GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Obamacare deemed illegal by Federal Appeals (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1145944)

SuckOnThis 07-22-2014 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20167189)
Here ya go Crockett...scroll down to the table near the bottom of the page. The top line shows the entire U.S. statistics starting in 1999 and going up to 2012.

Then after you see that with your own eyes...come back and tell me I'm lying and making stuff up...(I would just post the damn thing here for you, but Richard wouldn't believe it then)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States
From your link, am I missing something?

The Rand Corporation reported that by March 2014: "Enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance plans increased by 8.2 million and Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, although some individuals did lose coverage during this period. The authors also found that 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces ? the so called insurance exchanges ? and less than 1 million people who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured during the period in question. While the survey cannot tell if this latter group lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number is very small, representing less than 1 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64."

Robbie 07-22-2014 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20167205)
From your link, am I missing something?

The Rand Corporation reported that by March 2014: "Enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance plans increased by 8.2 million and Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, although some individuals did lose coverage during this period. The authors also found that 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces — the so called insurance exchanges — and less than 1 million people who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured during the period in question. While the survey cannot tell if this latter group lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number is very small, representing less than 1 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64."
No, you didn't miss anything. The uninsured rate was all the way up to 18%+ by 2013. That's millions more than are uninsured now...the 2014 number is 15.6% uninsured. So "adding" the ones you are quoting brought it "down" to 15.6%. That is good news...except it's still higher than it was BEFORE ObamaCare. :(

All those "new" people insured were not uninsured before either.

"Adding" all those people still hasn't made up for the millions who lost insurance between 2009 and 2012.

Think of it like this: If 100 people lose something. And then a couple of years later 50 of them regain it...you can SAY that "Look 50 people got it!"

Reality is that "yes" they did. But it's STILL less than what was the original number.

I don't know why I'm having to explain this. The NUMBERS are right there on that page.

Everything else is moot. There are more people without insurance today than there were in 2008 before ObamaCare.

You can spin other numbers all day long. But the reality is...there are LESS people with health insurance now than before ObamaCare.

This was supposed to insure EVERYBODY and also save the average American family $2,500 a year in lower prices. That was the whole argument made for it in the beginning...remember?

WTF is wrong with people that they can't simply see the percentage of Americans uninsured in 2008 and the HIGHER number now? It's pretty simple...it's not "crockett science" lol

WarChild 07-22-2014 11:57 PM
Obamacare is just a bandaid measure for a fundamentally flawed system.

The United States has one of the least efficient health care systems in the World. Far and away, on a per capita basis, the United States spends more money than any other nation. (17% of GDP!). Nearly double that of most developed nations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries

So you're already paying the most for healthcare in the World, period. What other benefits come with that? 15% of the population not covered by insurance resulting in lives literally being destroyed financially after a major medical incident. All of this and as an added bonus, a shorter average life span than any developed nation.

Only an American could possibly think the American healthcare system works well. Single payer social medical systems completely eliminate the middle layer of insurance bureaucrats and share holder profits. It's money being spent in the name of health care but actually just completely wasted.

kane 07-23-2014 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 20167249)
Obamacare is just a bandaid measure for a fundamentally flawed system.

The United States has one of the least efficient health care systems in the World. Far and away, on a per capita basis, the United States spends more money than any other nation. (17% of GDP!). Nearly double that of most developed nations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries

So you're already paying the most for healthcare in the World, period. What other benefits come with that? 15% of the population not covered by insurance resulting in lives literally being destroyed financially after a major medical incident. All of this and as an added bonus, a shorter average life span than any developed nation.

Only an American could possibly think the American healthcare system works well. Single payer social medical systems completely eliminate the middle layer of insurance bureaucrats and share holder profits. It's money being spent in the name of health care but actually just completely wasted.
Most people in this country are one good illness or injury away from financial ruin. About 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills and most of those people actually have health insurance, but the bills are either things that the insurance doesn't cover or they are side effects of the injury/illness.

It is sad to think that a person can work for years and years building up a decent middle class life for themselves and then lose it all because they got sick.

Our system is flawed. Obamacare won't solve it, but maybe it has gotten enough attention that our leaders will actually start working on a reasonable solution.

bronco67 07-23-2014 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20167039)
LOL, you're funny, make the conservatives pay more so the liberals can pay less, is that what you are trying to say?

You being a liberal, you're saying fuck the conservatives so I can get cheaper insurance, right? What a hypocrite!

End result, the numbers say it's not working as advertised or promised.
If you're part of a group of people who doesn't want to participate in the experiment that has been this country for the last 200 years, maybe we should give all you fucks a piece of land in Montana and say "have at it". You can all live off the land and walk around strapped and shoot each other.

I like how one of the bright ideas conservatives have is "medical saving account". That's such a dumb ass idea, because if people could save money to pay for medical bills that cost as much as a house, we wouldn't need insurance.

And I never said I wanted rich people to pay more for anything. I don't think they should.

tony286 07-23-2014 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20167039)
LOL, you're funny, make the conservatives pay more so the liberals can pay less, is that what you are trying to say?

You being a liberal, you're saying fuck the conservatives so I can get cheaper insurance, right? What a hypocrite!

End result, the numbers say it's not working as advertised or promised.
Actually lots of liberals in your state could buy and sell you several times over.

tony286 07-23-2014 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 20167249)
Obamacare is just a bandaid measure for a fundamentally flawed system.

The United States has one of the least efficient health care systems in the World. Far and away, on a per capita basis, the United States spends more money than any other nation. (17% of GDP!). Nearly double that of most developed nations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries

So you're already paying the most for healthcare in the World, period. What other benefits come with that? 15% of the population not covered by insurance resulting in lives literally being destroyed financially after a major medical incident. All of this and as an added bonus, a shorter average life span than any developed nation.

Only an American could possibly think the American healthcare system works well. Single payer social medical systems completely eliminate the middle layer of insurance bureaucrats and share holder profits. It's money being spent in the name of health care but actually just completely wasted.
Yep but the pundit kool aid drinkers are too blind. They dont realize obama is not a liberal. That's why he pushed for a insurance company mess. Medicare for all would of worked much better and would of been pretty much flawless. Everyone gets base care and then you could buy add on policies if you want more. It takes employers out of the insurance business and makes us more competitive with countries with gov healthcare.
Give nurse practitioners more power. They can handle most things before they become big problems and they are much cheaper.
My Dad worked in healthcare and he used to say, for most things you dont need a doctor. A medic gets 12 weeks of training and is saving lives on the battle field. Why cant that same medic take care of a sinus infections?

Barry-xlovecam 07-23-2014 07:12 AM
Quote:
... One more reason I feel confident that the D.C. Circuit?s three-judge panel is on the losing end of this tug of war: Obamacare is increasingly popular. One recent survey found that 74 percent of newly covered Republicans are satisfied with the health coverage they?re getting through the law. Throw in newly covered Democrats and independents, and the rate goes up to 78 percent. Do all those governors who refused to set up state exchanges want the people in their state to be stripped of subsidies now? Does the Supreme Court want to pick up this ax and throw it? Surely the answer is no. Let?s count on the D.C. Circuit to come to its senses in the next round. If that happens, and no other full appeals court strikes down this part of the law, these cases will sputter out. As they should. It?s time to stop picking at the statute?s loose threads and move on to a new national project ... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...but_the.2.html

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/abou...dation-history
Move on already ... How are you personally hurt financially? PERSONALLY and not some politically decisive talking point.

http://3mp1r3.cam500.com/img/boards/...are-survey.jpg

It's pretty obvious who is unhappy about Obamacare ... And it's not people earning a lot of money and living within their means nor is it people netting less than 400% of the federal poverty income getting subsidized ''obamacare'' living paycheck to paycheck and just getting by.

A National Healthcare in the Untied States, whose basic costs are borne by all taxpayers along with a public coinsurance schema that would pay beyond the basics of the National Healthcare is evolving here maybe. Cut out the insurance companies, and their for-profit administration of healthcare, out of the picture entirely -- they can make their money insuring our possessions and not our bodies. The current USA healthcare system delivers a poor performance compared to the successful national healthcare policies of many industrialized nations.

One kicker, only licensed medical doctors can be on the governing board of the new national healthcare. The new national healthcare should not be governed by political appointees. The ''Obamacare'' politically decisive bullshit is pure acrimony.

We get shit healthcare for our money we spend to put it bluntly.


Most people are not pleased at all by the DC Circuit US Appeals Court ruling-- it amounts to technical and politicized hair splitting over a few sloppy words of an enrolled federal act.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...for-obamacare/ Forbes is predicting a upholding of Obamacare, flawed as it may be, from the Roberts Court, the current sitting SCOTUS.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 20167201)
To be 100% fair, when you look at the numbers you can see that the biggest spike in those with no insurance came at the same time the recession hit. When all those people lost their jobs they lost their insurance with it.

The numbers are slowly starting to creep back down as more people start to find jobs, but many of those jobs are part time or they are lower paying jobs that don't come with insurance so the number has stayed somewhat high.

Has Obamacare helped bring the numbers down some? I don't doubt that it has, but I don't know how much more it will help. Not until the economy really recovers and there are more decent paying jobs will the numbers come back down to where they once were or perhaps lower.
:thumbsup:thumbsup

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 20167503)
Move on already ... How are you personally hurt financially? PERSONALLY and not some politically decisive talking point.

http://3mp1r3.cam500.com/img/boards/...are-survey.jpg

It's pretty obvious who is unhappy about Obamacare ... And it's not people earning a lot of money and living within their means nor is it people netting less than 400% of the federal poverty income getting subsidized ''obamacare'' living paycheck to paycheck and just getting by.

A National Healthcare in the Untied States, whose basic costs are borne by all taxpayers along with a public coinsurance schema that would pay beyond the basics of the National Healthcare is evolving here maybe. Cut out the insurance companies, and their for-profit administration of healthcare, out of the picture entirely -- they can make their money insuring our possessions and not our bodies. The current USA healthcare system delivers a poor performance compared to the successful national healthcare policies of many industrialized nations.

One kicker, only licensed medical doctors can be on the governing board of the new national healthcare. The new national healthcare should not be governed by political appointees. The ''Obamacare'' politically decisive bullshit is pure acrimony.

We get shit healthcare for our money we spend to put it bluntly.


Most people are not pleased at all by the DC Circuit US Appeals Court ruling-- it amounts to technical and politicized hair splitting over a few sloppy words of an enrolled federal act.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...for-obamacare/ Forbes is predicting a upholding of Obamacare, flawed as it may be, from the Roberts Court, the current sitting SCOTUS.
hey look.. data at the end of the poll

Vendzilla 07-23-2014 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20167408)
If you're part of a group of people who doesn't want to participate in the experiment that has been this country for the last 200 years, maybe we should give all you fucks a piece of land in Montana and say "have at it". You can all live off the land and walk around strapped and shoot each other.

I like how one of the bright ideas conservatives have is "medical saving account". That's such a dumb ass idea, because if people could save money to pay for medical bills that cost as much as a house, we wouldn't need insurance.

And I never said I wanted rich people to pay more for anything. I don't think they should.
But you think you should get free insurance, who pays for that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 20167418)
Actually lots of liberals in your state could buy and sell you several times over.
Don't be a dipshit, I'm not a conservative, I don't like either parties. I'm just commenting on this fucking moron that thinks he deserves a free ride.

He wants Sympathy! Well he can look in the dictionary for it, it's between Shit and Syphilis.

Robbie 07-23-2014 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 20167429)
obama is not a liberal. That's why he pushed for a insurance company mess.
I'm not sure what "liberal" has to do with him performing EXACTLY as all career/lifetime politicians do.

He simply calls himself a Democrat. Just like the "other side" in the fantasyland call themselves "Republicans" (I'm talking about politicians...not citizens who aren't politicians).

Doesn't matter what these politicians call themselves or pretend to be. At the end of the day they are there to funnel federal money to their cronies and contributors.

And the insurance companies have PLENTY of money.

They stacked the deck to win either way. If a "Republican" had come into office...things would have stayed the same: high, overinflated, price gouging by hospitals. People still buy insurance because they can no longer afford to pay out of pocket (like I did for most of my life...but even I can't afford it anymore). The gravy train rolls on.

With the "Democrat" things still stayed the same: high, overinflated, price gouging by hospitals. A few million less people are uninsured...but that will probably change IF people can get jobs. And the gravy train rolls on.

I honestly don't believe that any of these career/lifetime politicians are actually "conservative" or "liberal". They just say whatever they have to to get elected. And then they go right to "work" spending money by passing laws that enrich the people who supported them. :(

If Bush were a real "conservative": we would have had a tiny govt., would have never invaded other countries, we'd have lower taxes AND a surplus budget.

I think we all know how that went.

That's why I said in an earlier post...If you are a "conservative" why on Earth would you vote for a Republican? They NEVER do what they say.
And if you're a liberal...why in the world would you vote for a Democrat?

I don't see much difference in the big picture between politician/bureaucrats who label themselves one or the other.

1215 07-23-2014 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20166590)
So before ObamaCare it was 14.6% and prices were lower.
Now it's 15.6% and prices are higher.

Is there NOTHING that gets through to you that it's not a good plan?

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...pozvdid6gw.png
Well that says it. It doesn't work. More people have lost insurance then have gained it. And we all know the subsidized people who didn't pay bills before aren't gonna be paying their bills now. You're just stupid if you think that.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 20167034)
Yea let's go back to being uninsured, going bankrupt and dying instead. That plan worked much better

How is this plan different from that? More people uninsured. Higher prices make bankruptcy more likely, not less. Ditto dying.

Universal healthcare would be awesome. Free market healthcare would right price to be affordable.

Insurance is not healthcare.

Did you favor the AIG bailout too?

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20167101)
i never said anything about it being fake. i stated that posting an image of a poll with out parameters and calling it reality.. isn't.

now, tell me how you managed to write out a full sentence in capital letters

im fucking impressed.

I don't know if anything special was done for this survey, but Gallup typically uses sample sizes of 1,000. This is fairly standard for social science studies. Pew Research defaults to samples of 1,000 as well, although they sometimes adjust for special populations. Most academics agree that these are representative sample sizes which it is reasonable to make extrapolations from.

I think it is fair to say that, at best, the number of uninsured has not significantly improved.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 20167249)
Obamacare is just a bandaid measure for a fundamentally flawed system.

The United States has one of the least efficient health care systems in the World. Far and away, on a per capita basis, the United States spends more money than any other nation. (17% of GDP!). Nearly double that of most developed nations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries

So you're already paying the most for healthcare in the World, period. What other benefits come with that? 15% of the population not covered by insurance resulting in lives literally being destroyed financially after a major medical incident. All of this and as an added bonus, a shorter average life span than any developed nation.

Only an American could possibly think the American healthcare system works well. Single payer social medical systems completely eliminate the middle layer of insurance bureaucrats and share holder profits. It's money being spent in the name of health care but actually just completely wasted.

I agree soooooooooooo much with what you wrote. I don't understand how there can be anyone in business who does nor understand that adding money hungry insurance company middlemen has to jack up the cost, with no improvement in actual care.

Either end of the spectrum would be so much better than funneling money to billionaire insurance folks and away from doctors and nurses and hospitals and research and actual humans who need care.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20167547)
hey look.. data at the end of the poll

Seriously? You think something citing The Commonwealth Fund is more reliable than data directly from Gallup?

I know I'd never suspect an offshoot of Standard Oil to have an agenda in favor of big money and big corporations. Oh wait, yes, I would.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20167993)
I don't know if anything special was done for this survey, but Gallup typically uses sample sizes of 1,000. This is fairly standard for social science studies. Pew Research defaults to samples of 1,000 as well, although they sometimes adjust for special populations. Most academics agree that these are representative sample sizes which it is reasonable to make extrapolations from.

I think it is fair to say that, at best, the number of uninsured has not significantly improved.
no? it starts in 2008.. now, i don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.. but wasn't there, like, a massive bailout with huge economic problems that resulted in a great deal of job loss?

and, according to that poll, something that occurred in the past.. 7-8 months? has managed to bring the percentage of uninsured back to almost the levels of 'pre-economic-bank-heist'?

what exactly IS 3% of 316,148,990? cause, if that was managed to be done in 6 months with very little economic improvement.. this might actually work when it's finally fully implemented.. set for next year.

anyway. as i said originally. one poll isn't 'being slapped in the face with reality'. do you, and the academics, disagree with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168006)
Seriously? You think something citing The Commonwealth Fund is more reliable than data directly from Gallup?

I know I'd never suspect an offshoot of Standard Oil to have an agenda in favor of big money and big corporations. Oh wait, yes, I would.
has the commonwealth fund been indicted and settled for a series of things that would put its reputation and credibility into question? in any event, they managed to list some reference to how they did the poll. pretty prestigious.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 02:57 PM
furthermore, i am gonna just park this right here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87Q1A620120827

Republicans call for crackdown on pornography

cause maybe some of us have forgotten.

Barry-xlovecam 07-23-2014 03:05 PM
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter
Significant decline in uninsured rate across age groups since the end of 2013

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...jickck1b4q.png

That is directly from Gallulp's website ... http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/un....aspx?ref=more

RyuLion 07-23-2014 03:07 PM
sigh........

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168008)
no? it starts in 2008.. now, i don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.. but wasn't there, like, a massive bailout with huge economic problems that resulted in a great deal of job loss?

and, according to that poll, something that occurred in the past.. 7-8 months? has managed to bring the percentage of uninsured back to almost the levels of 'pre-economic-bank-heist'?

what exactly IS 3% of 316,148,990? cause, if that was managed to be done in 6 months with very little economic improvement.. this might actually work when it's finally fully implemented.. set for next year.

anyway. as i said originally. one poll isn't 'being slapped in the face with reality'. do you, and the academics, disagree with that?



has the commonwealth fund been indicted and settled for a series of things that would put its reputation and credibility into question? in any event, they managed to list some reference to how they did the poll. pretty prestigious.

Because surveys depend on samples and do not have full population data, they should all be considered to have some margin of error.

Do you not know what Standard Oil was????

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:09 PM
you mean the standard of error that wasn't even bothered to be listed on that poll?

how not being slapped in the face by reality. interesting

anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 20168018)
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter
Significant decline in uninsured rate across age groups since the end of 2013

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...jickck1b4q.png

That is directly from Gallulp's website ... http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/un....aspx?ref=more
so just in one quarter, it dropped a further 2%?

Barry, i am confused, why are republicans using this as some 'obamacare don't work'?

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168014)
furthermore, i am gonna just park this right here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87Q1A620120827

Republicans call for crackdown on pornography

cause maybe some of us have forgotten.

That might be part of why there are zero Republicans in this thread.

What is your point? Our leaders don't need to implement good policy, just call themselves Democrats?

Robbie 07-23-2014 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 20168018)
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter
Significant decline in uninsured rate across age groups since the end of 2013

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...jickck1b4q.png

That is directly from Gallulp's website ... http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/un....aspx?ref=more
Now that is great news! The one I posted was the first quarter. I found it by googling.

Looks like the poll is in for the second quarter and now there are actually more people insured!

So that is good news for ObamaCare!

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:13 PM
sorry, right, 'libertarians'

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168029)
you mean the standard of error that wasn't even bothered to be listed on that poll?

how not being slapped in the face by reality. interesting

anyway.



so just in one quarter, it dropped a further 2%?

Barry, i am confused, why are republicans using this as some 'obamacare don't work'?

There is no such thing as standard of error. Maybe you are confusing standard deviation and margin of error? This is why it would be fruitless to post complex statistical models on GFY or in the popular press.

I'm still uninsured.

I no longer have a primary care doctor. It has become more difficult and more expensive to make appointments with new doctors, as a cash patient.

I am worse off post-ACA.

I am genuinely disturbed at how many people congratulate themselves for what good humans they delusionally believe themselves to be . . . while having zero compassion for those who are actually suffering from this.

Robbie 07-23-2014 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168033)
sorry, right, 'libertarians'
Sometimes you should at least elaborate just a tiny bit on what you're trying to say Richard.

Those 3 words are completely out of context and make you sound like you're insane when you post like that. lol

Since I know you, and I know you are a smart guy...you should really not post these random strings of words that don't seem to fit the conversation.

Let people know you are a smart person. :)

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168046)
There is no such thing as standard of error. Maybe you are confusing standard deviation and margin of error? This is why it would be fruitless to post complex statistical models on GFY or in the popular press.
hey fair enough. we should stop now then.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168033)
sorry, right, 'libertarians'

Why do you need a label?

Is it really so unimportant to you to consider the issue of healthcare and how to take care of all Americans?

Would you really rather just have your team win than actually think about and issue or actually have everyone who needs care receive it?

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20168047)
Sometimes you should at least elaborate just a tiny bit on what you're trying to say Richard.

Those 3 words are completely out of context and make you sound like you're insane when you post like that. lol

Since I know you, and I know you are a smart guy...you should really not post these random strings of words that don't seem to fit the conversation.

Let people know you are a smart person. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168030)
That might be part of why there are zero Republicans in this thread.
out of context eh.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168048)
hey fair enough. we should stop now then.
:1orglaugh Way to make my point. You snipped out the part where I pointed out that I am suffering because of ACA and I find it disturbing that some people have zero compassion for others.

Barry-xlovecam 07-23-2014 03:30 PM
Part of the reason the general healthcare coverage percentage may have increased is improved employment reports -- e.g.; more employer paid healthcare insurance, more self-employed people are able to get or afford insurance. Also, people with pre-existing medical conditions are able to purchase insurance now and on the negative budgetary side -- there are more people eligible for Medicaid.

So, it is a combination of things causing an increase in the rates of healthcare coverage.

Robbie 07-23-2014 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168050)
out of context eh.
I guess you should have quoted her.

But again...a libertarian is not a Republican. Not even close.

We actually had the guy who ran as the Vice Presidential candidate with Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party speak at the CEO dinner at Internext 2013.

He spoke before a crowd of pornographers and said flat out that the Libertarian Party is on our side.

Betcha there will NEVER be a Republican politician do that. Nor a Democrat.

And neither Dems or Repubs are anti-war and anti-drug war.

The only thing a Libertarian has in common with a Republican is that the Republican Party is SUPPOSED to be for smaller govt.
But as history has shown...they are NOT. They grow the govt. every time. Just like the Dems.

Please stop with acting ignorant about politics. I AM a Libertarian. And I can fucking assure you that I'm more liberal minded than YOU or anybody you know. And definitely more than any Democrat or Republican.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168049)
Why do you need a label?

Is it really so unimportant to you to consider the issue of healthcare and how to take care of all Americans?

Would you really rather just have your team win than actually think about and issue or actually have everyone who needs care receive it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168052)
:1orglaugh Way to make my point. You snipped out the part where I pointed out that I am suffering because of ACA and I find it disturbing that some people have zero compassion for others.
are you labelling me as having zero compassion for your uninsured plight?

while arguing against a system attempting to fix that plight?

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20168057)
I guess you should have quoted her.

But again...a libertarian is not a Republican. Not even close.

We actually had the guy who ran as the Vice Presidential candidate with Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party speak at the CEO dinner at Internext 2013.

He spoke before a crowd of pornographers and said flat out that the Libertarian Party is on our side.

Betcha there will NEVER be a Republican politician do that. Nor a Democrat.

And neither Dems or Repubs are anti-war and anti-drug war.

The only thing a Libertarian has in common with a Republican is that the Republican Party is SUPPOSED to be for smaller govt.
But as history has shown...they are NOT. They grow the govt. every time. Just like the Dems.

Please stop with acting ignorant about politics. I AM a Libertarian. And I can fucking assure you that I'm more liberal minded than YOU or anybody you know. And definitely more than any Democrat or Republican.
cause politicians don't lie.

robbie, i am seriously regretting taking it easy on the way you read that poll yesterday.

Robbie 07-23-2014 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168062)
cause politicians don't lie.

robbie, i am seriously regretting taking it easy on the way you read that poll yesterday.
Don't. You acted like an asshole about the whole goddamned thing.

I "read that poll" EXACTLY as it stood.

I don't know what the fuck you are babbling about. But go ahead...act like a fucking jerk some more to me. If that makes you feel good. :)

crockett 07-23-2014 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20167189)
Here ya go Crockett...scroll down to the table near the bottom of the page. The top line shows the entire U.S. statistics starting in 1999 and going up to 2012.

Then after you see that with your own eyes...come back and tell me I'm lying and making stuff up...(I would just post the damn thing here for you, but Richard wouldn't believe it then)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States
Your table is percentage of the population not actual number of people insured.. Do I really have to explain to you the difference between percentage of the population vs actual numbers?

In 1999 the population was 272,690,813 In 2014 it is 318,434,000. This is the same stupid ass shit the right wing tries to pull all the time by taking cherry picked stats as their proof when they don't even understand what they are talking about.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20168064)
Don't. You acted like an asshole about the whole goddamned thing.

I "read that poll" EXACTLY as it stood.

I don't know what the fuck you are babbling about. But go ahead...act like a fucking jerk some more to me. If that makes you feel good. :)
you did? you said it showed the affordable healthcare act wasn't working. it did.

AmeliaG 07-23-2014 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168061)
are you labelling me as having zero compassion for your uninsured plight?

while arguing against a system attempting to fix that plight?

I'm not labeling you. I am not pre-judging you. I am responding to your actual personal words.

Universal healthcare would fix it.

A right-priced free market would fix it.

ACA only attempts to make insurance companies richer. Goldman Sachs predicts 60 percent growth for shareholders in the top 5 insurance companies over the next few years.

ACA has decreased my access to healthcare.

crockett 07-23-2014 03:59 PM
Also something to add Robbie about your claims more people are uninsured. Your table doesn't even include 2013 & and more importantly 2014 which is the only year that Obamacare has affected the stats.

Meaning not only are you bad at cherry picking data, you didn't even cherry pick data that was relevant.

also from your own link...

Quote:
Gallup estimated in July 2014 that the uninsured rate for adults (persons 18 years of age and over) was 13.4% as of Q2 2014, down from 18.0% in Q3 2013 when the health insurance exchanges created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or "Obamacare") first opened. The uninsured rate fell across nearly all demographic groups.[6]

The Commonwealth Fund reported that the uninsured rate among adults 19-64 declined from 20% in Q3 2013 to 15% in Q2 2014, meaning approximately 9.5 million more adults had health insurance.[7]
congrats for proving yourself wrong.. but I know you will insert head in sand and ingore your own link..lol

Robbie 07-23-2014 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20168065)
Your table is percentage of the population not actual number of people insured.. Do I really have to explain to you the difference between percentage of the population vs actual numbers?

In 1999 the population was 272,690,813 In 2014 it is 318,434,000. This is the same stupid ass shit the right wing tries to pull all the time by taking cherry picked stats as their proof when they don't even understand what they are talking about.
There was nothing cherry picked. I didn't say a word about 1999 other than that graph showed the numbers going back that far.

I was more concerned with recent history. Like starting in 2009 when Pres. Obama took office.

And brother...I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you don't have the intellectual weight to try and tell me a damn thing. You have shown yourself to be an absolute sheep to the Democrat Party.

And just like Chris Matthews...I bet you get a "thrill running down your leg" when you hear Pres. Obama give speeches.

"Cherry Picked" What a goddamned idiotic thing to say.

You sure seem to think "percentage" is the correct way to do taxes instead of actual dollars. LOL

I got some news for you genius: if a higher percentage of the population from 2009 to the first quarter of 2014 had no insurance...the ACTUAL NUMBERS are way bigger than any that you are babbling about from 1999.

You said it yourself. Goddamn the foolishness of this. Why are you deliberately making yourself look so fucking bad?

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168073)
I'm not labeling you. I am not pre-judging you. I am responding to your actual personal words.

Universal healthcare would fix it.

A right-priced free market would fix it.

ACA only attempts to make insurance companies richer. Goldman Sachs predicts 60 percent growth for shareholders in the top 5 insurance companies over the next few years.

ACA has decreased my access to healthcare.
because.. the only way it was passed was due to the concessions made to appease the companies/lobbists/republicans/libertarians who fear change?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20168073)
I am genuinely disturbed at how many people congratulate themselves for what good humans they delusionally believe themselves to be . . . while having zero compassion for those who are actually suffering from this.
yes, i can see how you're not labelling and not prejudging very clearly. i am saddened that you haven't gone after a art forms.. as well as your easy jab at standard vs margin. or the insinuation after. but, live and learn.

Robbie 07-23-2014 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20168078)
Also something to add Robbie about your claims more people are uninsured. Your table doesn't even include 2013 & and more importantly 2014 which is the only year that Obamacare has affected the stats.

Meaning not only are you bad at cherry picking data, you didn't even cherry pick data that was relevant.
The original Gallup Poll I posted showed all of that (as does the more recent one that shows the current quarter and more people insured now). And 2013 was the worst year.

I didn't "cherry pick" a damn thing. I googled it. Disregarded any right wing sites and chose a graph from the Wiki page. It only went up to 2012.

How the fuck can I "cherry pick" that? I don't even know what the latest stats are. But I still was able to show you what was happening.

As for ObamaCare being implemented. Isn't that what he is getting in trouble for? He keeps exempting and delaying it to be effective on certain groups for political reasons?

Hey...if it's such a great thing...why is the President the one who keeps delaying it?
And if it's so great...then what the fuck is your problem? Why can't anyone have a discussion about anything to do with Pres. Obama without you coming in spewing hate?

Robbie 07-23-2014 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168082)
because.. the only way it was passed was due to the concessions made to appease the companies/lobbists/republicans/libertarians who fear change?
Where in the fuck did you get that from?

Libertarians aren't even in office! And Pres. Obama had full control over the House and the Senate. What on Earth are you talking about man?

There were no "concessions" made to any Republicans. That is why they were so fucking pissed off.

Remember Nancy Pelosi told Congress that they would have to "Vote for it before you can read it"

NONE of them even read the goddamned thing before it was passed.

Fuck this. It's no wonder so many people are fucked in this world.

_Richard_ 07-23-2014 04:11 PM
ok, robbie, where did the public option go.

it started as being apart of the affordable health care act

what happened to it.

i didn't say they were, but you don't miss anything.

kane 07-23-2014 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168093)
ok, robbie, where did the public option go.

it started as being apart of the affordable health care act

what happened to it.

i didn't say they were, but you don't miss anything.
My understanding is that they removed the public option because many moderate democrats were worried about it. At that time there were a large contingent of what they called "Blue Dog" democrats who had won seats in what were often republican and conservative areas. These democrats were a lot more moderate than many others. They were worried that if they passed a public option and basically gave government healthcare to everyone that they wouldn't get re-elected so they threatened to vote against it unless it was changed.

crockett 07-23-2014 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20168086)
The original Gallup Poll I posted showed all of that (as does the more recent one that shows the current quarter and more people insured now). And 2013 was the worst year.

I didn't "cherry pick" a damn thing. I googled it. Disregarded any right wing sites and chose a graph from the Wiki page. It only went up to 2012.

How the fuck can I "cherry pick" that? I don't even know what the latest stats are. But I still was able to show you what was happening.

As for ObamaCare being implemented. Isn't that what he is getting in trouble for? He keeps exempting and delaying it to be effective on certain groups for political reasons?

Hey...if it's such a great thing...why is the President the one who keeps delaying it?
And if it's so great...then what the fuck is your problem? Why can't anyone have a discussion about anything to do with Pres. Obama without you coming in spewing hate?
Why would you choose a graph that only went up to 2012 when Obamacare didn't even start until 2014. Also from that very page you choose, it shows that Obamacare has lowered the percentage of uninsured meaning "MORE" people are insured which makes your claim wrong.

So will you now admit that you are wrong and that more people are insured under Obamacare than before Obamacare?

Robbie 07-23-2014 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20168093)
ok, robbie, where did the public option go.

it started as being apart of the affordable health care act

what happened to it.

i didn't say they were, but you don't miss anything.
Why don't you ask Sen. Harry Reid the leader of the Democrat controlled Senate:

"President Barack Obama promoted the idea of the public option while running for election in 2008. Following his election, Obama downplayed the need for a public health insurance option, including calling it a "sliver" of health care reform, but still campaigned for the option up until the health care reform was passed.

Ultimately, the public option was removed from the final bill. While the United States House of Representatives passed a public option in their version of the bill, the public option was voted down in the Senate Finance Committee and the public option was never included in the final Senate bill, instead opting for state-directed health insurance exchanges."

And no...Sen. Reid is NOT a Republican. He is a Democrat, the LEADER of the Democrats. He is the Senator from Nevada where I live. Of course he lives in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington D.C. in the penthouse suite.

Now to further address your comment:
NO Republicans voted for Obamacare in the House. Total partyline vote. So IF your theory about why there was no public option was to appease Republicans...guess what? That's BULLSHIT. None of them voted for ObamaCare.

NO Republicans voted for ObamaCare in the Senate. It was a complete partyline vote as well. So again...this myth that ObamaCare was "watered down" to make Republicans happy is BULLSHIT.

No Republicans voted for it. And nobody read it before it was passed.

So that means that IF there were anything to appease the Republicans...they never saw it and didn't vote for it.

Face it....this baby not only is named after Pres. Obama...it TOTALLY belongs to him and the small group of people he HANDPICKED to write it behind closed doors (after telling the nation that the writing of healthcare law would be transparent and televised on CSPAN)

Maybe Joe Biden was right when he said that in a few years everyone will look back and be so happy with ObamaCare.
I hope so.

Right now...the numbers aren't adding up. It was supposed to save people money AND save the govt. money.

I don't know how that is going to happen.

EDIT: The quoted passage is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...surance_option

Robbie 07-23-2014 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20168108)
Why would you choose a graph that only went up to 2012 when Obamacare didn't even start until 2014. Also from that very page you choose, it shows that Obamacare has lowered the percentage of uninsured meaning "MORE" people are insured which makes your claim wrong.

So will you now admit that you are wrong and that more people are insured under Obamacare than before Obamacare?
I didn't "Choose" it. I googled up for the info. First page was almost all right winger sites attacking ObamaCare

The only one I could find that I THOUGHT would be acceptable to Obamapologists was the Wiki page.
Obviously I was wrong.

I guess I could put Youtube vids of Pres. Obama giving speeches telling us how ObamaCare was going to work (and lying) and you wouldn't accept that either.

I'm starting to think that if you, me, and Pres. Obama got drunk and he laughed and told us that he thinks it sucks too...you'd probably blame George Bush. lol


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 PM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc