch poles and ropes if Congress fucked it up. They damned well KNOW IT.

SO then the Leadership in Congress said nothing before August.

But then a few weeks ago after the ballpark shooting in a fit of Patriotism, Mitch the Bitch McConnel gabbed and boasted how he was going to ram it through by July the 4th. Trump said "Great let's see it!"
SO then Tuesday Mitch said, "Well maybe not by July 4th perhaps never..." because he even knows Trump will fuck his shit up.
So when Mitch pulled out, Trump then Tweets "Yeah just as well, it was shitty plan anyway. "
So Yesterday, Mitch the Retard McConnel said "Well most deinfately by Friday"

I predict by time Trump is done with these Jokers and Clowns, not one son of a bitch up for reelection willl retain their seats.
And if the local parties are smart, they will run someone to oppose the incumbent regardless of affiliation. Because everyone is getting the Down vote in 2018.

20

Goran_K 2017 Jun 29, 8:26am

bob2356 says

O-care expanded medicaid and made employers add health care in addition to the exchanges. You somehow didn't know that?

I didn't know that because it's not true that, "due to medicaid cuts", 14 million will lose coverage. That is a ridiculous lie.

According to the CBO report (which I read, and you obviously didn't), current Medicaid beneficiaries are GRANDFATHERED IN under the House GOP proposal. You somehow didn't know that? Try something called google sometime, it's a cool tool. For example you could type in "Congressional Budget Office AHCA Full Text" and find out what you just typed above was a blatant lie.

The only way you get to 14 million (or 23 million as the CBO concluded) is by including forward projections of people who aren't even registered with ACA. Duh, people who aren't forced by the individual mandate will not have to get ObamaCare. You and many in the MSM are trying to twist that into "14-23 million people will lose coverage" which is a big misrepresentation of facts.

Seriously, stop getting your news from CNN.

21

curious2 2017 Jun 29, 1:15pm

nowhere in any of your posts do you post anything countering that the Senate bill will transfer wealth from lower income to upper incomes.

I expressed skepticism of the bill including specificallty for the reason that I suspect it might increase deficits, which has the effect of penalizing younger people, who tend to have lower incomes. As with the current legislation, the Senate bill seems calculated to manipulate CBO scoring, with potentially unpopular deficit reducing provisions postponed (by which time they might get changed). Current legislation taxes young workers, who tend to have less wealth, in order to enrich billionaire Bill McGuire and others. (Bill got more than $1 billion from UnitedHealthGroup, but had to give back around 10%, because of fraud. That's Obamneycare: if you commit fraud and get caught, but finance the right political patronage networks, you get to keep $1 billion.) Compared to the Democrats' legislation, the Senate bill might actually transfer less wealth from lower income to upper income, by repealing the employer and invidual mandate penalties and cutting back on subsidies to Bill McGuire. You have failed to consider the upward transfer of wealth in the current legislation, thus you misinterpret the effects of the Senate bill.

You seem really not to understand why Democrats lost. Perhaps you can't remember the 2008 elections, or perhaps your partisan Talking Points Memo didn't provide any explanation how Democrats won power in 2008, held it until after enacting Obamneycare in 2010, and have been voted out of power ever since. You have no theory to explain those facts.

22

Goran_K 2017 Jun 29, 1:22pm

the Senate bill might actually transfer less wealth from lower income to upper income, by repealing the employer and invidual mandate penalties and cutting back on subsidies to Bill McGuire.

I'll go further, I KNOW that by eliminating the employer & individual mandate, and associated subsidies, the transfer of "wealth" from poor to wealthy will significantly go down.

23 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jun 29, 1:24pm

"You have failed to consider the upward transfer of wealth in the current legislation"

Please don't pretend to know what I do or do not understand. The wealth transfer aspect of this current bill is real and accounts for the benefits to young people. Your statement about what "may" happen is just wrong.

"You seem really not to understand why Democrats lost"

You seem incapable of staying on topic. Addressing the faults of the current legislation has no relation to why Dems lost in 2008 or 2016. But you seem unbelievably conceited to pretend that you have the answers and that it is solely due to health care. I imagine you are a fun guy at a party. The know-it-all who can't stop talking about Obamacare, Muslims, and voting machines.

24

curious2 2017 Jun 29, 1:34pm

The wealth transfer aspect of this current bill is real and accounts for the benefits to young people.

So, you're saying the Senate bill benefits young people by transferring less wealth to Bill McGuire. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

I imagine you are a fun guy at a party.

You can imagine, but you won't be invited. You seem to prefer partisan echo chambers, which sound very dull, like chanting the same nonsense over and over again. I did once get invited to a nam-myoho-renge-kyo session, and it was interesting for one visit, but I don't know how you persist in it every day.

The know-it-all who can't stop talking about Obamacare, Muslims, and voting machines.

This is a thread about the Senate bill to amend or replace Obamneycare. It's the topic of the thread. If you don't want to read about it, consider another thread. One thread has many pictures of cats, you might like that.

As for Muslims, you remind me of Rashomon. He complained about dress codes in France, but excused Muslim countries' dress codes. As Turtledove pointed out at the time, it was inconsistent: he wasn't really objecting to dress codes, only to codes imposed by non-Muslims. You don't object to legislation that transfers wealth upward, as long as it was enacted by Democrats. That's partisanship, not consistency.

As for NPVIC, perhaps that's Democrats' answer to getting voted out of power: eliminate those pesky voters and replace them with machines controlled by the Party. Alas for Democrats, the machines tend to be controlled by Republicans. Instead of trying to throw snark at me, you might rather spend your time persuading Democrats to adopt policies that can win at the ballot box. You'll have a hard time competing with billionaire Bill McGuire though, and others enriched by Obamneycare, who control the party.

25

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW 2017 Jun 29, 1:57pm

I almost want this thing to pass just to watch what happens. OTOH, I would guess that they will fail to pass it, and continue to use the bully pulpit to remove security from the markets and tank O-care. Then the two sides can campaign on blaming the other side. Who knows what will come out of the ashes.

26

curious2 2017 Jun 29, 2:43pm

YesYNot says

I almost want this thing to pass just to watch what happens.

Ideally, I'd prefer to see it not pass, and then see Democrats regain the Senate next year, and get over their TDS, and work out a bipartisan deal that provides a basic floor for everyone. I doubt that would happen though, maybe a 2% chance.

Single payer would work best for true emergencies, on a fee-for-results rather than fee-for-"service" basis, and ideally include vaccines which are mostly a public good anyway. Market systems don't work where there isn't an opportunity to shop around and compare prices, nor for public goods where most of the benefit accrues to other people who are not involved in the purchase decision. Alas, both major parties are trying to maximize power including revenue for their patronage networks, so we're more likely to see revenue maximization models to monetize (rather than cure) chronic conditions. Instead of covering true emergencies, which can happen to anyone, we're more likely to see the opposite: infinite subsidies for entrenched industry, while leaving everyone exposed to highway robbery if they get hit by a car while crossing the street.

27 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jun 30, 5:34pm

So, you're saying the Senate bill benefits young people by transferring less wealth to Bill McGuire. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

You have a very poor reading comprehension. What I actually said was that the effect of the bill on young people is included in my analysis that it will be a large transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

You seem to prefer partisan echo chambers, which sound very dull, like chanting the same nonsense over and over again. I did once get invited to a nam-myoho-renge-kyo session, and it was interesting for one visit, but I don't know how you persist in it every day.

Actually, I enjoy discussing and debating important topics with intelligent people. And there are several on pat.net. The one chanting the same nonsense over and over again is you. There could be a thread discussing 401K and you'll somehow find some way to turn it about Muslims.

This is a thread about the Senate bill to amend or replace Obamneycare. It's the topic of the thread. If you don't want to read about it, consider another thread. One thread has many pictures of cats, you might like that.

lol--I'm the one who would like to talk about the Senate bill which is actually the topic of the thread. You are the one who keeps trying to divert it to talk about Obamneycare.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/04/why-the-super-rich-hate-obamacare-and-will-never-let-the-debate-die.html

As for Muslims, you remind me of Rashomon. He complained about dress codes in France, but excused Muslim countries' dress codes. As Turtledove pointed out at the time, it was inconsistent: he wasn't really objecting to dress codes, only to codes imposed by non-Muslims. You don't object to legislation that transfers wealth upward, as long as it was enacted by Democrats. That's partisanship, not consistency.

No, despite your best attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a hypocrite, you are incorrect. I have always been in favor of a single payer system. And I fail to see any evidence that the ACA resulted in wealth transfer from poor to rich. In fact, it does the opposite.

Instead of trying to throw snark at me, you might rather spend your time persuading Democrats to adopt policies that can win at the ballot box

How about I do both? I'm good at multi-tasking. (btw--Dems won at the ballot box in 2016. 66MM votes to 63MM votes)

28

curious2 2017 Jun 30, 6:00pm

Dems won at the ballot box in 2016.

Noted for posterity, along with your claim that "Democrats didn't really have power for two years...." You have yet to explain how Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, but Republicans do have power now. Also, please tell the uniformed people outside the big building with a dome on top that Democrats won and Republicans aren't really in charge. Seriously, insist there, as you do here. They'll give you the help you so obviously need.

There could be a thread discussing 401K and you'll somehow find some way to turn it about Muslims.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Muslims in this thread, and now you are simply lying.

You cited a blog that talks mainly about tax rates not insurance. To the extent it talks about insurance, it relies on a push poll from the Kaiser HMO empire, which has been pushing Obamneycare since before the legislation even got signed, and which colluded in an illegal campaign including violence against California Nurses. Obamneycare taxes labor and enriches the executives and shareholders and lobbyists of the lemon socialist businesses that wrote it. The Senate bill would reduce that corporate welfare. But go ahead, in your hallucination you won, Democrats never had power, and Republicans don't now. Bill McGuire and Mitch McConnell should have their assistants write you a thank you note, to congratulate you for all the winning.

29 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 2, 9:19am

Noted for posterity

So you disagree that Dems won more votes than Republicans in 2016?

You cited a blog that talks mainly about tax rates not insurance

OK, feel free to cite anything that backs up your theory that ACA worsened inequality. Your nothing doesn't beat my something.

30

curious2 2017 Jul 2, 9:38am

Dems won more votes than Republicans in 2016?

Democrats were "winning" like Charlie Sheen. They did well in major MSM markets, due to overwhelming MSM support, partly related to outspending Republicans 2:1. The Presidential nominee's entire popular vote margin was less than her margin in California alone. She got a similar share in NY, and more than 90% in DC. Outside CA, she lost the popular vote and the electoral college. Outside the major MSM markets, it was a landslide loss. And if you ever watch the evening "news", pay attention to who pays that piper: last I saw, an outright majority of ads were for drugs, and half of those were for drugs you aren't even allowed to buy without an Rx. IOW, the MSM worldview results primarily from the Gospel according to PhRMA. PhRMA endorsed Obamneycare, in exchange for hundreds of billions of extra $$$ in government subsidies, and the legislation has reinforced PhRMA power tremendously, especially among Democrats. You have no explanation for why Democrats won in 2008 but lost everything since enacting Obamneycare in 2010, because you don't really consider why Democrats lost.

ACA worsened inequality.

Since Obamneycare hit with full force, life expectancy has fallen. Meanwhile, "Disparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is Growing." But, since you prefer your partisan narrative, please tell Billy Tauzin that his $12M/yr PhRMA reward for Obamneycare was merely equal to the average worker: he loves a funny joke, and he'll laugh all the way to the bank with what used to be your money. Also, kindly tell minimum wage workers that they're not required to pay billionaire Bill McGuire every month. Better yet, if you want to signal virtue instead of merely partisan loyalty, put your money where your mouth is: offer personally to reimburse them! If you spent as much time trying to persuade Democrats to enact policies that can win, as you spend defending policies that lose, they might have a better chance.

31 anonymous 2017 Jul 3, 5:55pm

And I fail to see any evidence that the ACA resulted in wealth transfer from poor to rich. In fact, it does the opposite.

---------------

Are you being serious? People were allowed to Just Say No prior to HeritageFoundationCare. If you were smart enough to see what a disgusting racket private Health Insurance is, you could simply choose not to participate. HeritageFoundationCare made it so that you had to pay a hefty tax if you were smart enough to not buy health insurance. That made the poor that much poorer, while the rich just kept getting richer

32

FortWayne 2017 Jul 3, 7:46pm

ACA is taxing middle class, not the rich. You people still don't get it

Must repeal

33 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 7:05am

Are you being serious? People were allowed to Just Say No prior to HeritageFoundationCare. If you were smart enough to see what a disgusting racket private Health Insurance is, you could simply choose not to participate. HeritageFoundationCare made it so that you had to pay a hefty tax if you were smart enough to not buy health insurance. That made the poor that much poorer, while the rich just kept getting richer

For certain, there were winners and losers from the bill. Young, healthy folks who didn't get health insurance from their employers were losers. As were the very rich who were forced to pay higher taxes. Again--I've yet to see anything that shows inequality growing. And the strongest evidence that ACA hurt the wealthy can be seen from the fact that the Koch Bros. and other 1%ers are all strongly in favor of repeal. They wouldn't be trying to repeal it if it wasn't hurting their bottom line.

34 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 7:13am

They did well in major MSM markets, due to overwhelming MSM support, partly related to outspending Republicans 2:1. The Presidential nominee's entire popular vote margin was less than her margin in California alone. She got a similar share in NY, and more than 90% in DC. Outside CA, she lost the popular vote and the electoral college. Outside the major MSM markets, it was a landslide loss. And if you ever watch the evening "news", pay attention to who pays that piper: last I saw, an outright majority of ads were for drugs, and half of those were for drugs you aren't even allowed to buy without an Rx. IOW, the MSM worldview results primarily from the Gospel according to PhRMA. PhRMA endorsed Obamneycare, in exchange for hundreds of billions of extra $$$ in government subsidies, and the legislation has reinforced PhRMA power tremendously, especially among Democrats. You have no explanation for why Democrats won in 2008 but lost everything since enacting Obamneycare in 2010, because you d...

lol--yes, Dems did better where people actually live. And Dems performed much better as education levels of voters increased. Do you believe that smarter and more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda?

There are lots of explanations for the results of the last few elections-I'd be happy to discuss each election cycle.

Also, kindly tell minimum wage workers that they're not required to pay billionaire Bill McGuire every month

Typical. Posting an article that has nothing to do with your statement and pretend it supports your theory.

35

curious2 2017 Jul 4, 11:20am

I've yet to see anything that shows inequality growing.

None so blind as those who will not see.

more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda?

Evidently, yes: on the left, the most vulnerable to "fake news" echo chambers are college graduates. As Noam Chomsky observed, the most educated are the most indoctrinated. It takes a while to recover from SFSU, for example, where wearing dreadlocks is "cultural appropriation." I've met Berkeley grads who are similarly afflicted, and look at what happened at Evergreen. You write like an educated partisan, illustrating Chomsky's point.

Among all voters over 40yo, Democrats lost the popular vote, despite outspending Republicans 2:1. So, unless you imagine that people become stupid by 40, you might want to retract your assertion about "smarter" voters. Basically, voters who could remember Democrats' prior campaigns had seen this movie before.

I'd be happy to discuss each election cycle.

By all means, please post your theory as to why Democrats won both Houses of Congress and the White House in 2008, but lost everything after enacting Obamneycare. Try to include some reference to the President spinning 180 degrees and endorsing what he had previously denounced, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Also address PolitiFact's 2013 "lie of the year," and why Democrats lost. Again, you have yet to explain your claim that Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, when Republicans do have power now. Evidently, in your mind, the extent of your "theory" is that everything is always the fault of "the other" side, which indicates the symmetry among partisans of "both" major factions.

36 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 11:37am

You write like an educated partisan, illustrating Chomsky's point.

Example please? Is it partisan to rightly remind you that more people voted for Dems than Reps in the last election? Or to point out that the super rich hate ACA and are the ones behind the repeal propaganda? According to you, they are trying to reduce their incomes then?

Among all voters over 40yo, Democrats lost the popular vote

bwahahaha. So, according to you, age is a better indication of "smart" than education level? Really? Ask scammers who they would rather target, a 70 yr. old woman or a 35 yr. old man. Then get back to me about who is more susceptible to propaganda.

By all means, please post your theory as to why Democrats won both Houses of Congress and the White House in 2008, but lost everything after enacting Obamneycare. Try to include some reference to the President spinning 180 degrees and endorsing what he had previously denounced, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Also address "the lie of the year", and why Democrats lost.

Sure--ACA certainly had a lot to do with it. It gave the Reps a huge propaganda tool which the Koch Bros. used to their extreme advantage. It energized the Republican base and got them to the polls in 2010 while Dems stayed home. Then you can add in the gerrymandering of House seats, voter suppression laws in many states, et. al.

37 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 11:38am

None so blind as those who will not see.

If you post a relevant link attributing higher inequality to ACA, I'm all eyes and ears.

38

curious2 2017 Jul 4, 11:44am

Example please?

See basically all of your comments. At the national level, you seem unable to fault Democrats for anything, and you fail even to acknowledge they had power 2009-11. Either you are paid by a DNC "consulting" firm, or blinded by partisanship. Of course, if you want to deny being educated, go ahead.

As for Obamneycare, notice how polls changed in 2009, when the President abandoned what he had campaigned on and "changed his mind" to endorse what he had campaigned against, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Polls swung from support to opposition, and his net approval rating fell from +40 to zero. Obamneycare polled around -10 from 2009-2017, when House Republicans managed to propose something even worse. This thread is actually about the Senate bill, but you haven't really provided any insight about that either: for example, which companies would profit less, and which more.

As for age, check the linked exit survey of voters 40-64.

If you post a relevant link attributing higher inequality to [Obamneycare], I'm all eyes and ears.

I've posted several. You have yet to post anything saying HeritageFoundationCare reduced inequality, which has increased including both income and lifespans. You illustrate how Democrats have managed to lose repeatedly while raising more money than ever before.

In case you don't read the links to polls 2009-17, here is a picture for you, showing polls 2009-11. This chart is actually from HuffPo, which overrepresents push polls from PPP (aka Partisan Push Polling) and the Kaiser HMO empire (which oversampled Democrats to overstate support for the legislation):

39 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 1:07pm

At the national level, you seem unable to fault Democrats for anything

You seem to have a severe case of confirmation bias. I've faulted Dems for many things in my posts.

This thread is actually about the Senate bill, but you haven't really provided any insight about that either: for example, which companies would profit less, and which more.

I did provide insight actually, posting which classes would pay more and which classes would pay less. You seem to have ignored that.

I've posted several

You've posted several links. Unfortunately, none are relevant to the discussion. As is your usual modus operandi.

You have yet to post anything saying HeritageFoundationCare reduced inequality, which has increased including both income and lifespans

I did, but I guess you ignored it.

In case you don't read the links to polls 2009-17, here is a picture for you, showing polls 2009-11. This chart is actually from HuffPo, which overrepresents push polls from PPP (aka Partisan Push Polling) and the Kaiser HMO empire (which oversampled Democrats to overstate support for the legislation):

The power of propaganda.

40

curious2 2017 Jul 4, 1:12pm

I've faulted Dems for many things in my posts.

I did see one comment where you blamed Illinois D&R for IL's current troubles. Can you cite examples of blaming Democrats for anything at the national level? Last I saw, you couldn't even acknowledge they had power 2009-11.

which classes

Your focus on "classes" appears to have caused you to miss the issue: companies.

propaganda

was invented long before 2009, and since then it's been mainly in the direction of advertising Obamneycare.

I did, but I guess you ignored it.

That's dishonest. I addressed your lone link above. The topic is the medical insurance bill, but you insist on veering off to other provisions.

Since you've now fallen from mere partisanship to outright lying, I am going to stop wasting time on you.

41 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 4, 2:13pm

Can you cite examples of blaming Democrats for anything at the national level?

Sure--I have said multiple times that the Obama administration was pretty crappy on human rights. Dems are stupid for talking about impeaching Trump. Many centrist Clinton type Dems became too neoliberal and too like Republicans. Clinton was a horrible candidate and I said so on many occasions.

Your focus on "classes" appears to have caused you to miss the issue: companies.

I think I'm seeing your problem--you're so narcissistic that you believe only issues you care about matter. This entire back and forth began when you replied to my comment about how the Senate bill will help 1%ers and hurt the poor. So, clearly that was the original issue. You might like to also talk about its effect on private industry, which is fine, but don't pretend that is "the" issue.

was invented long before 2009, and since then it's been mainly in the direction of advertising Obamneycare.

Propaganda has been around since the US was founded, for sure. Not sure how that matters though. But it is far, far, far, far in the direction of opposing ACA. If you can't admit this, then you are way too far gone to have a rational discussion.

That's dishonest. I addressed your lone link above. The topic is the medical insurance bill, but you insist on veering off to other provisions.

Since you've now fallen from mere partisanship to outright lying, I am going to stop wasting time on you.

I can only hope you aren't lying here. You are right though--you didn't ignore it, you quoted it and then posted several links that did not address my point, as is your usual way. Although calling that "addressing" is probably a lie.

42

curious2 2017 Jul 4, 2:26pm

you're so narcissistic that you believe only issues you care about matter.

LOL - you don't get to feign altruism while defending legislation that resulted in Americans dying on average sooner and generally poorer, widening the disparity in lifespans between rich and poor, and enriching further Bill McGuire and Billy Tauzin at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps you are IRL closely related to Bill or Billy, and hope to inherit, and thus you care only about preserving their lemon socialist fiefdoms.

The issue in this thread is the Senate medical insurance bill, which would change the existing Obamneycare legislation. You seem to focus only on changes to the tax code, while ignoring the insurance provisions. I tried to steer you back to the insurance provisions, which would affect companies in the industry. I hoped you might say something useful. You seem to have misinterpreted. Maybe you lack reading comprehension. Perhaps I should use a metaphor from a book you might recall: each bill combines green eggs and ham. You keep writing about the green eggs. This thread is about the ham, i.e. the pork, i.e. the Senate's lemon socialist medical insurance bill.

far in the direction

I don't know what you're looking at, but in CA it's wall-to-wall in favor of Obamneycare. Especially on national TV, e.g. PBS Newshour has become a relentless mandatory insurance sales outlet since around the time UnitedHealthGroup (Hi Bill McGuire!) became a sponsor. Most of the ads on the commercial news are for drugs, and half of those are for drugs you can't even buy without an Rx. Other ads on radio and TV are very often for insurance, including the state advertising the mandatory insurance site, and the lemon socialist companies (e.g. the Kaiser HMO empire) telling everyone to "thrive" by submitting to the Kaiser empire. Maybe if you're watching a lot of Faux Noise, you might catch some propaganda in the opposite direction, but around here it's a tsunami of advertising for the existing scheme, which the Senate bill would change.

The BS "news" on TV (including now PBS "news") is very heavily influenced by both MICs, as are the RNCe and DNCe. They want more wars and more pills. From "the beauty of our weapons" on MSNBC to praying (literally, Mark Shields said that) for Obamneycare on PBS, it's a tsunami of propaganda. I don't know where you've been looking if you haven't seen it. Maybe it's confirmation bias on your part: you see only one side of the story presented, and assume it must be the "right" side, and thus every time you see it you mistake that confirmation for "news" when it's in fact propaganda.

Dems are stupid for talking about impeaching Trump.

There, at least, we agree. Somehow I haven't seen you saying that before. Links? I had hoped Senate Democrats would propose amendments to the Senate bill to make it more like what the President promised, so they could campaign next year saying 'here's what he promised, we wrote legislation to do what he said, Republicans blocked it, therefore give us control of the Senate so we can enact what he campaigned on.' Instead, they remain lost in TDS, renouncing the President and all of his works. They can't stand the fact that he isn't what they pretended, and they don't want to admit they misled their voters.

43 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 6, 5:20am

"LOL - you don't get to feign altruism while defending legislation that resulted in Americans dying on average sooner and generally poorer, widening the disparity in lifespans between rich and poor"

It's way too early to judge the effect of ACA on life expectancy, as you well know.

"The issue in this thread is the Senate medical insurance bill, which would change the existing Obamneycare legislation. You seem to focus only on changes to the tax code, while ignoring the insurance provisions. I tried to steer you back to the insurance provisions, which would affect companies in the industry"

Yes, I'm focused on the tax code changes, which are very large and very important. The question is why are you trying to minimize the effects of those changes?? Why are you desperately trying to steer the conversation somewhere else. Anywhere else. Why? You keep saying that this thread is about the Senate bill, but when I post about the effects of the Senate bill, you then claim it's about something else... You're getting as bad as McGee.

"I don't know what you're looking at"

I'm looking at all the reports and articles from 2009/2010. The anti-ACA propaganda was running fast and wild.

"They can't stand the fact that he isn't what they pretended, and they don't want to admit they misled their voters."

I wish they'd just let him show the public that he isn't what he pretended either. Treat him with the respect the office deserves and watch him fail. Just get out of his way.

44

curious2 2017 Jul 6, 6:41am

It's way too early to judge the effect of ACA on life expectancy, as you well know.

That's one of your many comments that undermine your credibility. Democrats took power in 2009, and enacted Obamneycare in 2010. Life expectancy stopped increasing in 2011, and fell in 2015. The 2016 data aren't available yet, but America went five years with no increase in life expectancy, amid huge spending increases. Forecasts for 2016 data predicted another decrease, only in America, where medical errors are now the third leading cause of death. In nearly all other times and places, life expectancy increased unless there was a huge disaster, e.g. war or plague. You defend infinite subsidies for toxic placebos, massive price increases on generic drugs, etc.

Why are you desperately trying to steer the conversation somewhere else. Anywhere else. Why?

I addressed the tax changes above. The medical insurance provisions are about life and death, and they're more complicated. The current system is killing people. You're so narcissistic that you don't care at all the widening disparity in lifespan between rich and poor, as long as the tax code does what you want it to do, and you can't focus on any of the other provisions of the Senate bill. Generic drug prices have soared since Obamneycare, and I don't see much in the Senate bill that would change the pattern. Does it accelerate approval of generic competitors, as other legislation might? Have you actually read it or only assumed what you called the Cliff's Notes (which wren't even Cliff's Notes)? Try citing specific provisions related to insurance. Sections 104&105 would help somewhat to reduce the deficit and relieve some of the absurd pricing pressure, for example; section 104 alone would reduce the deficit by $30bn/yr.

The anti-ACA propaganda was running fast and wild.

The pro-Obamneycare propaganda was running faster and more widely, with more funding, including the evening news brought to you primarily by PhRMA. You seem to blame the existence of people telling different sides for the fact that people opposed the legislation; you prefer perhaps a partisan echo chamber where only the official propaganda is presented.

45 anonymous 2017 Jul 6, 7:04am

Why do you always refer to HeritageFoundationCare as Obamneycare?

46

curious2 2017 Jul 6, 7:07am

http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-obamacare-propaganda-ignores-federal-subsidies

Why do you always refer to HeritageFoundationCare as Obamneycare?

I've used both terms, and opposed all three versions. Heritage Foundation proposed the individual mandate to buy insurance from corporate sponsors around 1990, but disowned the subsequent legislation, which was much more bloated and expensive. Obama and Romney signed proudly the legislation many called Obamacare and before that Romneycare, hence Obamneycare.

47 joeyjojojunior 2017 Jul 6, 8:49am

"That's one of your many comments that undermine your credibility. Democrats took power in 2009, and enacted Obamneycare in 2010. Life expectancy stopped increasing in 2011, and fell in 2015."

lol--only in your deluded world. You have one year of noisy data and are attempting to attribute cause and effect? MIsleading at best and more likely disingenuous. It's not even worth addressing.

"The current system is killing people. You're so narcissistic that you don't care at all the widening disparity in lifespan between rich and poor, as long as the tax code does what you want it to do, and you can't focus on any of the other provisions of the Senate bill."

Of course I care about it. I just understand how cause and effect work so I can realize that you are incorrect in your conclusions.

"Try citing specific provisions related to insurance. Sections 104&105 would help somewhat to reduce the deficit and relieve some of the absurd pricing pressure, for example; section 104 alone would reduce the deficit by $30bn/yr."

Yes, if you cover fewer people, total costs will go down. I just happen to believe that we should be reducing cost per person rather than eliminating coverage for certain groups.

"The pro-Obamneycare propaganda was running faster and more widely, with more funding, including the evening news brought to you primarily by PhRMA. You seem to blame the existence of people telling different sides for the fact that people opposed the legislation; you prefer perhaps a partisan echo chamber where only the official propaganda is presented."

That's just incorrect. I prefer to tell the truth rather than purposely mislead and lie (I thought you were done with me) like you.

"This is how propaganda works. You donâ€™t state all the facts. You select bits and build an argument. Forbesâ€™ editors should know betterâ€”especially since the publication that bills itself as a capitalistâ€™s tool is whacking a law with gigantic profits for its insurance industry friends.

On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that anti-Obamacare forces have so far outspent the pro-Obamacare side five-to-one, with its advertising approaching $500 million."

48

curious2 2017 Jul 6, 8:58am

Update: since you updated your comment above, I see you're definitely lying. From YOUR link:

"Bloombergâ€™s source, Kantar Media, which tracks ad buys and trends, said the pro-Obamacare side would spend $500 million as the law is rolled out this fall and next year. Thatâ€™s part of the $3.7 billion given to states to create and promote their program. And that does not count free media coverage, such as the presidentâ€™s recent healthcare speeches."

IOW, pro-Obamneycare propaganda outweighed anti-Obamneycare by a ratio of more than 7:1. Bribing PhRMA with subsidies got the MSM commercial "news" on board too; look at the PhRMA advertising and marketing budgets (more than $100bn/yr) to see the volume of advertising and marketing power pushing that POS. That's consistent with what I had been seeing, and saying above. Thanks for the link, even though you mislead with selective omission as you (falsely) accuse others of doing.