DescentBB

I agree with the last part, but feel that when the public DOES get the real facts, the support for single-payer will be overwhelming.

In your opinion, have more to say but…the fat breeder down the street watching OWN, needs my money…so it’s off to work.

callmeslick wrote:I agree with the last part, but feel that when the public DOES get the real facts, the support for single-payer will be overwhelming.

The public is getting the "Real" facts. One of the reasons Obama's approval ratings are now in the 30% range and Democrats are turning against him. Just wait until the "Real" facts hit the fan when the employer mandate kicks in. There was a reason the employer mandate was held back until after the 2014 elections. Looks like there will be a Dem. bloodbath come next November in spite of the delay.

Woodchip, without getting into your lunacy past the simple fact that support for the ACA is UP over the past 7 weeks by 4%(even I have no logical explanation, frankly), the discussion into which we were discussing 'the real facts' was around Single-Payer.

funny how suddenly Democrats are coming out of the woodwork proposing new legislation to allow people to keep their insurance now. when just a few months ago they unanimously voted down the very same legislation that was proposed by republican and called it fear mongering .

callmeslick wrote:Woodchip, without getting into your lunacy past the simple fact that support for the ACA is UP over the past 7 weeks by 4%(even I have no logical explanation, frankly), the discussion into which we were discussing 'the real facts' was around Single-Payer.

Just where in the heck do you come up with such lame ass statements is beyond me. The people on the other boards you post at must think you're infallible and never check the crap you feed them. Real Clear Politics shows a decline:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1130.html

Gallup numbers

But, thanks for posting for all to see the RCP historical data. Using NBC/WSJ numbers, popularity is up 6% since 9/1. And, so on. How many times, Woody, do you wish to get burned for suggesting I am making things up, especially in light of your track record of posting absolute fiction and outright fabrications?

Oh stop cherry picking your sources to suite your agenda. You used RCP as gospel before so don't act like it is worthless. Approval for AHC is going down despite pumpers for the DNC like you trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Keep posting like this slick as it really enhances your guru like status here.

And maybe slick you should stop using old polls:

Approval is down at least marginally among all three groups since Gallup's last update in late October.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165863/ameri ... x?ref=more

woodchip wrote:Oh stop cherry picking your sources to suite your agenda. You used RCP as gospel before so don't act like it is worthless. Approval for AHC is going down despite pumpers for the DNC like you trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Keep posting like this slick as it really enhances your guru like status here.

I love RCP, just hadn't checked it for this, hence the thank-you above. And, as one can easily read, the overall numbers are UP in the timeframe since Sept 1. As I said earlier, I have no clue why, with the drumbeat of bad news and screaming of exaggerations and outright lies by the right, but the numbers are up. If, the last week trend is down, so be it, I was clearly referring to change since Sept 1 and my claim is STILL correct, according to every individual poll in RCP's list, and the overall trending graph. What does the DNC have to do with the administration policy, by the way?? Once again, as I long ago stated to CUDA, the DNC is just an electoral committee of the Democratic Party, and has exactly zero to do with policy decision making. The DO, however, make a fine boogeyman for the ignorant opposition to rail against.

The Obama Fix, sorta. Putting the onus on the insurance companies, sorta. So how is this going to work out?

http://www.suntimes.com/23748531-761/ob ... -year.html

tunnelcat wrote:The Obama Fix, sorta. Putting the onus on the insurance companies, sorta. So how is this going to work out?

http://www.suntimes.com/23748531-761/ob ... -year.html

I doubt the insurance companies will stop cancelling policies for two basic reasons.

Business like to be in compliance with the law, and have already started to move the gears. (gonna cost money to go backwards now)

Also, I'm pretty sure these new policies will be more lucrative.

Probably some more reasons as well.

I guess Obama shouldn't have been so out of touch with the way his signature law was going to actually work out.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess Obama shouldn't have been so out of touch with the way his signature law was going to actually work out.

speaking of out of touch:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/best-heal ... 2D11598594

Boner strikes again!

He’s not the only person with that opinion, ya know.

No one in their right mind could argue that health care in the country is not astronomically expensive, but there are way too many variables to simply lay all health outcomes at the feet of the care system.

This is one of those dishonest political positions I was alluding to, or at the very least…disingenuous.

Yes, it most likely has something to do with it…but there is probably a percentage or degree of affect, rather than a blanket statement.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess Obama shouldn't have been so out of touch with the way his signature law was going to actually work out.

he wasn't out of touch. it was always his intent to force people off their health care plans an onto the government system. he had to do it because of the way it's set up. you MUST have younger people paying into the system to support the older people. just like the SS system. it would collapse under its own weight if it wasn't.

as it will now. the whole system is fucked and Obama and the Democrats know it.

and they cant even blame the Republicans for this screw up. they boned it ALL BY THEIR LONESOME.

To replace a thing, one must first break a thing.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I guess Obama shouldn't have been so out of touch with the way his signature law was going to actually work out.

he wasn't out of touch. it was always his intent to force people off their health care plans an onto the government system. he had to do it because of the way it's set up. you MUST have younger people paying into the system to support the older people. just like the SS system. it would collapse under its own weight if it wasn't.

as it will now. the whole system is **** and Obama and the Democrats know it.

and they cant even blame the Republicans for this screw up. they boned it ALL BY THEIR LONESOME.

this is the big lie. Some of the problems WERE, indeed the administration's fault, but a lot of the deeper issues are precisely because quite a few states with Republican control have been putting up roadblocks, and the constant attempts by the GOP in Congress to remove any needed funds for the rollout is hardly helpful either. I'm still waiting to hear the GOP alternative as well.

Apparently you need to get out more

Ezikiel Emanuel, the chief writer of the law said that it was designed to support it self based on those that will lose thier private healthcare coverage. Not choose to drop, but by those that would be kicked off thier policies


So who's telling the lies?

CUDA wrote:Apparently you need to get out more

Ezikiel Emanuel, the chief writer of the law said that it was designed to support it self based on those that will lose thier private healthcare coverage. Not choose to drop, but by those that would be kicked off thier policies


So who's telling the lies?

I agree that the admin should have laid out the entire process FAR, FAR more clearly. The bottom line is that when we come out the other side of this process(and I am optimistic we will, just as Mass did with RomneyCare), more people will be insured, people won't be getting denied coverage they need, and overall the policies sold will be of far higher quality. It would be nice if half the politicians weren't so intent on killing the bill, as opposed to fine-tuning it, but that hurdle is something I've gotten used to.

Then please enlighten me... what part of my statement was a lie?

CUDA wrote:Then please enlighten me... what part of my statement was a lie?

by referring to 'the big lie', I was referring to the notion that ALL the problems with the ACA are the Democrat or Admin fault. This is a law that works best when all involved support it's function, yet, half of the political class is determined to kill it(with ZERO to offer by way of replacement).

oh, and my Delaware paper today stated that 12,000 people here lost their old insurance plans. In a normal year, 7,000 plans got cancelled before the ACA was passed, and the total affected population is 3% of the state's populace. Those numbers are essentially the same as most other states, calibrated to size, so the 'problem' is hardly as catostrophic as some would make it seem. Frankly, I think it is a mistake for the administration to even tinker with or implore insurers to allow the crap plans to carry over for longer, but politics sometimes rules.

Spidey wrote:To replace a thing, one must first break a thing.

but, replace it with WHAT? I hear exactly zero by way of suggestions from my friends on the right.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Then please enlighten me... what part of my statement was a lie?

by referring to 'the big lie', I was referring to the notion that ALL the problems with the ACA are the Democrat or Admin fault. This is a law that works best when all involved support it's function, yet, half of the political class is determined to kill it(with ZERO to offer by way of replacement).

Please show me where the Democrats did anything but force this legislation down the throats of the country. Unread. Without a single republican vote.

NAH they own this one all by their lonesome. Lock, stock, and barrel.

plus the fact that many of the problems that the Democrats all touted as fear mongering by Republicans are proving to be true. It explains why the Democrats are starting to treat the president like he has leprosy all of the sudden, and why his friendly press has turned on him

CUDA wrote:Please show me where the Democrats did anything but force this legislation down the throats of the country. Unread. Without a single republican vote.

revisionist history at it's best.....this bill is the product of nearly a year of discourse between BOTH parties, with the GOP mainly stating what they would NEVER vote for. Ultimately, the ACA was a product of this attitude, and a compromise to hold insurance industry opposition to a minimum. The GOP was involved, right up until the bill got written, and shaped the final legislation with their opposition to participate in a positive manner at all.

plus the fact that many of the problems that the Democrats all touted as fear mongering by Republicans are proving to be true. It explains why the Democrats are starting to treat the president like he has leprosy all of the sudden, and why his friendly press has turned on him

actually, most of the 'problems' would seem to be getting WAY overblown, and trust me, most Democrats might be concerned(they ARE politicians) but more by the exaggerations and the effect upon the voters of them, than the actual law itself.

CUDA, one specific thing to remember from 2009: the GOP flatly promised to filibuster to death ANY bill that had a public insurance option, and thus the final bill was limited to plans from PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. And, now we find that those private insurers are taking advantage of some folks because of that monopoly and no competition from a public plan?? Gee, what a surprise!

callmeslick wrote: Frankly, I think it is a mistake for the administration to even tinker with or implore insurers to allow the crap plans to carry over for longer, but politics sometimes rules.

The only crap is your insistence the plans were crap. Funny how most people liked their "crap" plans and disliked Obama "crapping" on them to the point the Dems are turning against Glorius leader.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Frankly, I think it is a mistake for the administration to even tinker with or implore insurers to allow the crap plans to carry over for longer, but politics sometimes rules.

The only crap is your insistence the plans were crap. Funny how most people liked their "crap" plans and disliked Obama "crapping" on them to the point the Dems are turning against Glorius leader.

don't count on the latter, and most of the plans WERE absolute crap. Just because a lot of people were too stupid to notice until they really needed major healthcare, and landed in bankruptcy, doesn't make that less of a fact.

callmeslick wrote:
by referring to 'the big lie', I was referring to the notion that ALL the problems with the ACA are the Democrat or Admin fault. This is a law that works best when all involved support it's function, yet, half of the political class is determined to kill it(with ZERO to offer by way of replacement).

Funny how the other half are now looking at killing it. What would be common sense is to kill the bill and start over, incorporating more than Nancy "We won't know" Pelosi and Harry "My way or the highway" Reid stuffing a bloated monstrosity of a bill down our throats simply because they had the power to do so. No slick, the whole mess is on the Dems. They didn't want any input, they simply dusted off a plan they had sitting on a dusty shelf and said here it is

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Frankly, I think it is a mistake for the administration to even tinker with or implore insurers to allow the crap plans to carry over for longer, but politics sometimes rules.

The only crap is your insistence the plans were crap. Funny how most people liked their "crap" plans and disliked Obama "crapping" on them to the point the Dems are turning against Glorius leader.

don't count on the latter, and most of the plans WERE absolute crap. Just because a lot of people were too stupid to notice until they really needed major healthcare, and landed in bankruptcy, doesn't make that less of a fact.

Kindly link something as we all know how you like to blow smoke up our skirts.

more anecdotes around the 'horror story' of the ACA. Quoted from a member of my fishing group and one of 10 of us who have actually participated in the ACA/exchange system. Speaks volumes of why this bill's good far outweighs the bad:
"Here's another anecdote (Will it "pile up" if it doesn't match everybodys pre-conceived notions?:>)) My wife and I are self-employed small business. We've seen 15%- 20% annual increases in our high-deductible policy for more than 10 years, and our older daughter was thrown off our policy the DAY she graduated (pre-ACA). Post-ACA our younger daughter graduated and can stay on our policy until 26. Per our insurance agent, we will get better coverage for a little more than half of current premiums, going through the exchange. We will sign up in late Nov when some of the website problems have been ironed out... plus we don't see a reason to pre-pay the first months payment 3 months in advance"

edit for woody--no link, a clear-cut example. I can find them all day, but frankly, plan on spending my day doing yardwork and making a batch of crab imperial and shrimp before starting to prep for a week long fishing trip. If you wish to keep drinking to kool-aid and convincing yourself that the past status quo of healthcare was just fine,enjoy your hallucination.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
by referring to 'the big lie', I was referring to the notion that ALL the problems with the ACA are the Democrat or Admin fault. This is a law that works best when all involved support it's function, yet, half of the political class is determined to kill it(with ZERO to offer by way of replacement).

Funny how the other half are now looking at killing it. What would be common sense is to kill the bill and start over, incorporating more than Nancy "We won't know" Pelosi and Harry "My way or the highway" Reid stuffing a bloated monstrosity of a bill down our throats simply because they had the power to do so. No slick, the whole mess is on the Dems. They didn't want any input, they simply dusted off a plan they had sitting on a dusty shelf and said here it is

no Democrat is looking at 'killing' it. They ARE starting to look at fixing things that aren't working right. NONE of them have any interest in going back to a reality where middle-aged people got denied coverage, being a woman was a pre-condition, young people couldn't be on parents family plans, sick people went bankrupt due to crap coverage and lifetime coverage limits, etc, etc, etc. Keep dreaming.

callmeslick wrote:
revisionist history at it's best.....this bill is the product of nearly a year of discourse between BOTH parties, with the GOP mainly stating what they would NEVER vote for. Ultimately, the ACA was a product of this attitude, and a compromise to hold insurance industry opposition to a minimum. The GOP was involved, right up until the bill got written, and shaped the final legislation with their opposition to participate in a positive manner at all.

Do this slick, find one senator or congressman that actually read the bill before voting on it. If no one read it how the hell was there a year of discourse. Here is what the lead Senator of the AHC bill had to say when asked if he read the bill:

"Unfortunately that isn’t the case with Max Baucus (D-Mont.), lead sponsor of the Senate bill that became law. He admitted as much Monday during a constituents meeting in the small Montana town of Libby, as reported by the Flathead Beacon, a local newspaper.

According to Baucus, the idea of him reading a bill allocating nearly $1 trillion of federal funds is “a waste of time:”"

So it would seem the Dem in charge thought the idea of reading a bill that was going to ruin 1/6 of the nations economy was a waste. Now wonder we have the abortion of a bill we have now. But what the heck slick...keep defending it.

callmeslick wrote:
no Democrat is looking at 'killing' it. They ARE starting to look at fixing things that aren't working right. NONE of them have any interest in going back to a reality where middle-aged people got denied coverage, being a woman was a pre-condition, young people couldn't be on parents family plans, sick people went bankrupt due to crap coverage and lifetime coverage limits, etc, etc, etc. Keep dreaming.

Funny how after my divorce, when I was in my mid fifties, I had no problem getting a plan. Maybe all those people who had problems lived in blue states.

callmeslick wrote:more anecdotes around the 'horror story' of the ACA. Quoted from a member of my fishing group and one of 10 of us who have actually participated in the ACA/exchange system. Speaks volumes of why this bill's good far outweighs the bad:
"Here's another anecdote (Will it "pile up" if it doesn't match everybodys pre-conceived notions?:>)) My wife and I are self-employed small business. We've seen 15%- 20% annual increases in our high-deductible policy for more than 10 years, and our older daughter was thrown off our policy the DAY she graduated (pre-ACA). Post-ACA our younger daughter graduated and can stay on our policy until 26. Per our insurance agent, we will get better coverage for a little more than half of current premiums, going through the exchange. We will sign up in late Nov when some of the website problems have been ironed out... plus we don't see a reason to pre-pay the first months payment 3 months in advance"

And my daughter got to stay on my ex-wifes policy and she is 25 now. Never got kicked when she graduated. So my example just negated yours. What your friend can blame his woes on is how the state he lives in probably limited the number of insurers it allowed to do business there.

callmeslick wrote:edit for woody--no link, a clear-cut example. I can find them all day, but frankly, plan on spending my day doing yardwork and making a batch of crab imperial and shrimp before starting to prep for a week long fishing trip. If you wish to keep drinking to kool-aid and convincing yourself that the past status quo of healthcare was just fine,enjoy your hallucination.

Well when you find the links let us take a look. Otherwise I'll quote Ronald Reagan, "Trust but Verify". And I'll match your horror stories with the ones being generated now.

The Democrats really wanted Medicare for all and didn't want private insurance even involved in the first place. The Republicans wanted government to stay out of health care, forever. Both parties had a hand in writing the law, but a lot of it came from the staff of Ted Kennedy, who wanted government single payer, as was his dream. Both parties had diametrically opposing views on what rules should be put in that law, but ironically, both had reasons to create a law that would eventually self-destruct. The Dems wanted Medicare for all and essentially wrote and designed the ACA to fail, which they hoped might just motivate people to focus on and approve something they thought was much better, like Medicare for all. The Republicans wanted it to self implode so badly that people would get royally pissed off and demand a return to the old system they were comfortable with. Who will win the health care war? Nobody. The old system is starting to look comfortable to people right now, but it's only an illusion. The continuing rising costs will eventually eat us alive.

See, there is something that doesn’t fit here…the ACA was passed with only one Republican vote…so why didn’t it look like something the Democrats wanted????

If they had the power to vote in anything they wanted, there is something wrong with blaming the Republicans.