Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ACA vs ObamacareFollow

#52 Oct 05 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,749 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Going through the single payer plans, I think I found a decent one that I can afford. I had looked at single payer plans before, but the only provider in my state for them is BCBS, and their plans were expensive, even after the income-level adjustments.

Grats. Smiley: grin

Health insurance is cool. I should get mine from my employer in about two months.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#53 Oct 05 2013 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Catwho wrote:
Walmart of all companies apparently had to revise its policy of only hiring part timers now, because they can't convince people to keep their sh*tty part time only jobs with no benefits. As soon as someone finds something that has more hours or health insurance, they're leaving. Walmart has always scraped the bottom of the employment barrel, but even the bottom scrapings have a finite supply and know to look for a better job while they're getting shat upon.


According to the Forbes article I read on this, the reason they are hiring more full timers is they've discovered that the temp workers and part timers don't give a rat's **** about customer service. They are losing profits because the stores don't have stock on the shelves and the employees ignore customers.

Apparently, poorly paid employees with no benefits don't care if your business succeeds, go figure.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#54 Oct 05 2013 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
I remember when walmart first came to my city (canada) they were all about customer service. That was their mantra, when you come to walmart we care about our customers.
____________________________
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
#55 Oct 05 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
The Forbes article I assume is being referenced

Quote:
Wal-Mart is finally learning what all American businesses who seek to avoid their health care responsibilities to employees will soon learn.

It may be a clever enough dodge to cut employees below the 30 hours per week in order to avoid the expectations of Obamacare, but the move comes at a substantial price to be paid in lost revenue and profits. Given that the entire point of business is to show a profit, it is only a matter of time before employers learn what Home Depot learned some years ago and what Wal-Mart is slowly beginning to figure out—you get what you pay for.

Cut back on employees and you will, eventually, cut back on your profits as the savings a business creates by cutting worker hours leads to greatly decreased sales as customer satisfaction disappears.


Seems like Wal-mart couldn't see the forest for the trees, a lesson I suspect most businesses intending to cut employee hours to stave off benefits will learn more quickly than their behemoth brethren.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#56 Oct 05 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,749 posts
I've never found the customer service at the local Walmart to be particularly good. Even after the Target opened, they continued to suck pretty badly.

Anything I would have bought at Walmart, I now buy at Target. So I can't comment on how much their business has suffered.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#57 Oct 05 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
I don't even understand what customer service is meant to mean in this context. You go there to buy food. You buy your food, your food is bought, matters are concluded.
#58 Oct 05 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Answering questions about where items are located, stocking shelves properly, keeping the place clean, being pleasant but quick in the checkout line. Is Walmart really primarily a food store in the states now? Wouldn't it's main business still be all the other stuff it carries?
____________________________
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
#59 Oct 05 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I remember when walmart first came to my city (canada)


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Oct 05 2013 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,749 posts
Quote:
Answering questions about where items are located, stocking shelves properly, keeping the place clean, being pleasant but quick in the checkout line. Is Walmart really primarily a food store in the states now? Wouldn't it's main business still be all the other stuff it carries?


That's a really important part, tbh. Whenever I'm in Walmarts, they just feel so dirty. Target, by comparison, feels clean and fresh.

Obviously, the rest matters, too.

Point being, if your customers feel like you don't give a **** about them, there's a very good chance they'll go somewhere else.

And no, Walmart isn't primarily a grocery. More and more of them have food sections, but very few are at the level of supermarkets.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#61 Oct 05 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The "Super Walmarts" have full sized groceries but that's still maybe 33% of the building. The rest being all the clothes, housewares, etc.

But even in a grocery store, you want decent customer service. Asking where the bullion cubes are located is a different experience in a Food Lion owned low-end grocery store than it is in a Safeway or Whole Foods.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Oct 05 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
I'm not a Target fan, but I do like the smell of popcorn when I walk in. I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices. Walmart keeps it real with bargain bins. "Here's a bunch of **** that we don't want, that you might want". It looks sloppy and the quality is not as good, but you get what you pay for. However, there are some things worth getting out of Target or any other place.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#63 Oct 05 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
I think I've been to Walmart twice this year. I try to avoid it at all costs. I go to Target or Kmart for non-food, Kroger or Food Lion for groceries. And some of the reasons I avoid Walmart now are the ones listed in that article. Not enough check out lines, the place looks dirty and the shelves are never fully stocked. I went there today, but only because we were in the neighborhood and I wanted to check out some mums. Their mums sucked, so I'll be going to a nursery tomorrow.
#64 Oct 05 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Oct 05 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.


To be fair, I haven't done a cost comparison on specific items, but only viewed the differences at a glance.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#66 Oct 05 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,749 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.


In general, I've found the Market Pantry and Up products to be fully acceptable alternatives in most cases. I actually like the Market Pantry version of Oreos better than the original. Smiley: lol

But to be fair, it's because they're less sweet and more cocoa-y, which I like.

Plus, while not innocent by any means, Target is guilty of far fewer serious ethics violations than Walmart is, so I'm much happier giving them my money. Saving $.10 to shop at a store that makes me grit my teeth is not the better deal, if I can consider anything other than the dollars/cents.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#67 Oct 07 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's not worse than those. WTF? Now... show me where more than an incredibly tiny fringe group of people think this, much less oppose the ACA because of this? Can't do it, right?

Hence: Irrelevant.


You said that the second group was not lied to, yet you just agreed that they were lied to. Hence: relevant.


I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.

Meanwhile a huge percentage of supporters of the law actually do believe that they will receive better benefits for a lower price. And to be fair a small percentage of them *will*. But it requires only simple math and an understanding of how insurance industries work to get that in order for that small percentage to benefit, a much larger percentage must pay more for the same benefits. There's no magical way around that.

Edited, Oct 7th 2013 2:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Oct 07 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,278 posts
Relevant: My company just cancelled the 1% premium increase they had planned for next year- they'll eat the cost instead. My co-workers will see no premium increase at all.

(Apparently the third quarter results were really good.)
____________________________
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 leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#69 Oct 07 2013 at 3:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Catwho wrote:
Relevant: My company just cancelled the 1% premium increase they had planned for next year- they'll eat the cost instead. My co-workers will see no premium increase at all.


Your results aren't typical though. Also, you get that your company eating the cost is ultimately still coming out of your paycheck, right? Total labor costs for a company include payroll and benefits. Anything that increases the relative size of one, tends to decrease the relative size of the other. So what you'll see is a slightly smaller raise/promotion/bonus pool going forward to offset that minor increase in health care costs that the company "ate".

There ain't so such thing as a free lunch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Oct 07 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.


You have no idea on how many people believe the GOP rhetoric on the ACA. So, you admit that the GOP lied on those two statements? Think about it. If they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, is it not reasonable to believe that they lied about more subtle things?


Besides, I just quoted the most notable lies. Here are more lies.

1. You have the commercials where your doctor is replaced with Uncle Sam. The GOP has argued that ACA does not allow individuals to keep or choose their own doctor, but will be given a low waged, beginner government cheese eating doctor, like a defense attorney. That is a bold face lie that is believed, because it's believable.

2. They have been arguing that the ACA should be delayed a year for the people because businesses have been given the option and everyone should be treated the same. That's misleading, because a business != a person, nor do the rules apply the same way. EVERY PERSON in that business is still under the mandate, therefore EVERY PERSON is treated equally.

3. The GOP has been arguing that they have been compromising and it's the President who is not willing to discuss anything. That's a lie, because a compromise doesn't consist of giving up the most prized possession. Compromising would be allowing ACA to go forward, but to defund food stamps (already happened) along with other government programs.

4. Probably the biggest lie of them all. The GOP has argued that this program will only hurt the people, when in fact, they are just afraid of the "47%" liking it. This will carry on to the 2014/2016 elections.

Gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile a huge percentage of supporters of the law actually do believe that they will receive better benefits for a lower price. And to be fair a small percentage of them *will*. But it requires only simple math and an understanding of how insurance industries work to get that in order for that small percentage to benefit, a much larger percentage must pay more for the same benefits. There's no magical way around that.


ACA is built to help specifically that small percentage. This goes back to the GOP rhetoric of having Uncle Sam doing being your doctor. Even if a person is mislead about how much they will have to pay for insurance, they will not know unless they go through the process. Every person's situation is different, so you can't just do simple math without the other health factors. So, supporting it under the belief that they think that they might have lower costs isn't false support because someone else is benefiting. It's only false support if the individual only support things that support themselves.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#71 Oct 07 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.


You have no idea on how many people believe the GOP rhetoric on the ACA. So, you admit that the GOP lied on those two statements?


The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things. Not some guy on the radio. Not some blogger somewhere. Actual elected members of the GOP. Cause if you're going to say that the GOP lied to people, it has to start with showing the actual GOP doing this. Then, we can start looking at how significant such a claim may or may not have been in terms of convincing people to oppose the ACA.

I know this may be shocking to you, but I do happen to know a lot of conservatives. And while I'm not discounting the possible existence of nutter on "my side" of the political aisle, I've never heard someone come up to me in a conversation and say "OMG! We've got to stop Obamacare or we'll all be slaves or dead!". What I do hear is people talking about how free markets are better at providing health care than government bureaucracies and how prices will likely go up and quality down under Obamacare, and how mandates are a bad idea because they crowd out competition and how there are better ways to reform our health care than that proposed in Obamacare.


Do you understand the concept of a straw man? Because that's what you're arguing here.

Quote:
Think about it. If they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, is it not reasonable to believe that they lied about more subtle things?


It's so obviously wrong should be your starting point to figuring out why what you're trying to argue is wrong.

Quote:
1. You have the commercials where your doctor is replaced with Uncle Sam. The GOP has argued that ACA does not allow individuals to keep or choose their own doctor, but will be given a low waged, beginner government cheese eating doctor, like a defense attorney. That is a bold face lie that is believed, because it's believable.


Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.

Quote:
2. They have been arguing that the ACA should be delayed a year for the people because businesses have been given the option and everyone should be treated the same. That's misleading, because a business != a person, nor do the rules apply the same way. EVERY PERSON in that business is still under the mandate, therefore EVERY PERSON is treated equally.


Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.

Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.

Quote:
3. The GOP has been arguing that they have been compromising and it's the President who is not willing to discuss anything. That's a lie, because a compromise doesn't consist of giving up the most prized possession. Compromising would be allowing ACA to go forward, but to defund food stamps (already happened) along with other government programs.


Then offer something. How much is funding Obamacare worth to the Democrats? They haven't offered anything, or even made an attempt to balance the budget (or come close to balancing it) in 4 years. I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: This is not just about Obamcare.

Quote:
4. Probably the biggest lie of them all. The GOP has argued that this program will only hurt the people, when in fact, they are just afraid of the "47%" liking it. This will carry on to the 2014/2016 elections.


And yet another strawman. When you inject words like "only", you create an absolute position which is easy to attack. So if just one person isn't hurt, the GOP is wrong? That's kinda ridiculous, right? How about the more reasonable position that on balance more people will be harmed by the passage of Obamacare than will be helped? Obviously, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there will be some small percentage of people who will see benefits from Obamacare. But it wont be anywhere near 47%. It can't be mathematically for the program to even come close to solvency. And the more it fails to do so, the more costs will end out being lumped on the population down the line to pay for the difference (ultimately meaning that whatever benefits people gain today will be short lived).

Quote:
ACA is built to help specifically that small percentage.


But not sold to the majority on that though. An honest approach would be Obama standing at podium and saying that since a small percentage of Americans fall through the cracks between public and private care (around 20 million or so?), we should all pay a bit more for our health insurance in order to make sure they're covered. But he didn't do that. He said that existing care would stay the same, and existing costs would stay the same for most Americans, with only the rich folks making up the difference (paying their fair share, right?).

He intentionally made it seem like like only "the rich" would see any increase in costs from this. Remember the whole rhetoric about how only people making X dollars or more would see their taxes increase? Those statements were made in direct response to conservatives arguing that taxes would have to go up to pay for Obamacare. And here's the funny bit (and the really big lie). How they got around this statement was that when the Dems were selling Obamacare, they labeled all the increases costs as "fees and fines", not taxes. Thus, they could say that taxes would not increase (a lie of omission). Of course, the GOP pointed this out and were roundly attacked for mislabeling those things as "taxes". So the conservatives sued over this, arguing that the use of such fines and fees violated the constitutional authority of congress under the commerce act. Ironically, the Supreme Court agreed, but instead of striking down the law, they simply labeled the fines and fees at "taxes" and called it constitutional.


So what we have here is a huge lie to the American people. Their taxes would not go up because what they were don't wasn't called a tax. But once it was passed (and the support of the people was no longer required), they were more than happy to argue those same fines/fees that were not called a tax when they needed to lie to the people to get support actually were taxes in order to make the whole thing constitutional.

That's a lie. That's a huge lie. And it was one of the basic arguments used to get people on board with the ACA.


Quote:
This goes back to the GOP rhetoric of having Uncle Sam doing being your doctor. Even if a person is mislead about how much they will have to pay for insurance, they will not know unless they go through the process. Every person's situation is different, so you can't just do simple math without the other health factors. So, supporting it under the belief that they think that they might have lower costs isn't false support because someone else is benefiting. It's only false support if the individual only support things that support themselves.


Uh... We can still calculate statistical effects of the law on various economic ranges of people within our workforce. And statistically, most people will see their health costs rise significantly. Actually, most people already have. But I suspect that's where the next layer of lie will occur. Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure that folks on the left will take prices on the day before it "officially" started and say "see! Prices didn't go up!". But if you look at price increases industry wide since the law was passed, it's a whole different story.

The sheer volume of deception and outright lies used to push the ACA is pretty staggering if you stop and think about it. What's amazing to me is how many people just refuse to admit it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Oct 08 2013 at 2:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
To prevent me from wasting too much time engaging in another long drawn out argument that you will just result in a lame cop out, I will assume some questions are rhetorical and/or hit the highlights. If there is a specific comment that you want me to answer, feel free to address it as such.

Gbaji wrote:
The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/the-daily-show-rips-rokita-s-obamacare-claim/article_95f2532f-bd06-5c65-918b-1e8c2aaf3e5a.html



Gbaji wrote:
"OMG! We've got to stop Obamacare or we'll all be slaves or dead!".
Assuming your level of intellect, I would assume that the people you know are as smart as you. In any case, your comment was that the people weren't lied to, whether or not you think people believe it is irrelevant. You can't assume other intellect based off of your own.

Gbaji wrote:

It's so obviously wrong should be your starting point to figuring out why what you're trying to argue is wrong.
??

Gbaji wrote:
Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.


Besides the point that you can keep your existing health care, even if it were a lie, those commercials do not state that. Not being able to keep your healthcare isn't the same as having a "defensive lawyer" like doctor provided to you by the government.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.

Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.


That doesn't address mandates, which is the argument. The argument made was that businesses get an additional year before being mandated.

Gbaji wrote:
Then offer something. How much is funding Obamacare worth to the Democrats? They haven't offered anything, or even made an attempt to balance the budget (or come close to balancing it) in 4 years.


So providing a budget close to the Ryan budget isn't good enough? President Obama originally asked for 1.203 Trillion dollars. The 2014 Ryan Budget is $967 Billion. The CR bill, proposed by the Dems is $986 Billion, which is lower than the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. That's $217 Billion less than what Dems originally wanted and $19 Billion closer to what the GOP proposed.

Gbaji wrote:
I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: This is not just about Obamcare.


Exactly, so why does the word even come up? What difference does it make how much Obamacare costs, given the outcome, if you can budget the money? There is enough government spending that can be cut to make up the difference, that's what compromising is about. Stuck on one of many government spending is not compromising.

Gbaji wrote:
And yet another strawman. When you inject words like "only", you create an absolute position which is easy to attack. So if just one person isn't hurt, the GOP is wrong? That's kinda ridiculous, right? How about the more reasonable position that on balance more people will be harmed by the passage of Obamacare than will be helped? Obviously, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there will be some small percentage of people who will see benefits from Obamacare. But it wont be anywhere near 47%. It can't be mathematically for the program to even come close to solvency. And the more it fails to do so, the more costs will end out being lumped on the population down the line to pay for the difference (ultimately meaning that whatever benefits people gain today will be short lived).


I'm just repeating the lies made. You're acting as if the GOP isn't being misleading and in this case they are. Some are acknowledging the small gains, but the majority labels it as doing nothing but harm. While I would agree that the Dems are poor at money management, when you're talking about people's health and well being, I would much rather for my money to go there than a panda cam, public park or even the WWII memorial.

Gbaji wrote:
But not sold to the majority on that though.

Maybe not on Fox news, but it has every where else. President Obama's main talking point is and has always been that there are 30 million uninsured people that has a chance to get more affordable health care. Last time I checked, that's less than 10% of the population.

Gbaji wrote:
He intentionally made it seem like like only "the rich" would see any increase in costs from this. Remember the whole rhetoric about how only people making X dollars or more would see their taxes increase?


President Obama and President Clinton made it very clear that this can be only successful if people partake in it or prices will increase. Furthermore, that it'll be challenge to win the "young and healthy", as the fine might be more tempting.



Gbaji wrote:
Uh... We can still calculate statistical effects of the law on various economic ranges of people within our workforce. And statistically, most people will see their health costs rise significantly. Actually, most people already have. But I suspect that's where the next layer of lie will occur. Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure that folks on the left will take prices on the day before it "officially" started and say "see! Prices didn't go up!". But if you look at price increases industry wide since the law was passed, it's a whole different story.

The sheer volume of deception and outright lies used to push the ACA is pretty staggering if you stop and think about it. What's amazing to me is how many people just refuse to admit it.


With the GOP lost in 2012 in every area except old white men, there is simply no way that the GOP would prevent the DNC from political suicide. You can believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but any sane person realizes that the GOP fears success more than failure.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#73 Oct 08 2013 at 3:05 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Excuse me, was you saying something?

Nu-uh, you can't tell me nothin'.
#74 Oct 08 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,806 posts
That post was like 4-feet long on full screen. That's about the length of a full grown tape worm.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#75 Oct 08 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare

Health care providers had already been raising their prices every year for ages. Each year I'd get hit with a premium increase back when Bush was in office and back when Clinton was in office. This was, ya know, one of the primary impetus for passing health care reform.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Oct 08 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
They knew about Obamacare back in the 1990s, obviously. What else could it possibly be?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#77 Oct 08 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
When was it that the GOP suggested a similar system?
____________________________
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.
#78 Oct 08 2013 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,278 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
When was it that the GOP suggested a similar system?


It was their alternative to Hillarycare. Romney more or less implemented in in MA and it worked well there, to his credit. Hence the ACA taking the bits that worked ("best practices") and applying it to the rest of the country. The ideas are almost all ripped straight out of the Heritage Foundation's playbook, but since it was Ds and not Rs that implemented the ideas, they want to disown them entirely now.
____________________________
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 leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#79 Oct 08 2013 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
Well, obviously, encouraging healthy people who pay more for premiums than they get for services to enroll in health insurance is going to mean higher premiums all around. Because socialism. Right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Oct 08 2013 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
Romney more or less implemented in in MA

I can confirm. Nexa's state employee health plan is working great. So great we try to get sick and injured in ways we wouldn't have considered previously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#81 Oct 08 2013 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,806 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Romney more or less implemented in in MA

I can confirm. Nexa's state employee health plan is working great. So great we try to get sick and injured in ways we wouldn't have considered previously.

You've had your annual mammogram then?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#82 Oct 08 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smash had to explain that ruptured **** somehow.

"So, Mr. Roo... tell me what happened here..."
"Communism?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Oct 08 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
"So, Mr. Roo... tell me what happened here..."
"Communism?"


Never work here in the Worker's Paradise. "Red meat :(" Much more viable.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Oct 08 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So great we try to get sick and injured in ways we wouldn't have considered previously.
If you need suggestions, I've got a list.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Oct 08 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,920 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Romney more or less implemented in in MA

I can confirm. Nexa's state employee health plan is working great. So great we try to get sick and injured in ways we wouldn't have considered previously.

If only Mittens won the election, then healthcare for everyone!
____________________________
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.
#86 Oct 08 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,278 posts
Romney's just **** that Obama stole his ideas and got it put into law, so he couldn't run on his accomplishments of doing the same thing in MA. (Since anything the Ds do is automatically Evil Communist Socialist to the Rs.)
____________________________
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 leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#87 Oct 08 2013 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Almalieque wrote:
To prevent me from wasting too much time engaging in another long drawn out argument that you will just result in a lame cop out, I will assume some questions are rhetorical and/or hit the highlights. If there is a specific comment that you want me to answer, feel free to address it as such.

Gbaji wrote:
The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/the-daily-show-rips-rokita-s-obamacare-claim/article_95f2532f-bd06-5c65-918b-1e8c2aaf3e5a.html


Excuse me? Was there a quote from an elected member of the national Republican party saying that the ACA was "worse than slavery" and "literally kills people"? Quoting other people saying that's what he said isn't the same thing.

Also, are you seriously trying to argue that his statement is why people oppose the ACA? Cause I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of people who oppose Oamacare today also opposed it prior to like 2 weeks ago. So... want to try again? Where are these lies that were told that made people oppose the ACA. Remember, the law was passed (and opposed) back in 2009/2010. So at least try to limit this to things actually said during the process of writing/passing the law itself.

Quote:
In any case, your comment was that the people weren't lied to, whether or not you think people believe it is irrelevant. You can't assume other intellect based off of your own.


Let's not forget the context:

gbaji wrote:
I think both sides were told to support or oppose it. The difference being that one side was convinced to support it by misleading them into thinking it would benefit them (ie: playing on their greed). The other was told to oppose it because it violated their principles *and* would hurt more people than it helped. The second group was at least not lied to.


I'm not saying that the second group was not lied to ever by anyone about any subject. I'm saying that the reasons they were told to oppose Obamacare were not lies, in specific contrast to those who were urged to support Obamcare who were told that was about reducing the cost of health care and that no one's taxes would go up as a result. These statements were at best misleading and at worst out right lies.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.


Besides the point that you can keep your existing health care, even if it were a lie, those commercials do not state that.


Huh? Who cares about some commercial? I'm talking about words spoken over and over by our president when he was actively working to convince people to support the ACA. And those words were false. And not just a little bit false, but the kind of false that anyone who thought about how our health care system works should have known were false. The entire point of the ACA is to push people off their existing health care and into the government managed exchanges. The only way the financial math even comes remotely close to working is if literally millions (tens of millions actually) of people are forced to participate in those exchanges.

(in order to work) The law actually requires that large numbers of people lose their current coverage and go onto those exchanges. Something that we conservatives warned about repeatedly. The claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it was a lie back then, and is still a lie today. Sure, the law doesn't force anyone to change their health care, but it creates massive financial incentives for them or their employers to change. It's like passing a law that forces you to pay twice as much money for ham sandwiches, while subsidizing turkey, and claiming "if you like your ham sandwiches, you can still buy them". Sure. Technically true, but the whole point of the law is to try to get people to eat turkey instead of ham, right?

Same thing here. The whole point of the law is to try to get people to purchase insurance through the exchanges and not directly (or though their employers). There are a host of taxes and incentives in place to do this.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.

Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.


That doesn't address mandates, which is the argument.


No, it's not. You said that as long as every person is treated the same, then the system is fair. Specifically, it didn't matter if businesses were treated differently because the people working for them were all treated the same. I countered with a specific example showing that this is not true. Individuals are rewarded or punished under Obamacare based on what can only be viewed as alignment with political agenda. Which kinda brings up another problem with Obamacare (and ties back into that commercial you keep harping on about): The law gives far too much leeway to the executive branch (HHS) in terms of execution. It allows for precisely this kind of favorite playing that we're seeing. We're seeing the Obama administration handing out exemptions in some incredibly questionable ways (which I'm sure just only happen to benefit their own political allies). So yeah, that's a major point of contention and it's why the GOP keeps bringing up the need to extend exemptions and exceptions for everyone. If the law is so broken that it can't be applied to government employees or union workers, then how can it be fine for everyone else?

Quote:
The argument made was that businesses get an additional year before being mandated.


It's more than that, but that's part of it. We should hold off implementing any portion of Obamacare for which we're providing exemptions. Which is most of it. Again, if it's so great, why do some employers not have to comply with it?

Quote:
So providing a budget close to the Ryan budget isn't good enough? President Obama originally asked for 1.203 Trillion dollars. The 2014 Ryan Budget is $967 Billion. The CR bill, proposed by the Dems is $986 Billion, which is lower than the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. That's $217 Billion less than what Dems originally wanted and $19 Billion closer to what the GOP proposed.


Where the **** did you get those numbers? You are, at a minimum, looking at only part of the budget picture.

Quote:
I'm just repeating the lies made.


Well. At least you're admitting finally that your argument consists of repeating lies you were told. We're getting somewhere!


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
But not sold to the majority on that though.

Maybe not on Fox news, but it has every where else. President Obama's main talking point is and has always been that there are 30 million uninsured people that has a chance to get more affordable health care. Last time I checked, that's less than 10% of the population.


And? How many times has he said "If you like the health care you have, you will get to keep it" (or some variation of that)? No one's arguing that he didn't talk about some number of people who could not afford health care. We're arguing that he convinced people to agree to help that group obtain health care by claiming that it would not cost them anything and their own health care cost/coverage would not be impacted.

Both of those were lies. A large percentage of people who currently have health insurance will see their premiums rise and/or the coverage by their employers cut (or dropped entirely) and/or higher tax bills to pay for them. I would say at least a majority of the set of people who had health insurance prior to the passage of Obamacare will see one or all of those effects.

[quote]President Obama and President Clinton made it very clear that this can be only successful if people partake in it or prices will increase. Furthermore, that it'll be challenge to win the "young and healthy", as the fine might be more tempting.[/quote]

Yes. By deliberately misleading them about whether this meant that *they* would have to pay more out of pocket. Please tell me you can see the underlying deception of telling people who currently choose not to buy health insurance (because they're healthy, single, 20 somethings) that their costs will not go up, their taxes will not go up, and only "the rich" will have to pay more for this, and then adding "we all have to do our parts" to that list. You get that those same young folks all think that the people doing their parts will be other people and not them.

Hell, I remember repeatedly trying to drum it into all the young people on this forum that they were the ones who were going to get most screwed by this. I don't recall a single person responding with "Oh. I know that I'll have to pay hundreds of more dollars a year that I can't afford to help pay for care for other people and I'm fine with it!". What I got was either silence, or a quick change of subject.

And that's not counting all the folks who have health insurance, and will see their premiums go up as a result of the need to subsidize that group. You don't honestly think they thought they they were the ones Obama was speaking about as having to "do their part". Doubly so when this is included with constant claims that current costs wont go up. How can you reconcile that?

Also. Please stop using youtube videos as sources. Link to a transcript and provide quotes please.

Edited, Oct 8th 2013 6:00pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Oct 08 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare

Health care providers had already been raising their prices every year for ages. Each year I'd get hit with a premium increase back when Bush was in office and back when Clinton was in office. This was, ya know, one of the primary impetus for passing health care reform.


Sure. And the cost of a loaf of bread goes up each year too. Can you accept for the moment that I was speaking of an abnormally high increase?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Oct 08 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. And the cost of a loaf of bread goes up each year too. Can you accept for the moment that I was speaking of an abnormally high increase?

No, because my premium increases far outpaced the price of bread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Oct 08 2013 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,278 posts
We were getting 5% increases like clockwork before the ACA provisions started kicking in. Which sucked because with all the wage freezes, we weren't even getting a raise to off set it.

Last year we had a mere 2% premium increase, which matched the 2% cost of living adjustment/raise my husband got. They also dropped the copay for Urgent Care down to the same price as a regular doctor's office visit, to discourage people from going to the ER unless it was really an emergency. (A broken leg is a real emergency. The flu, while urgent, is not.)
____________________________
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 leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#91 Oct 09 2013 at 3:14 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Also. Please stop using youtube videos as sources. Link to a transcript and provide quotes please.


Oh, because text is less likely to be faked, incorrect or taken out of context and is overall more believable than an actual video of the person saying something viewed by millions.... GTFOHWTBS

Excuse me? Was there a quote from an elected member of the national Republican party saying that the ACA was "worse than slavery" and "literally kills people"? Quoting other people saying that's what he said isn't the same thing.

Also, are you seriously trying to argue that his statement is why people oppose the ACA? Cause I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of people who oppose Oamacare today also opposed it prior to like 2 weeks ago. So... want to try again? Where are these lies that were told that made people oppose the ACA. Remember, the law was passed (and opposed) back in 2009/2010. So at least try to limit this to things actually said during the process of writing/passing the law itself.


So, how do you classify them?

Let's not forget the context:
I'm not saying that the second group was not lied to ever by anyone about any subject. I'm saying that the reasons they were told to oppose Obamacare were not lies, in specific contrast to those who were urged to support Obamcare who were told that was about reducing the cost of health care and that no one's taxes would go up as a result. These statements were at best misleading and at worst out right lies.


I am full aware of the context. You are admitting that Republicans have made blatant lies about ACA, but dismissing them because you believe no one believed them. First off, you don't know who believed what. Secondly, if they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, then they obviously lied about more subtle things.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Who cares about some commercial?


Every politician who ever ran a campaign. Why else do you think so much money is invested in spamming our media with ads?

The entire point of the ACA is to push people off their existing health care and into the government managed exchanges.

...
The only way the financial math even comes remotely close to working is if literally millions (tens of millions actually) of people are forced to participate in those exchanges.

(in order to work) The law actually requires that large numbers of people lose their current coverage and go onto those exchanges. Something that we conservatives warned about repeatedly.

...
The claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it was a lie back then, and is still a lie today. Sure, the law doesn't force anyone to change their health care, but it creates massive financial incentives for them or their employers to change. It's like passing a law that forces you to pay twice as much money for ham sandwiches, while subsidizing turkey, and claiming "if you like your ham sandwiches, you can still buy them". Sure. Technically true, but the whole point of the law is to try to get people to eat turkey instead of ham, right?

Same thing here. The whole point of the law is to try to get people to purchase insurance through the exchanges and not directly (or though their employers). There are a host of taxes and incentives in place to do this.


That's blatantly false. The point of ACA is to provide affordable healthcare to every person, not to force people to get on ACA. What you are purposely misconstruing is that the movement is to go after everyone who are not currently insured or can't afford it. There is absolutely no motive to have people to give up their current existing health care to go to ACA. That's like asking people to give up work to get food stamps and live in government housing.

So, even though you're not forced to change health care, it's a lie because you don't like it? Employers care about money, they have been **** over employees over full time benefits for decades before ACA.

No, it's not. You said that as long as every person is treated the same, then the system is fair. Specifically, it didn't matter if businesses were treated differently because the people working for them were all treated the same. I countered with a specific example showing that this is not true. Individuals are rewarded or punished under Obamacare based on what can only be viewed as alignment with political agenda. Which kinda brings up another problem with Obamacare (and ties back into that commercial you keep harping on about): The law gives far too much leeway to the executive branch (HHS) in terms of execution. It allows for precisely this kind of favorite playing that we're seeing. We're seeing the Obama administration handing out exemptions in some incredibly questionable ways (which I'm sure just only happen to benefit their own political allies). So yeah, that's a major point of contention and it's why the GOP keeps bringing up the need to extend exemptions and exceptions for everyone. If the law is so broken that it can't be applied to government employees or union workers, then how can it be fine for everyone else?
....
It's more than that, but that's part of it. We should hold off implementing any portion of Obamacare for which we're providing exemptions. Which is most of it. Again, if it's so great, why do some employers not have to comply with it?



You just talked in a whole circle with the hopes of befogging the point. ACA mandates that everyone either has healthcare or get fined. No one is exempted from that and you haven't provided anything to the contrary. A business != a person.

Gbaji wrote:

Where the **** did you get those numbers? You are, at a minimum, looking at only part of the budget picture.


http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/53171277#53171277

And? How many times has he said "If you like the health care you have, you will get to keep it" (or some variation of that)? No one's arguing that he didn't talk about some number of people who could not afford health care. We're arguing that he convinced people to agree to help that group obtain health care by claiming that it would not cost them anything and their own health care cost/coverage would not be impacted.

Both of those were lies. A large percentage of people who currently have health insurance will see their premiums rise and/or the coverage by their employers cut (or dropped entirely) and/or higher tax bills to pay for them. I would say at least a majority of the set of people who had health insurance prior to the passage of Obamacare will see one or all of those effects.


The point is that he has been clear from the start that ACA is directed to the minority and not the majority in which you claim.


Yes. By deliberately misleading them about whether this meant that *they* would have to pay more out of pocket. Please tell me you can see the underlying deception of telling people who currently choose not to buy health insurance (because they're healthy, single, 20 somethings) that their costs will not go up, their taxes will not go up, and only "the rich" will have to pay more for this, and then adding "we all have to do our parts" to that list. You get that those same young folks all think that the people doing their parts will be other people and not them.

Hell, I remember repeatedly trying to drum it into all the young people on this forum that they were the ones who were going to get most screwed by this. I don't recall a single person responding with "Oh. I know that I'll have to pay hundreds of more dollars a year that I can't afford to help pay for care for other people and I'm fine with it!". What I got was either silence, or a quick change of subject.
And that's not counting all the folks who have health insurance, and will see their premiums go up as a result of the need to subsidize that group. You don't honestly think they thought they they were the ones Obama was speaking about as having to "do their part". Doubly so when this is included with constant claims that current costs wont go up. How can you reconcile that?

That mentality is the exact reason why it is so important for everyone to be insured, ACA or not. Just because you're 20 something and healthy doesn't mean you can't get hurt and sick. So, who is paying the bill when the uninsured is in the hospital? Wouldn't you like it better if everyone paid for their own insurance? You will eventually get sick, it's just a matter of time. You might be paying for Joe now, but Joe's great grandson will be paying for you later.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#92 Oct 09 2013 at 6:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
'the fuck? Are you using spoiler tags in lieu of quotes? At least use spoiler tags around the quote tags.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Oct 09 2013 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,949 posts
People were complaining about the length of his posts. He used spoiler tags to shorten it.

Ideally, he'd make more concise points, but we get what we get.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#94 Oct 09 2013 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, that's why I said he should at least go [ spoiler][ quote][ /quote][ /spoiler]

Or better yet just put spoiler tags at top and bottom of the entire post Smiley: laugh

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 8:10am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Oct 09 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,679 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Or better yet just put spoiler tags at top and bottom of the entire post Smiley: laugh
If you put him on ignore, that's essentially what you get. Well worth it, imo.
____________________________
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

#96 Oct 09 2013 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,237 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Or better yet just put spoiler tags at top and bottom of the entire post Smiley: laugh
If you put him on ignore, that's essentially what you get. Well worth it, imo.
But then you get stuff like this:
Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot
____________________________
Banh
#97 Oct 09 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Spoonless wrote:
Screenshot
.
Screenshot
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Oct 09 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
The problem is the cost of care.

http://hushp.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/downloadable_files/IFHP%202012%20Comparative%20Price%20Report.pdf

Why you guys pay so much?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#99 Oct 09 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because freedom. Also liberty.

Freedom isn't free, yo!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Oct 09 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,806 posts
.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#101 Oct 09 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Ideally, he'd make more concise points, but we get what we get.
Does make it a lot easier to tell who has some idea of what they're talking about, and who doesn't and is rambling to cover it up.

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 11:41am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
Aethien, ElneClare, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (45)