Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
<--- opposes the ACA
<--- is all for those 30 million being insured.

Quit projecting.

And on what grounds do you oppose the ACA, and what alternative means do you support to get healthcare to the uninsured?

sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
<--- opposes the ACA
<--- is all for those 30 million being insured.

Quit projecting.

And on what grounds do you oppose the ACA, and what alternative means do you support to get healthcare to the uninsured?

For what it's worth, I think he's said numerous times that he's in favour of a single-payer system, if I'm not mistaken.

 azazel the cat wrote:

sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
<--- opposes the ACA
<--- is all for those 30 million being insured.

Quit projecting.

And on what grounds do you oppose the ACA, and what alternative means do you support to get healthcare to the uninsured?

For what it's worth, I think he's said numerous times that he's in favour of a single-payer system, if I'm not mistaken.

To quote myself:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.

The Oklahoma legislature gets dumber every year. The crap passed by the "smaller government" legislature is mindnumbing.










That woman alone makes me miss my crazy liberal Europe

Of course it's all the fault of the liberal media, she says so in her book:

The Stoning of Sally Kern: The liberal attack on Christian conservatism-and why we must take a stand

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.

And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?

And while it is not okay for the Federal government to tell states what to do, it's okay for Oklahoma to tell cities and counties what to do:

OKLAHOMA CITY -
Cities and counties in Oklahoma would be prohibited from entering into any agreements with organizations accredited by the United Nations under a bill approved by the Oklahoma House.

The House on Wednesday voted 67-17 for the bill sponsored by Bethany Republican Rep. Sally Kern that targets Agenda 21, a plan developed by the United Nations to help cities and countries become more environmentally sustainable.

No Republicans opposed the measure, which now heads to the Senate.

Kern claims the bill is needed to protect personal property from an "intrusion of our government into personal property rights." She alleged one of the "end goals" of Agenda 21 is to keep Americans from driving cars.

Oklahoma City's planning director Russell Claus has described the opposition to Agenda 21 as an "insane conspiracy theory."

Now I'm hungry and angry.

Why didn't anyone hit her with a pie?

Seriously, that kind of gak just would not fly in Canada. She would have so many pies on her that she'd have to change her name to Rep. Little Debbie.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.

And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?

Absolutely. Especially on that time scale.

I never got the small government obsession that some Americans have, wouldn't you want more government services or better quality ones especially considering you're a country with a population of 300,000,000 I don't see how nation that big would work better with a smaller scale

system.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.

And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?

Absolutely. Especially on that time scale.

Okay.... now I think you've lost your mind.
How long did it take to get even the ACA since the health care issue was first broached? 43 years?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:I never got the small government obsession that some Americans have, wouldn't you want more government services or better quality ones especially considering you're a country with a population of 300,000,000 I don't see how nation that big would work better with a smaller scale

system.

It's John Locke's fault.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Now I'm hungry and angry.

Why didn't anyone hit her with a pie?

Seriously, that kind of gak just would not fly in Canada. She would have so many pies on her that she'd have to change her name to Rep. Little Debbie.

It was almost all worth it, when in 2010 she had to run a race against the perfect opponent in her district:

A transgender person.

Which resulted in such gems like Kern calling her a "confused it", and then she managed to share the evil truth of the gay agenda!

TRANSCRIPT: "I was talking to a group of Republican activists telling them about a group of homosexual millionaires who, for years, have been working secretly to change the society of America, the political side of America, so that there will be freedom and equality for everyone." --- Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern, August 7, 2010

These monsters!

...and yet she still won the election.


Now I'm hungry and angry and sad...

Those Sally Kern videos are so ridiculous that I thought she could have been a political satirist.

Cheesecat wrote:Those Sally Kern videos are so ridiculous that I thought she could have been a political satirist.

The Onion News Network is almost indistinguishable from Fox News nowadays.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Absolutely. Especially on that time scale.

Did you see the freakout over ACA? I mean, the only really meaningful criticism of it is that it actually doesn't really do very much, and is more of an add-on and series of cost controls, to a system that needs massive reform... and yet people are still freaking out about it. We're in a thread where one state voted overwhelmingly to reject it (particularly stupid given that ACA is a really good deal for state governments).

And you think that within ten years there's any kind of a chance of the massive reform that would be moving to a full voucher system or single payer? Good luck with that.

There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.


There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.

I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.


In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.

 Hordini wrote:
There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.


There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.

I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.


In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.

Well that saves me responding!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.


There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.

I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.


In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.

Well that saves me responding!

Glad to help a brotha out!

 d-usa wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Now I'm hungry and angry.

Why didn't anyone hit her with a pie?

Seriously, that kind of gak just would not fly in Canada. She would have so many pies on her that she'd have to change her name to Rep. Little Debbie.

It was almost all worth it, when in 2010 she had to run a race against the perfect opponent in her district:

A transgender person.

Which resulted in such gems like Kern calling her a "confused it", and then she managed to share the evil truth of the gay agenda!

TRANSCRIPT: "I was talking to a group of Republican activists telling them about a group of homosexual millionaires who, for years, have been working secretly to change the society of America, the political side of America, so that there will be freedom and equality for everyone." --- Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern, August 7, 2010

These monsters!

....Why in the name of the dark gods does this woman have a JOB!? That's the level of stupid and insulting that truly merits a beating.

She is just the ultimate example of the kind of things many in Oklahoma believe to be true, sadly.

But you get a good feel for what the Oklahoma legislature is like by taking a look at the kind of ballot questions they put out every two years and some of the silly bills they pass. I need to take a look at what they have introduced this year and where it is heading. I used to do some canvasing in the capitol and talk to legislators there. We have some good ones, but they are overshadowed by the stupid.

The ACA's constitutionality could be challenged on basis of sexual discrimination.

Hint, Women are mention 134 times with 132 of these being for needs specific to women.
Men are mentioned 2 times with no male specfic needs covered.

One would ask, "Why, in this day and age, breast exams and HPV tests are covered but prostate exams and other male specific illnesses were left out?


There is a legal loop-hole to get around this but only if straight men are willing to claim to be pre-op transexuals.


The ACA could also see a 1st amendment challenge from church funded hospitals on the requirement to provide birth control.

 Hordini wrote:
There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.

There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.

And until those people form some kind of alternative with congressional level support (even at the 'we're willing to just mention it' level) talk of this other unstated, unknown reform is a nonsense.

It is good an useful to try and figure out what you'd like to have if everything in the world was perfect and good. But that kind of thinking has a place, and it's place isn't as an alternative to the actual policies that are being put in place, and the kinds of policies that might replace it. At some point you have to deal with the reality that's in front of you.

The only existing alternative to the reforms of ACA is no reforms, and a return to what was there before.

I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.

Sure, and I've almost certainly spent more time correcting them in healthcare threads on Dakka than you have.

I've also spent an unbelievable amount of time correcting Americans who think European healthcare is a socialist dystopia of insane waiting lists and bureaucracy.

So what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
The ACA's constitutionality could be challenged on basis of sexual discrimination.

I've asked you this before and you didn't respond... are you some kind of men's rights believer?

 Captain Avatar wrote:
The ACA's constitutionality could be challenged on basis of sexual discrimination.

Hint, Women are mention 134 times with 132 of these being for needs specific to women.
Men are mentioned 2 times with no male specfic needs covered.

One would ask, "Why, in this day and age, breast exams and HPV tests are covered but prostate exams and other male specific illnesses were left out?

Indeed, that is one question I suppose one could ask.

Another question is, how are you coming up with those 132 & 134 numbers? Is this from the Department of Made Up Statistics? Or something like a FW:FW:RE:FW type email containing something like this, right? Cause, uh - those are a little fact-devoid, at least in the version of the ACA I've looked at. Have a look for yourself, the Adobe Reader is free.

The text of it is available online, and while I didn't read the entire law*, I sure don't see anything like 134 items for women. There are 150 instances of the word "women", and in almost all of them, it's a reference to the "Office on Women’s Health" created in section 229. The word "Women" appears in this document about 50 times solely in referring to the title of the office, and not in reference to specific provisions. The word "HPV" does not appear at all, nor does "papillomavirus". So - how are you getting these numbers?

*just like the legislators who voted on it, amirite?

 Manchu wrote:
It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.

Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system. We can only assume those who support the ACA as supporting bureaucracy and horrific government management processes that do nothing at all in the way of what it was claimed.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.

Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"

No... the ACA was ultimately a political boondoggle essentially doubling-down on the SAME bad system... with some minor good things.

Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Seaward: If you read the OP, just out of curiosity perhaps, you will only find an argument about states rights.

Because that's an argument that hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court yet with regards to the ACA.

Correct. You have to show that there's a conflict on the actual law in order to bring it up to the SC. You can just say "hey SC, I don't like it, do something 'bout it". You have to have standing.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system.

 whembly wrote:
Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.

It's nice to see conservatives supporting nationalized health care initiatives. Mmm, such sincerity.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
<--- opposes the ACA
<--- is all for those 30 million being insured.

Quit projecting.

And on what grounds do you oppose the ACA, and what alternative means do you support to get healthcare to the uninsured?

I'm with KK here...

Either go more on the current system... but BETTER to drive down overall cost.

One idea is to allow specific insurance packages to be sold across state line (did you know that?).

Another is to allow people to create their own insurance pool by job nationally. (can't do that now effectively, because it only stays in the state).

See?

Or, let's go the Canadian route.

Fact of the matter, the ACA act is a bad policy, used for political gain. There's no altruism here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system.

 whembly wrote:
Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.

It's nice to see conservatives supporting nationalized health care initiatives. Mmm, such sincerity.

Have I said otherwise?

When the Democrats proposed the ACA, the GOP counter offer was not the Canadian/NHS system. Do you think that would be less of a states rights issue than the ACA?

 Manchu wrote:
When the Democrats proposed the ACA, the GOP counter offer was not the Canadian/NHS system. Do you think that would be less of a states rights issue than the ACA?

Well... good question.

It's so polarized right now, I don't think we can truly go to the Canadian/NHS system.

What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).

If we go the Canadian/NHS system route... I'd like to see it as a Constitutional Amendment (is that true in Canada/UK?), so that puts to rest if its legal or not.

Oklahoma is flat, but at least it doesn't have earthquakes.