patrick.net

edvard2 says

The people in charge of the rollout have taken the blame and so has the President. What else do you want them to do?

Be fired or quit in disgrace.

zzyzzx says

Be fired or quit in disgrace.

That's stupid.

edvard2 says

That's stupid.

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?

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?

AverageBear says

I'm sure this has been posted alredy by now. But only six(!) signed up for Obamacare the first day??!! From what I read, over 4 million visits, but only 6 signed up?

That's a lie. You're talking about only the federal site. That is for the whiny red states whose leaders decided it was more important to sabotage healthcare than to serve their constituents, so they refused to set up state exchanges. You cannot say "only 6 people signed up for Obamacare the first day" because a whole lot of people ALSO signed up in their own states which have their own exchanges.

AverageBear says

Obamacare is wealth re-distribution, pure and simple.

Absolutely. But unlike all the other wealth-transfer schemes: QE, TARP, Fed discount window, bailouts, low capital gains rate, etc. - this one actually transfers the wealth in the right direction, to people who actually need help.

AB said: Obamacare is wealth re-distribution, pure and simple.
I don't think you'd like the other alternatives for wealth redistribution as they tend to be violent and ugly.
Let's break it down. The Top 20 percent control almost 90% of the wealth in the US. Here's what the Top 20 look like:
Top 20 Percent mean income: $226,200
Top 20 Percent mean net worth: $2,061,600
I'm not big on redistribution, but as those types of schemes go, ACA seems better than most. Meanwhile, the Top 20 continue to Hoover up the wealth while the bottom 80 percent are left with crumbs.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

HydroCabron says

AverageBear says

See, this is the weath-distribution thing you don't want to talk about.

I love talking about wealth distribution!

I am in totally in favor of wealth distribution. The government should use force to redistribute wealth.

I heart wealth distribution!

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

AverageBear says

You democrats rammed this into law, w/ ZERO help/input from the GOP. You did anything and everything to make this happen, and refused suggestions/prodding/filibusters/threats of the GOP, and, holy of holies, NOW you blame the GOP for the abortion we call Obamacare?

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.

Bellingham Bill says

smaulgld says

Instead they decided to build a web site, collect your information and then match you up (by mandate) with a PRIVATE company. I don't see any reason for it to have been done this way.

Only because idiot red states opted out of their state-level implementation.

coveredca.com ftw.

Obama couldn't win here with any reforms.

Medicare-for-all was "gov't death panels!" according to you right-wing morons.

PPACA's mandate is "forced commerce with evil private corporations!" according to you clowns.

UK-style NHS (healthcare run like public safety services) is of course communism to you guys.

Your guys idea of healthcare is "got mine fuck you".

That applies for absolutely everything in the conservative ideological playbook.

Whatever the reason, it still a big disaster. The name calling, "clowns" "got mine FU" make no sense. The criticism of O care is 100% valid it doesnt go away by attacking those criticizing it.

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.