07-28-2009, 05:34 PM | #21 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
Obama is a socialist. You smugly tell me that I don't know what socialism is, but I think it's because you're a socialist yourself and you can't admit it. GM is now state owned. Obamacare is socialized medicine. Did you miss the part that privatized insurance will become illegal or did you just ignore it? It's right there in the bill. Scroll down to Sec. 102 and read it for yourself under Limitation on New Enrollment: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text And just how is he going to pay for it without skyrocketing tax increases for every citizen? Even you have to admit that he's lying about only taxing the wealthy to pay for socialized medicine. Unless, of course, you don't mind lying to yourself. That's just a start. Open your eyes and stop being so damned condescending when you respond to my posts. Nobody but you is impressed by your snide remarks.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
07-28-2009, 07:16 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Just a suggestion, il Pad: don't feed the troll. Take it from a repeat troll-feeding offender.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
07-28-2009, 08:15 PM | #23 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
07-28-2009, 09:27 PM | #24 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
I read Section 102. Did you miss the part that said that if one decides to switch to another private insurance company or starts a new job after the 1st year of the program is implemented that they have no choice but to enroll in the government program? Or did you just ignore it and think I'm not capable of reading and understanding what is written? I'll grant your wish that this is the end. Fuck you. Fuck your wife and kids. Fuck your parents. Fuck your grandparents. Fuck your in-laws. Fuck your work associates. Fuck your neighbors. Fuck everyone that is in your life that you care about. You are a condescending shit-for-brained Obama fellating asswipe who suffers from a superiority complex. You are everything that is wrong with the world today.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
07-29-2009, 12:53 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As for Section 102, there is absolutely nothing in the language that makes private health insurance illegal. Honestly- highlight the language that you think says it will be illegal. Alternatively, highlight language that says if you switch jobs you must purchase government insurance (which was your second argument- please note that even if this were the case, private insurance would STILL not be illegal as you initially claimed). When you can't locate that language, feel free to come back and apologize. |
|
07-29-2009, 08:31 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
I wasn't commenting on Obama's remarks (which I realize are the subject of this thread) because I don't really care what he said. This topic is useful if we want to discuss race relations, but the political ramifications for Obama is a detour not relevant to that discussion. |
|
07-29-2009, 08:40 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
Re the socialism points, I will say I have an in at CBO in the health division, and every time this topic comes up I hear about how current proposals are not socialism. I hear it explained like this (this is not my interpretation, but that of my CBO source):
No serious congressional proposal envisions anything close to socialized medicine. The senate and house proposals are quite similar; they would give subsidies to people with low incomes to purchase PRIVATE coverage (such as Aetna, United Health Plan, Cigna, Kaiser, etc.) of their own choosing. People who are offered health insurance through their employer would in most cases continue to get that insurance. No proposal has government-employed doctors. There are several "live" proposals right now. All of them would retain the current employer-based system of health insurance but would create a health insurance "exchange" for people who are not offered insurance through their employer or who currently purchase insurance in the individual market. People with very low incomes would have access to Medicaid and people with incomes between 150% of the federal poverty level up to 400% would be eligible for subsidies to help them purchase coverage. People would be required to buy health insurance and would be subject to a financial penalty if they did not buy it. Some proposals would include a public plan that would compete alongside private plans. In CBO estimates based on the actual legislative language, they have not concluded that the public plan would be the lowest cost plan, although they believe it would be lower than the average cost plan, just not the lowest. They don't believe it would become the dominant plan but believe it could get significant enrollment because it would be well-known. But people would have choices other than the public plan and some would be lower cost than the public plan. I know the discussion is not that active over here at the moment. I just thought I'd throw that out and act like I was an expert for a moment. |
07-29-2009, 11:34 PM | #28 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
|
|
07-29-2009, 11:36 PM | #29 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
So doesn't Gates have to argue that the 911 caller was a racist, for his viewpoint to make any sense?
Gates has acted like an ass. |
07-30-2009, 12:14 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Look, honestly, it isn't socialism, and I assume you are just trolling.
Let's accept first of all that we are discussing "socialism" within the context of a particular industry and not with respect to the entire US government (i.e., even if the US government were to control the means of production for all health care, it could be described as socialistic with respect to health care, but it wouldn't be a socialistic government in the aggregate, assuming it doesn't control all means of production in all industries, or even most industries). With health care, people are confusing terms when they refer to "socialized medicine." Nobody is talking about or proposing socialized medicine. That is, in essence, what England has as its model. The doctors themselves are employed by the government. The Congress is not planning to adopt, nor will it adopt, that model. As a result, "socialized medicine" is a complete misnomer. If the government were to adopt a single payor system (which many advocate, but which isn't even under consideration right now), it could be described as "socialized health insurance" because the government would be the only entity offering insurance. That won't be the case, and isn't being contemplated. Instead, the Congress is proposing a system where private insurance remains (i.e., it isn't, by definition, socialism) and where the government also provides insurance as a competitor to the private insurance companies. In reality, if people would bother to think about it, we already have the government as a competitor in some limited areas of health care insurance, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and nobody would properly describe our current system as "socialism." And before you get ahead of yourselves in saying the proposed plan will inevitably lead to elimination of all private insurance companies and the establishment of a single payor system, well, the CBO disagrees with you (per its report issued yesterday).. |
Bookmarks |
|
|