ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

I do not equate conservatives with Republicans... at all. I don't agree with conservatives on many issues, but much of what Phatt, etc. put forward is not really conservativism, it is the right wing agenda. But.. we have had a few threads on that already.

how can you dismiss my economics? you can disagree with them, but to say I'm just toting an agenda....cmon man

I do disagree with them, but what you put forward goes well beyond mainline conservativism, and reaches into many areas well beyond economics.

Like what? Liberty?

Liberty ONLY for the large corporations and the wealthy, not anyone else.

[PLAYER57832]

It seems I have missed it over all the other noise, and I'll certainly take a good look at it. I'm just wondering why the Republicans themselves didn't make a big deal promoting it, instead trying to "kill the bill" and "start from scratch." Obama tore them a new one with the "party of no" routine, and if they had an idea, they should've said so. Instead, the political point winning reigned supreme. See your first paragraph.

In fact, the original health care bill, as originally presented (not what was passed0 was almost "word for word" from what Republicans proposed the last time around, under Clinton.

The stuff put up above was put together pretty late in the game.

[GreecePwns]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-con ... -medicine/

Ah, okay. Making people buy insurance from corporations is the platform for government ownership of the means of production.

The link fails to show how this bill was somehow related to a plan by Democrats to institute a single-payer system. The same Democrats which allow insurance companies to write a shocking amount of the bill and the same Democrats how subsequently take their money for campaigns are going to remove them altogether?

[PLAYER57832]

Nor does it even begin to show why a single payor system would be bad.

[thegreekdog]

I believe it calls for increases for some and decreases for others. I know for sure that while a single self-employed man will pay more, a married couple with 2 kids will pay less.

I don't disagree, but taxes are still raised. And, as the CBO says, after an initial period of time (I feel like up to 2015, but it could be different), "Obamacare" will increase the federal deficit.

It seems I have missed it over all the other noise, and I'll certainly take a good look at it. I'm just wondering why the Republicans themselves didn't make a big deal promoting it, instead trying to "kill the bill" and "start from scratch." Obama tore them a new one with the "party of no" routine, and if they had an idea, they should've said so. Instead, the political point winning reigned supreme. See your first paragraph.

Like I said, you didn't hear because no one reported it. And Congress didn't consider it because they didn't need to consider it. President Obama made an excellent political move by inviting the Republicans to the table and ignoring everything they said. And then when Republicans saw they were being ignored and voted "no," the Democrats labelled them the party of no. I discussed this at length in this thread (at the beginning) and elsewhere.

Say what you want about our president, but he is an excellent politician.

[thegreekdog]

Liberty ONLY for the large corporations and the wealthy, not anyone else.

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

[john9blue]

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

[Phatscotty]

Liberty is an American agenda.

[PLAYER57832]

Liberty ONLY for the large corporations and the wealthy, not anyone else.

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

Actually, it is not the agenda that Phattscotty believe he is supporting, but if what he asks for were implemented, that would very much be the result.

As per the politicians... its a bit more complicated than that. For the most part, I think the politicians are too busy arguing over trees and bushes to see the forest... or even the beginning forest fire.

[PLAYER57832]

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

No, they are centrist.

And, as I have said before, I am not truly left wing.

But, even if I were... so what? You throw that out as a negative label as if it, alone meant something. A convenient way to avoid discussing what I bring up. Too bad. You used to have some nice things to say.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, it is not the agenda that Phattscotty believe he is supporting, but if what he asks for were implemented, that would very much be the result.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you think corporations and special interests would have more control than they have now? I think I would point out, again, that you really don't know anything about the beliefs of the Tea Party.

[Woodruff]

Liberty is an American agenda.

I wish that were true. Sadly, it is demonstrably not true.

[GreecePwns]

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

Is that a bad thing? Or should we all agree with you?

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it is not the agenda that Phattscotty believe he is supporting, but if what he asks for were implemented, that would very much be the result.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you think corporations and special interests would have more control than they have now? I think I would point out, again, that you really don't know anything about the beliefs of the Tea Party.

Without government controls, absolutely. All of the biggest problems of the past couple of years -- banking, the gulf oil spill, etc. ... even down to marsallas drilling issues are due to failures of government regulation -- poor funding, loosening regulations, etc.

Even a good part of why Katrina was so bad had to do with lack of government funding and oversight.

[john9blue]

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

Is that a bad thing? Or should we all agree with you?

does "or" mean that it can't be both?

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

No, they are centrist.

And, as I have said before, I am not truly left wing.

But, even if I were... so what? You throw that out as a negative label as if it, alone meant something. A convenient way to avoid discussing what I bring up. Too bad. You used to have some nice things to say.

i definitely recall you talking about how the political spectrum has shifted to the right over recent years. my apologies if i misinterpreted what you said. but who says i'm trying to avoid discussion? if i don't respond to a post it could be for any number of reasons.

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe it calls for increases for some and decreases for others. I know for sure that while a single self-employed man will pay more, a married couple with 2 kids will pay less.

I don't disagree, but taxes are still raised. And, as the CBO says, after an initial period of time (I feel like up to 2015, but it could be different), "Obamacare" will increase the federal deficit.

It seems I have missed it over all the other noise, and I'll certainly take a good look at it. I'm just wondering why the Republicans themselves didn't make a big deal promoting it, instead trying to "kill the bill" and "start from scratch." Obama tore them a new one with the "party of no" routine, and if they had an idea, they should've said so. Instead, the political point winning reigned supreme. See your first paragraph.

Like I said, you didn't hear because no one reported it. And Congress didn't consider it because they didn't need to consider it. President Obama made an excellent political move by inviting the Republicans to the table and ignoring everything they said. And then when Republicans saw they were being ignored and voted "no," the Democrats labelled them the party of no. I discussed this at length in this thread (at the beginning) and elsewhere.

Say what you want about our president, but he is an excellent politician.

Or he follows the advice of his excellent advisers.

I've always wondered about the endogeneity of that decision-making process (i.e. who's really influencing who and by how much?).

[BigBallinStalin]

Liberty is an American agenda.

Liberty should be to some degree on everyone's agenda.

[GreecePwns]

What is good and bad? What is freedom or free will and does it even exist? Philosophers have debated this stuff for thousands of years. To say that one agenda is definitively pro-liberty and the other isn't without qualification is just plain wrong.

[Mr_Adams]

So, today is the one year anniversary of the signing, I believe. are we better off for it?

[Woodruff]

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

Is that a bad thing? Or should we all agree with you?

does "or" mean that it can't be both?

That's not Phatscotty's agenda and it's certainly not a right wing agenda. This is, however (if you include unions and special interests in there) the agenda of most Republicans and most Democrats. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

I'm pretty sure Player considers Democrats and Republicans to both be "right wing" because she is so far left.

No, they are centrist.
And, as I have said before, I am not truly left wing.
But, even if I were... so what? You throw that out as a negative label as if it, alone meant something. A convenient way to avoid discussing what I bring up. Too bad. You used to have some nice things to say.

i definitely recall you talking about how the political spectrum has shifted to the right over recent years. my apologies if i misinterpreted what you said. but who says i'm trying to avoid discussion? if i don't respond to a post it could be for any number of reasons.

I don't believe your statement counters her point at all. She could just as easily recognize a shift in the political spectrum whether she were right, left or centrist.

[john9blue]

I don't believe your statement counters her point at all. She could just as easily recognize a shift in the political spectrum whether she were right, left or centrist.

People generally will want to dissociate themselves with any sort of fringe groups. One's opinions are "validated" in a way if they are seen as centrist or neutral. It indicates level-headedness and a lack of bias. That's why people will try to make themselves seem "center-left" or "center-right" by redefining what left and right mean. It's not just Player, lots of people do it.

In theory you are correct, but language is a bitch sometimes.

[PLAYER57832]

i definitely recall you talking about how the political spectrum has shifted to the right over recent years. my apologies if i misinterpreted what you said. but who says i'm trying to avoid discussion? if i don't respond to a post it could be for any number of reasons.

I don't believe your statement counters her point at all. She could just as easily recognize a shift in the political spectrum whether she were right, left or centrist.

Exactly.

Where I sit depends a great deal on the issue. In health care, the left-right labels have been changed and shifted incedibly to meet political goals.

[Woodruff]

I don't believe your statement counters her point at all. She could just as easily recognize a shift in the political spectrum whether she were right, left or centrist.

People generally will want to dissociate themselves with any sort of fringe groups. One's opinions are "validated" in a way if they are seen as centrist or neutral. It indicates level-headedness and a lack of bias. That's why people will try to make themselves seem "center-left" or "center-right" by redefining what left and right mean. It's not just Player, lots of people do it.
In theory you are correct, but language is a bitch sometimes.

You're making presumptions about her that I don't believe apply.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe your statement counters her point at all. She could just as easily recognize a shift in the political spectrum whether she were right, left or centrist.

People generally will want to dissociate themselves with any sort of fringe groups. One's opinions are "validated" in a way if they are seen as centrist or neutral. It indicates level-headedness and a lack of bias. That's why people will try to make themselves seem "center-left" or "center-right" by redefining what left and right mean. It's not just Player, lots of people do it.

In theory you are correct, but language is a bitch sometimes.

I see, and just how do you feel I meet the definition of "fringe", particularly the far left fringe?

Because what I see happening is a shift to claim that left-centrist views are "extreme", in order to move very extreme right views into the mainstream.. and to utterly and completely ignore true "leftist" thinking.

The only area where I am very much in the left is regarding the environment, but the thing is that scientific FACTUAL knowledge has grown so that even many conservative people are now firmly in what used to be the "far left". Ideas like recycling, etc are now fully mainstream. The idea that dumping sludge into rivers is not the best idea is similarly pretty mainstream... or even somewhat conservative in that only someone very far to the right would actually oppose that (but how to deal with it, etc differs within the spectrum).

In health care, the trend to "redefine" is very apparent. I grew up in pretty conservative farming communities. No one there would think that healthcare was some kind of luxury. Yet, today, suddenly you see many posters here, many people on Fox, in other media outlets somehow "OK" with the idea that not everyone needs basic healthcare. I mean, I am sorry.. call me "leftist" for that all you want, but those are not the values I have been taught America upholds. (and no, I do NOT believe that thinking is truly in the "far left").

[Phatscotty]

the Department of Health and Human Services has decided that Medigap providers will be exempted from ObamaCare’s oversight rules when they raise the payment rates for their plans.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/20/l ... iver-aarp/

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.


For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearl ... -district/

So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the bestlobbyists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... must-stop/

Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.