Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:Becuase those "plans" were abusive, not real insurance. They were mildly better than no insurance, but not real coverage.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ah here we go... the old rant against any government regulation...

Try sticking to the topic.

Night Strike wrote:...Who are you to demand that people have the kind of <insert lifestyle> that YOU deem appropriate? ...

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I see, apparently we have some definitional issues here.
See, in English the term "will" speaks to the future, not necessarily the immediate. Per the doctor, nothing in the law is prohibiting people from keeping their doctors. HOWEVER, doctors and insurance companies are and always have been free to opt out of various programs. The issue is whether this law is directly responsible.

Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term. And the future is now player. We were promised on the president's post-election campaign trail that we could keep our doctors and plans if we wanted to. Yet, the government banned high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans, so obviously those people couldn't keep their plans. You should also include the limits on flexible spending accounts and the higher threshold for deducting medical expenses as plans that the government has forced to change, not to mention forced higher taxes on the middle class.

PLAYER57832 wrote:and note... I am quite sure you can find some doctors saying "I [retired, left the company, changed practice,etc] because of Obamacare." But that's like the guy who told his employees if Obama was elected, they would all be fired. Jerks can use whatever excuse they want, it doesn't mean they truly were forced to make those decisions.

Do you realize that there are actually real consequences to legislation that's passed, and the results aren't always things that are great for everybody? There ARE negative consequences to laws. And people aren't jerks for pointing out those negative consequences and even acting in response to those negativities. If you want to name jerks, start looking at the people in government who think they have the authority to control our lives.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Also, who cares if it was a Republican plan at one point? It's certainly not a conservative or libertarian plan. There are a lot of Republican plans that are just as progressive as Democratic plans.

Ah, well see, you keep pretending this was some plan that Obama, all on his own and without any context just cooked up to try and trick the American people. I am simply showing the error in your analysis.

A better question is why so many attackers, including you, are so very insistant that the bill be attributed almost entirely to Obama?

Well, Obama spent over a year after his election to campaign for the law, and he signed it, so he clearly had a large role in it. And I'm well aware that there are plenty of other bad legislators that forced this law down our throats, and we've been working to get them out of power and out of office all together.

Night Strike wrote:Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Night Strike wrote:...Who are you to demand that people have the kind of <insert lifestyle> that YOU deem appropriate? ...

This phrase stuck out to me, especially with other views on other topics.

Phatscotty wrote:It says something when unions want out. Guess they didn't get a corruption waiver. I'm sure these guys at one time were shouting down "racists" and supporting Obamacare. Except, now we know what's in it....

Roofer Union Calls for Repeal of Obama Health Law

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/1 ... um=twitter

jj3044 wrote:Forget ObamaCare, here is one of the actual culprits of our unsustainable healthcare system:
http://m.pinterest.com/pin/209206345162874460/

This speaks to the need for more preventive medicine, screenings, and implementation of those employer incentive plans to live a healthy lifestyle that I have spoken to in the past (and have been recently been attacked in the media, like CVS).

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term.

You can always move to a country without nationalised healthcare.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Democracy doesn't mean YOU get YOUR way, it means that the majority do. In this case, we have a representative Republic, but people certainly have not jumped up and resoundingly derided Obama, no matter how much folks like you wish to pretend they have.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term.

You can always move to a country without nationalised healthcare.

Why would I move to a country that has an even worse system? And did you have fun spam quoting my post?

AndyDufresne wrote:

Night Strike wrote:...Who are you to demand that people have the kind of <insert lifestyle> that YOU deem appropriate? ...

This phrase stuck out to me, especially with other views on other topics.


--Andy

Nobunaga wrote:The train, she's a comin'.

http://www.atr.org/obamacares-tax-hike- ... reck-a7587

Sad to read.

Lootifer wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:The train, she's a comin'.

http://www.atr.org/obamacares-tax-hike- ... reck-a7587

Sad to read.

Good lord you tax system is complicated (or more accurately, good lord I cannot be fucked thinking about the implications of the various pieces of that article since it applies to a tax system of a country I dont live in). Care to give a neutral-as-you-possibly-can run down of that article?

Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Did Obama actually say they were irrelevant? I find that unlikely, but would be interested if it were true.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Did Obama actually say they were irrelevant? I find that unlikely, but would be interested if it were true.

I added the "irrelevant" term since that's the implication when he says that the problems aren't very widespread. Even though by his own numbers they're nearly as much of the population as those who didn't have health insurance.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Did Obama actually say they were irrelevant? I find that unlikely, but would be interested if it were true.

I added the "irrelevant" term since that's the implication when he says that the problems aren't very widespread. Even though by his own numbers they're nearly as much of the population as those who didn't have health insurance.

Saying that a thing is small in number is not at all the same as saying that a thing is irrelevant. You seem to be having a lot of definatory issues today, Night Strike.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Did Obama actually say they were irrelevant? I find that unlikely, but would be interested if it were true.

I added the "irrelevant" term since that's the implication when he says that the problems aren't very widespread. Even though by his own numbers they're nearly as much of the population as those who didn't have health insurance.

Saying that a thing is small in number is not at all the same as saying that a thing is irrelevant. You seem to be having a lot of definatory issues today, Night Strike.

Obamacare was passed based on a small number of people, based on Obama's own definition of small. Why did we have to pass a trillion dollar tax and spend package for that small number of people yet ignore the same amount of people who are having trouble with the law?

Woodruff wrote:You seem to be having a lot of definatory issues today, Night Strike.