EPTThe Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 04 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote: Oh man, this makes me laugh. It also depresses me that democrats are incompetent and spineless enough to lose so often. Propaganda, man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3s7q8Uwk-0 Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it: a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations) Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations. Blah. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Edit: See, now you've got me thinking about how wonderful the world would be if all we had to do go defeat ignorance was not keep secrets. Think of all the wonderful problems that would solve. Ahhhh... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 04 2012 02:13 DoubleReed wrote: Secret creation? wtf? How did you get that from anything? It just says that people don't actually know what the bill contains. Ignorance doesn't imply secrets. What kind of logical progression is that?? Edit: See, now you've got me thinking about how wonderful the world would be if all we had to do go defeat ignorance was not keep secrets. Think of all the wonderful problems that would solve. Ahhhh... The bill was huge (thousands of pages!), complex and went through many revisions and negotiations before it was finally passed. It allowed for a lot of speculation and rumors, which contributed to the general public's lack of understanding and lead up to the infamous quote from Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Moreover, given the legislation's length and complexity we cannot know how all the details of the bill will play out for years to come. So while Democrats and Republicans may agree on the 'big picture' items of the reform, it leaves a lot of room for doubt and speculation over the bill's details. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Claiming that healthcare reform is good politics (more campaign donations) is patently absurd. | ||
|
surprise
Germany38 Posts
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120630110614135 It is an explanation of the ruling in "layman" english. It is very interesting because it addresses some FUD that is going around. This should be mandatory reading for people discussing the topic I guess. Enjoy | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:18 DoubleReed wrote: Ooohhh you're saying the bill was constructed in a secretive manner, that makes more sense. So are you saying that you don't know why you don't like it? Claiming that healthcare reform is good politics (more campaign donations) is patently absurd. I know what I do and do not like about it. Never said otherwise. To your other point, the video YOU posted stated that Obama made certain decisions to get money (campaign donations) to get reelected. It's not about healthcare reform as a whole being good or bad politics, but specific issues within the reform that get addressed in ways that are overly kind to specific constituents in an effort to gain a political quid pro quo. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 05 2012 23:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: Man, I just realized what a genius opportunity this gives Republican governors (and the party in general). By turning down the Medicaid expansion, they create a huge incentive for lower-income/unemployed uninsured people to move out of their states. This could result in better per capita income, better insurance rates, and better employment rates, among other things. Cue 2014/2016 and they can point to the fact that their states are better off as evidence the ACA is bad. This won't cause people to move. Lack of health coverage isn't a big enough factor to cause large amounts of people to move when they have to consider the costs of moving, the costs of finding a new place, leaving whatever job they have (most are underemployed, not unemployed, and so desperately need what little work they have), and leaving behind family/community/home. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I know what I do and do not like about it. Never said otherwise. To your other point, the video YOU posted stated that Obama made certain decisions to get money (campaign donations) to get reelected. It's not about healthcare reform as a whole being good or bad politics, but specific issues within the reform that get addressed in ways that are overly kind to specific constituents in an effort to gain a political quid pro quo. You do know the Young Turks are very critical of Obama right? Like they rail on him all the time. They're more fiercely progressive than pro-Democrat. In fact watching Cenk rail on the Democrats is usually far more entertaining than when he rails on the republicans.. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On July 04 2012 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it: a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations) Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations. Blah. a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you: b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2rK0DInQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EzIK_b4aA b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate. Oh man, that journalist must be quaking in fear now that the fruits of his labor have been publicly released | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On July 05 2012 23:20 Stratos_speAr wrote: This won't cause people to move. Lack of health coverage isn't a big enough factor to cause large amounts of people to move when they have to consider the costs of moving, the costs of finding a new place, leaving whatever job they have (most are underemployed, not unemployed, and so desperately need what little work they have), and leaving behind family/community/home. It also bears worth mentioning that those most likely to find themselves on the losing end of a governor's choice to opt out are also least likely able to afford a move. It is not as though a state Medicare/Medicaid decision is somehow going to change the dynamic of urban sprawl/decay. Furthermore, I think many are overestimating the number of states that are even going to consider opting out. From the sole perspective of someone who follows Ohio politics very closely, public approval of Republican governor John Kasich is low and the majority of Republican state initiatives have been defeated in the polls. Republicans have run out of political inertia from 2010 in the state, and if Kasich opts out of the Medicaid expansion it could very well be the death knell of his governorship. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On July 04 2012 06:55 surprise wrote: I did not read the whole 96 pages, but I wanted to link an awesome article to you: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120630110614135 It is an explanation of the ruling in "layman" english. It is very interesting because it addresses some FUD that is going around. This should be mandatory reading for people discussing the topic I guess. Enjoy Thank you for this. | ||
|
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
On July 03 2012 16:05 Epocalypse wrote: What about Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado? "Drat, you've obliterated my argument! Now I will require you to research completely different topics; otherwise, I deem your rebuttal to be invalid!" | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 05 2012 23:20 Stratos_speAr wrote: This won't cause people to move. Lack of health coverage isn't a big enough factor to cause large amounts of people to move when they have to consider the costs of moving, the costs of finding a new place, leaving whatever job they have (most are underemployed, not unemployed, and so desperately need what little work they have), and leaving behind family/community/home. If it causes anybody at all to move (and it will), it helps the GOP. On July 06 2012 01:30 farvacola wrote: It also bears worth mentioning that those most likely to find themselves on the losing end of a governor's choice to opt out are also least likely able to afford a move. It is not as though a state Medicare/Medicaid decision is somehow going to change the dynamic of urban sprawl/decay. Furthermore, I think many are overestimating the number of states that are even going to consider opting out. From the sole perspective of someone who follows Ohio politics very closely, public approval of Republican governor John Kasich is low and the majority of Republican state initiatives have been defeated in the polls. Republicans have run out of political inertia from 2010 in the state, and if Kasich opts out of the Medicaid expansion it could very well be the death knell of his governorship. The large cohesive immigrant groups (i.e. Hmong) or refugee groups are the ones most affected by this that are likely to move, and they are fairly well represented in the South (the only places that will turn down the funds). Unless you hit below the bible belt, enough rooted people will be getting insurance it's not prudent to turn down the funds. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you: b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate. a) As I explained earlier it wasn't that the bill was being hidden - it was so complex and underwent so many revisions that no-one had a clue as to what the details of the plan were. Obamacare is huge (906 pages according to Wikipedia), and the regulations that followed after are 5931 additional pages. The complexity is so huge that the CBO recently revised the 10 year cost of Obamacare from an original $940 billion to $1.76 trillion - a huge disparity and demonstrates that the law's creators used a lot of gimmicks to hide what was really in the law from other law makers and the public. b) Yes, the general big picture themes of what Obamacare does are very popular. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 03 2012 11:10 farvacola wrote: I'm sorry that you are unable to read basic charts, but the box where it says 26.7%, at juncture of the 45-64 age row and percent of the uninsured column, means that an ever increasing number of older Americans are finding themselves without insurance as employers drop coverage and job industries shift towards work with fewer employee benefits. Furthermore, as I already showed previously in the thread, this is clearly not a case of redistribution of wealth as even the rich will end up paying less in the long run, while the poor are simply given the grace of not worrying about the financial burden of a possible health disaster. 26.7% is somehow greater than 39.9% now? oh and btw, before you start insulting my ability to read a basic chart, it's 26.5% not 26.7%. also, only 16.3% of people who are 45-64 are uninsured. the young are given the grace of being allowed to pay higher taxes so that the elderly can receive their healthcare cheaper? how gracious of the elderly to allow them to do that... lol | ||
|
treekiller
United States236 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2rK0DInQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EzIK_b4aA b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate. What about the trillion dollars in federal spending? I dont think thats popular. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 06 2012 04:56 treekiller wrote: What about the trillion dollars in federal spending? I dont think thats popular. Couple things: 1. The CBO said it's supposed to reduce the deficit considerably. So it may have "spending" but it is also expected to increase revenue. Check it out: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-reid_letter_managers_correction_noted.pdf 2. A lot of that spending is tax cuts. 3. How the bloody hell do you plan on having comprehensive healthcare reform without spending money? That's just obstructionist. We have a serious problem that needs fixing, and too many people are of the opinion that we should do nothing. | ||
| ||
