Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#952 Mar 21 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,745 posts
Joph votes like he posts, way too @#%^ing much.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#953 Mar 21 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Vote early, vote often!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#954 Mar 21 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,093 posts
Democrats voting at all means there's voting fraud going on.

The fraud stops when they vote GOP, of course.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#955 Mar 22 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,196 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You can all blame Santorum's Illinois loss on me since I grabbed a Democratic ballot yesterday afternoon.
This is why we can't have nice things. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#956 Mar 22 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,093 posts
Latest lulz from the Santorum camp:

"I don't care what the unemployment rate is."

Does this mean we can't discuss the unemployment rate re: Obama? Since it's clearly not something the president needs to care about.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#957 Mar 22 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney finally has an argument that he's good for the economy: Ohio Art stock is up 141% today after his campaign's Etch-A-Sketch comments Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#958 Mar 23 2012 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,196 posts
With his heart warming and convincing discussion about grits, how could Etch-a-Sketch not profit from his endorsement?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#959 Mar 23 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
catwho wrote:
Latest lulz from the Santorum camp:

"I don't care what the unemployment rate is."

Does this mean we can't discuss the unemployment rate re: Obama? Since it's clearly not something the president needs to care about.

Blessed are the unemployed with no benefits under a right wing administration, for they shall starve to death and get to heaven quicker.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#960 Mar 26 2012 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
43,196 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
catwho wrote:
Latest lulz from the Santorum camp:

"I don't care what the unemployment rate is."

Does this mean we can't discuss the unemployment rate re: Obama? Since it's clearly not something the president needs to care about.
Blessed are the unemployed with no benefits under a right wing administration, for they shall starve to death and get to heaven quicker.
If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#961 Mar 28 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney's health insurance plan for the uninsured: If you didn't have enough to afford insurance when you were well, sucks to be you should you ever get sick.
Political Wire wrote:
Jay Leno pushed Mitt Romney last night "to explain what he would offer Americans with pre-existing medical conditions so that they might retain their coverage, perhaps the most popular provision of the president's health care law," NBC News reports.

Romeny: "People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance."

Leno: "Suppose they haven't been insured."

Romney: "If they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, 'Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered.'"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#962 Mar 28 2012 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
43,196 posts
Speaking of health care, Santorum going ape shit on a reporter about what he said about Romney was amusing to watch.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#963 Mar 28 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney's health insurance plan for the uninsured: If you didn't have enough to afford insurance when you were well, sucks to be you should you ever get sick.
Political Wire wrote:
Jay Leno pushed Mitt Romney last night "to explain what he would offer Americans with pre-existing medical conditions so that they might retain their coverage, perhaps the most popular provision of the president's health care law," NBC News reports.

Romeny: "People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance."

Leno: "Suppose they haven't been insured."

Romney: "If they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, 'Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered.'"
I don't know what to say. I mean, that's how insurance works.


The only way to truly get away from it is to drop this crappy health insurance thing and go to universal healthcare. Stop lollygagging and get it done properly.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#964 Mar 28 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know what to say. I mean, that's how insurance works.

Sure. However, that shouldn't necessarily be how healthcare works. A healthcare system that says "fuck you if you couldn't afford insurance before you got sick" is a piss poor system and that's the one Romney is advocating.

Not that you disagree given your second remark, I'm just making the point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#965 Mar 28 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A healthcare system that says "fuck you if you couldn't afford insurance before you got sick" is a piss poor system and that's the one Romney is advocating.
Wholehearted agreement.

I imagine there's a fair number of people, who over the economic downturn, lost their insurance and ended up getting diagnosed with something. Using his reasoning, these people are fucked now once they get back on their feet and can afford insurance again.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#966 Mar 28 2012 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
A healthcare system that says "fuck you if you couldn't afford insurance before you got sick" is a piss poor system and that's the one Romney is advocating.
Wholehearted agreement.

I imagine there's a fair number of people, who over the economic downturn, lost their insurance and ended up getting diagnosed with something. Using his reasoning, these people are fucked now once they get back on their feet and can afford insurance again.

Not to mention all the problems that come up if you need to switch health care providers. My current health care provider only exists in like 3 states across the country, so if I ever have to move I'm gonna be having to fight my way into a new system given that I now have pre-existing conditions. You know, stuff that just comes about as a result of going through life as a normal human being.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#967 Mar 28 2012 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Screw you for being a normal human being.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#968 Mar 28 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know what to say. I mean, that's how insurance works.

Sure. However, that shouldn't necessarily be how healthcare works.


So we're all in agreement that Obama care is not how health care should work? Great! That's what we conservatives have been saying for 2 years now. Welcome to the side of the sane!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#969 Mar 28 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure. Plenty I'd change about the current plan. But the current plan is still much closer to my idealized version than anything I've heard from the GOP and especially Gov. Romney's remarks last night.

But I'm glad you feel we agree. Welcome to the side of the sane! Smiley: smile

Edited, Mar 28th 2012 12:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#970 Mar 28 2012 at 11:38 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Plenty I'd change about the current plan. But the current plan is still much closer to my idealized version than anything I've heard from the GOP and especially Gov. Romney's remarks last night.


So a plan that mandates a health care purchasing method that you believe is the wrong way to do health care is "closer to your idealized version"? How?

I can only conclude that it's not really closer at all, but more broken, thus increasing the odds of some future move to a system that is actually closer to your idealized version. Am I close?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#971 Mar 28 2012 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So a plan that mandates a health care purchasing method that you believe is the wrong way to do health care is "closer to your idealized version...

...than anything I've heard from the GOP and especially Gov. Romney's remarks last night"

LERN2QUOTE
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#972 Mar 28 2012 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
If you even dignify that with a response Joph, I'm rating you down.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#973 Mar 28 2012 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,196 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can only conclude that it's not really closer at all, but more broken, thus increasing the odds of some future move to a system that is actually closer to your idealized version.
When it's the conclusion you're told to arrive at, yeah, you can only conclude that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#974 Mar 28 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If you even dignify that with a response Joph, I'm rating you down.

Too late!

My karma! Smiley: cry
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#975 Mar 28 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So a plan that mandates a health care purchasing method that you believe is the wrong way to do health care is "closer to your idealized version...

...than anything I've heard from the GOP and especially Gov. Romney's remarks last night"


But not closer than simply not passing Obamacare in the first place, right? So even if the GOP has no plan at all other than repealing Obamacare, it's better than Obamacare.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#976 Mar 28 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Oh. And if we're on the topic of GOP plans, isn't the whole private health accounts idea closer as well? So instead of paying for insurance, which you pay more for when you're young and healthy than you get out of it and which might change or be canceled at some future date when you actually need it, you pay into your own account and then draw on it later in life (or when you get sick). Wouldn't that fix the problems of insurance and pre-existing conditions and whatnot?

Let's not kid ourselves, it's not about insurance companies and pre-existing conditions. It's about the desire by the left to put the government in control of health care. And they use the promise of a free lunch to get people on board.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#977 Mar 28 2012 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,745 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So a plan that mandates a health care purchasing method that you believe is the wrong way to do health care is "closer to your idealized version...

...than anything I've heard from the GOP and especially Gov. Romney's remarks last night"


But not closer than simply not passing Obamacare in the first place, right? So even if the GOP has no plan at all other than repealing Obamacare, it's better than Obamacare.
Obamacare beats no care if you ask me.
You should still work towards a proper universal healthcare system though. If that means you lose the "freedom" to choose whether you'll live or die when you get seriously ill then so be it.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#978 Mar 28 2012 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about the desire by the left to put the government in control of health care. And they use the promise of a free lunch to get people on board.


I'd rather they just went and did that already. It would be a whole lot simpler than dealing with this half-way thing they cooked up.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#979 Mar 28 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,834 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves, it's not about insurance companies and pre-existing conditions. It's about the desire by the left to put the government in control of health care. And they use the promise of a free lunch to get people on board.

No, it's about giving everybody access to basic preventative health care. The specifics about how to go about this are the current problem.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#980 Mar 28 2012 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But not closer than simply not passing Obamacare in the first place, right?

Wrong. But you should know that since you've joined me on the side of the sane Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#981 Mar 28 2012 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,790 posts
Jophiel wrote:
sane Smiley: smile


Relatively speaking, right?

Seeing as this is the Asylum. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#982 Mar 28 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But not closer than simply not passing Obamacare in the first place, right? So even if the GOP has no plan at all other than repealing Obamacare, it's better than Obamacare.
Obamacare beats no care if you ask me.


But that's not the choice here. The choice is between Obamacare and the health care we had before passing it. That wasn't "no care".

Do you believe that Obamacare makes the US health care system better, worse, or about the same? Consider quality of care, availability of care, and cost of care. Remember that Obamacare does not change the method by which health care is delivered to the people, but just took the same insurance system and made it bigger.


Quote:
You should still work towards a proper universal healthcare system though. If that means you lose the "freedom" to choose whether you'll live or die when you get seriously ill then so be it.


I'm sorry? Were we letting people die uncared for in our hospitals prior to the passage of Obamacare? Let's not forget that the argument for Obamacare wasn't that people weren't able to get care, but that they weren't all covered by health care insurance (remember the "40 million Americans living without health insurance bit?). The very methodology which Joph says is the wrong way to deliver health care. It is not, and has never been, about making sure people don't die because of lack of health care. It has always been about pushing everyone into the health insurance system as a step towards replacing that system with a single payer system provided by the government.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#983 Mar 28 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But not closer than simply not passing Obamacare in the first place, right? So even if the GOP has no plan at all other than repealing Obamacare, it's better than Obamacare.
Obamacare beats no care if you ask me.


But that's not the choice here. The choice is between Obamacare and the health care we had before passing it. That wasn't "no care".


So the GOP isn't going to offer up a solution? Or are they happy with the current system?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#984 Mar 28 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that's not the choice here. The choice is between Obamacare and the health care we had before passing it. That wasn't "no care".


So the GOP isn't going to offer up a solution? Or are they happy with the current system?


That's not the issue. The issue is whether Obamacare improved our health care or not. You're excluding the middle. It's quite possible to not be happy with the current system while *also* believing that Obamacare is worse. I may not be happy with a Big Mac for lunch, but it's preferable to a pile of dung. Insisting that I should like the dung because I don't like the Big Mac really just fails to grasp the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#985 Mar 28 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're excluding the middle. It's quite possible to not be happy with the current system while *also* believing that Obamacare is worse.


Okay lets say I believe the current system is bad, but I'm not really sold on Obamacare. I see it as a complicated band-aid solution and would love an alternative other than just undoing everything. While I may not be totally into the new system, there are things about it that seem like good ideas, and I don't just want to undo some of the provisions.

I guess In the end really I can't really see myself voting for someone who doesn't at least try to address the healthcare problem, and would love to look at some of the GOP alternatives when making my decision come November.

Edited, Mar 28th 2012 2:44pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#986 Mar 28 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,745 posts
gbaji wrote:
It is not, and has never been, about making sure people don't die because of lack of health care.
About 10 seconds of googling gets me this Reuters article from 2009 that states that roughly every 12 minutes a US citizen dies because of lack of healthcare. It may be exaggerated and you'll probably whine about how it doesn't count but even if it's massively exaggerated and the real number is only a quarter of what they estimate it is, it's still about people dying because of lack of healthcare. In the first case I'm all for the government protecting them from their stupidity and in the second case I think it's simply the government's duty to keep it's citizens safe and healthy.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#987 Mar 28 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It is not, and has never been, about making sure people don't die because of lack of health care.
About 10 seconds of googling gets me this Reuters article from 2009 that states that roughly every 12 minutes a US citizen dies because of lack of healthcare. It may be exaggerated and you'll probably whine about how it doesn't count...


Well...

The article wrote:
The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.


Good bet it's exaggerated.

Quote:
but even if it's massively exaggerated and the real number is only a quarter of what they estimate it is, it's still about people dying because of lack of healthcare.


Note that you used the correct term here, but the conclusions (in the article) don't. Health care, is not synonymous with health insurance. At the center of the issue is whether insurance is the best method to deliver the exact sort of regular treatment/care which this study looked at.

The article wrote:
Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.


This is exactly the sort of thing folks like me have been predicting and arguing about as an effect of pushing our regular care under the insurance umbrella (not just public hospitals though). The argument is that because our government has pushed health care into a "comprehensive insurance coverage" model, it has priced regular care out of the range of the uninsured pocket books. It has destroyed the family doctor model, and the small private practice. This in turn forces doctors to work as part of hospitals and larger health care centers, with all the overhead and bureaucracy that entails, which in turn drives prices up more. And over time, only those being funded via overpriced insurance and expensive grants can keep their doors open.

You don't need to go to a health care center with a large number of the modern equivalent of the "machine that goes ping" in them to be diagnosed and treated for diabetes (and get a prescription). Yet, that is increasingly the only option, and it's increasingly expensive. Using insurance for comprehensive care is just plain the wrong approach. But it's an approach that the same folks arguing for universal health care have pushed us into "to move us in the direction of a universal health care system". One step leads to the other.


Quote:
In the first case I'm all for the government protecting them from their stupidity and in the second case I think it's simply the government's duty to keep it's citizens safe and healthy.


I disagree with both of those ideas. In the first case, who gets to decide what is stupid? How about instead of the government making that determination for us, we allow the real world to do it naturally? Doesn't cost a penny either. Similarly, the degree to which a government is responsible for its citizens safety and health is directly proportional to the degree to which that government will impose authority over the choices and actions of its citizens on the grounds that it's fulfilling that responsibility.

Responsibility and authority come hand in hand. We cannot hold someone (or the government in this case) responsible for something they have no authority to control, so we should expect that government control must follow any degree of government responsibility. We should absolutely apply strict limits to what the government responsibility is, and thus its authority, else we give over our freedoms to the government.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#988 Mar 28 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Okay lets say I believe the current system is bad, but I'm not really sold on Obamacare. I see it as a complicated band-aid solution and would love an alternative other than just undoing everything. While I may not be totally into the new system, there are things about it that seem like good ideas, and I don't just want to undo some of the provisions.


Are you aware that most of the provisions that most people think are good ideas were those which the GOP also supported. They supported ending restrictions which prevent insurance across state lines and placing greater burden on insurance companies to deny coverage, for example. They supported tort reform to limit the impact of malpractice on the health industry. There were a number of ideas which had bi-partisan support which could have been molded into a decent health care reform law. But the Dems choose to push a whole bunch of stuff that the GOP (and a lot of people) didn't want and which is arguably unconstitutional.

That was and is the problem with Obamacare. It was a handful of good ideas, wrapped in a tortilla of really really bad ones.

Quote:
I guess In the end really I can't really see myself voting for someone who doesn't at least try to address the healthcare problem, and would love to look at some of the GOP alternatives when making my decision come November.


Which is exactly why the left goes to incredible lengths (and significant media effort) to make you think that the GOP has no plans, no ideas, and no alternatives. Whenever you think to yourself "I can't believe those republicans have no solutions for health care, or energy, or the economy, or <insert issue here>", maybe you should actually not believe it? It's not that the GOP does not have plans and does not present them, but that every left leaning person in the media (which is a pretty overwhelming majority) says "The GOP has no plan for <X>" over and over.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#989 Mar 28 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,745 posts
gbaji wrote:
The article wrote:
Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.
This is exactly the sort of thing folks like me have been predicting and arguing about as an effect of pushing our regular care under the insurance umbrella (not just public hospitals though). The argument is that because our government has pushed health care into a "comprehensive insurance coverage" model, it has priced regular care out of the range of the uninsured pocket books. It has destroyed the family doctor model, and the small private practice. This in turn forces doctors to work as part of hospitals and larger health care centers, with all the overhead and bureaucracy that entails, which in turn drives prices up more. And over time, only those being funded via overpriced insurance and expensive grants can keep their doors open.
And yet, this hasn't happened in countries with universal healthcare and I'm pretty damn sure I pay less for my health insurance than you do. Oh and for the record, pretty much everyone in this country has a doctor available within 5 miles. Just about every village has a doctor's office.

Edit: Also notice how this was happening BEFORE obamacare?

Quote:
Quote:
In the first case I'm all for the government protecting them from their stupidity and in the second case I think it's simply the government's duty to keep it's citizens safe and healthy.
I disagree with both of those ideas. In the first case, who gets to decide what is stupid? How about instead of the government making that determination for us, we allow the real world to do it naturally? Doesn't cost a penny either. Similarly, the degree to which a government is responsible for its citizens safety and health is directly proportional to the degree to which that government will impose authority over the choices and actions of its citizens on the grounds that it's fulfilling that responsibility.
I consider not being insured stupid and people not being insured costs you tons of money because 911 can hardly work on a pre-paid basis and those who are uninsured are more likely to make use of it and won't pay for it (because, well, they can't).

So yeah, pretty much the only "freedom" you lose is the choice to get health insurance or not. @#%^ that bit of "freedom" if losing it means healthier citizens. Not to mention that more healthy citizens means more tax revenue to help pay for those who otherwise couldn't afford insurance.

Edited, Mar 29th 2012 12:59am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#990 Mar 28 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
Are you aware that most of the provisions that most people think are good ideas were those which the GOP also supported. They supported ending restrictions which prevent insurance across state lines and placing greater burden on insurance companies to deny coverage, for example. They supported tort reform to limit the impact of malpractice on the health industry. There were a number of ideas which had bi-partisan support which could have been molded into a decent health care reform law. But the Dems choose to push a whole bunch of stuff that the GOP (and a lot of people) didn't want and which is arguably unconstitutional.


Generally yes.

gbaji wrote:
Which is exactly why the left goes to incredible lengths (and significant media effort) to make you think that the GOP has no plans, no ideas, and no alternatives. Whenever you think to yourself "I can't believe those republicans have no solutions for health care, or energy, or the economy, or <insert issue here>", maybe you should actually not believe it? It's not that the GOP does not have plans and does not present them, but that every left leaning person in the media (which is a pretty overwhelming majority) says "The GOP has no plan for <X>" over and over.


Could you perhaps link to their plan or something? Something by Romney perhaps, since I'm assuming it's pretty much his nomination these days. Or maybe an article where they mention ideas on how they'd like to change things at least? Because I haven't seen them discussed so much. Perhaps I'm watching the wrong channels though. It happens. You hear about "Repeal Obamacare" but not so much about what they plan to do afterwards, or if there are ideas in there they want to keep, etc.




Edited, Mar 28th 2012 3:59pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#991 Mar 28 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that's not the choice here. The choice is between Obamacare and the health care we had before passing it. That wasn't "no care".


So the GOP isn't going to offer up a solution? Or are they happy with the current system?


That's not the issue. The issue is whether Obamacare improved our health care or not.


'Obamacare' got me covered under my parents' plan for an extra year, so I've got no complaints with it.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#992 Mar 29 2012 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
43,196 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which is exactly why the left goes to incredible lengths (and significant media effort) to make you think that the GOP has no plans, no ideas, and no alternatives. Whenever you think to yourself "I can't believe those republicans have no solutions for health care, or energy, or the economy, or <insert issue here>", maybe you should actually not believe it? It's not that the GOP does not have plans and does not present them, but that every left leaning person in the media (which is a pretty overwhelming majority) says "The GOP has no plan for <X>" over and over.
I notice that when you're asked what those plans are, you often go to great lengths to not actually answer the question but blame the left for their efforts to say there is no plan. Then again, your general tactic for everything political is to blame the left, so it's not like this was any sort of revelation for me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#993 Mar 29 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The GOP put out a few half-assed proposals during the debate. By "half-assed" I mean they were just fact sheet type things with a few bullet points, not fleshed out plans. They largely boiled down to "Deregulate everything, turn any federal programs into block grants, tort reform".

More telling than their scramble to create a counter-proposal during the debate was their years of silence on the issue when they were actually in power and could have done something about it. Simply put, health care hasn't been a priority for Republicans.

Edit: They had a single larger plan at one point. I'm too uninterested to go digging it up but this was my response to it in 2009:
I once wrote:
The Republican "health care" bill has gotten scant mention because it's a joke that doesn't even attempt to fix the problems. A whole crapload of pages about tort reform and selling insurance across state lines and not a thing said for covering the uninsured, anemic protection for high-risk patients, restrictions on SCHIP (government children's health insurance coverage) and would be funded through "cuts in discretionary spending" and repealing sections of the stimulus bill.

That's not a health care plan, that's an attempt to do as little as possible for health care while reaping the most GOP talking points.


Edited, Mar 29th 2012 9:14am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#994 Mar 29 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,548 posts
Bush had the throne for 8-years and made no attempt at health care reform. His contribution to bettering the nations health was passing out more pills.

If someone wanted to put on their liberal tin hat, they could claim that Bush and the Secret Power-mongering Society intentionally expanded medicare's prescription coverage to better keep the masses drugged, compliant and subdued. AND! in a two-fer it put more monies into the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#995 Mar 29 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,093 posts
Going to the doctor should be as simple as what I did this morning.

At 8AM I called my doctor's office, said "Can you see me today?" and they said "Sure if you can be here by 9:45 AM."

At 9:20, I drove fifteen minutes to the office, and was seen by 9:50 AM.

My doctor gave me a good once over, determined it was a return of the nasty pharyngitis and bronchitis from two months ago, and wrote me a handful of prescriptions for pills and a fancy cough syrup. The syrup and one of the pills was optional; the other was a Z-pak to clean out the bacteria I was coughing up.

By 10:15 AM I was out the door. My copay was $15. (My prescriptions, for all three, were $45, but the copay on the only "required" one was just $10.)

All this was possible because we actually have pretty damn good insurance, as paid for by the state since my husband is a professor.

Why can't everyone have that kind of insurance, such that when they get sick they can go to the doctor to make sure it isn't serious - and if it is serious, get further treatment as necessary?

Why is this such a bad thing?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#996 Mar 29 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,834 posts
Because socialism!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#997 Mar 29 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
So, gbaji's "ideal" healthcare should apparently be for-profit social security. You pay into when you're young, reap the benefits when you've earned due, and all the while people are skimming off the top while the people who didn't pay in while they were young die because they've always been poor. The American dream.
#998 Mar 29 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,834 posts
Guenny wrote:
So, gbaji's "ideal" healthcare should apparently be for-profit social security. You pay into when you're young, reap the benefits when you've earned due, and all the while people are skimming off the top while the people who didn't pay in while they were young die because they've always been poor. The American dream.

But don't *ever* accuse him of being a Republican!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#999 Mar 29 2012 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Routine visits to the doctor should not involve insurance. Insurance is terrible when applied to a predictable every day occurrence. Insurance works when you're insuring against something that is rare, but for an every day visit to the doctor all it's doing is making the entire system more expensive.

As long as insurance companies are covering that sort of thing though, you need to make sure everyone can get access.

Would it be possible for me to get insurance that only covered unexpected medical issues in the states? I kind of doubt it.

Edited, Mar 29th 2012 3:25pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#1000 Mar 29 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Would it be possible for me to get insurance that only covered unexpected medical issues in the states? I kind of doubt it.

You can get "catastrophic" coverage which is an extremely high deductible plan. Due to the deductible, you would never use it to see the doctor for a cough or strange rash but it would (presumably) keep you from being saddled with a $230,000 hospital bill should your arm get ripped off and need to be reattached.

As a side note, I once said that I was skeptical of Gbaji's claims that if we just didn't have insurance for regular care, prices would dramatically drop. I noted that there were multiple nurse practitioner "cash only" clinics in drugstores and department stores like Walmart & Target and they were all priced close to what my own GP charged for a cash visit. So the same $80-$100 visits that were keeping people out of the regular doctor's office were still being charged when you were being seen by a nurse practitioner at CVS.

Flash forward to a few weeks ago, something inspired me to check out the clinics again. They're still charging the same rates but... they all take insurance now. Apparently they weren't making enough money charging $80 a pop to see if you have strep so, rather than attract more customers by lowering their prices they simply widened their net by allowing someone like me to go and throw down my Humana card -- the value now is convenience rather than affordability.

I'm not so much trying to make a huge point with that but I found it very interesting.

Edit: The one notable exception is Meijers, a regional grocery/department store of the Walmart model. They still don't take insurance and charge about $40. I have no clue if their pricing has changed over time.

Edited, Mar 29th 2012 3:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1001 Mar 29 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that's not the choice here. The choice is between Obamacare and the health care we had before passing it. That wasn't "no care".


So the GOP isn't going to offer up a solution? Or are they happy with the current system?


That's not the issue. The issue is whether Obamacare improved our health care or not. You're excluding the middle. It's quite possible to not be happy with the current system while *also* believing that Obamacare is worse. I may not be happy with a Big Mac for lunch, but it's preferable to a pile of dung. Insisting that I should like the dung because I don't like the Big Mac really just fails to grasp the issue.


Obamacare had very little to do with improving your health care. It was largely implemented to improve access to health care for those unable to attain health care on their own. Be it due to low income, lack of income, lack of clean health (pre existing conditions). In that regard it is most certainly better, and guess what, it doesn't change what was available under the previous system. You can still go get private insurance, which may or may not offer more coverage than the basic public service.

Also your analogy is @#%^ing stupid. If you don't like Big Macs or sh*t Sandwhiches go out and get something else for lunch. Obamacare isn't forcing you on to a government system, you can still go out and buy whichever healthcare package you deem reasonable, and said package is still acceptable.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT