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.

 Amaya wrote:
Why are you putting Republican in all caps?

Because you parroted an absurd propaganda line used by Republican politicians who blatantly misrepresent what happened. To believe that you have to be missing a lot of basic facts, about events which happened just a couple of years ago, and were widely covered in the news.

The fact of the matter is that the Dems and Obama ran (in part) on healthcare reform. Obama specifically championed it across the country, and beat McCain in debates while saying we needed to reform healthcare, and he wanted us all to have a public option. The Dems abandoned the public option part early, in a wholehearted and concentrated effort at bipartisan compromise and getting the Republicans on board. Or at least SOME Republicans.

Their efforts were completely rebuffed, and Republican backers instead engaged in a wholesale campaign of lying about the process and the content of the reform. Ignorant citizens were stirred into a panic with lies about "death panels" and similar nonsense. People were scared into yelling at their representatives at town hall meetings. It was disgusting. Most Republican politicians, backers, and semi-news sources (Fox), have continued to engage in this campaign of deception for their own political gain, at the expense of the American people. Who need and deserve to have the first-class healthcare system they are paying for already.

deleted

 Mannahnin wrote:

Whembly wrote:Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.

Can you explain any parts of Obamacare that you personally disagree with or oppose, or how they don't make things better?

I'm exhausted... but, I'll threw a few tidbits here:

#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future? GM (Government Moters)??

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 it's NOT universal healthcare... it's a half-arsed attempt. If we were honestly serious about it, we should go to a single-payor system like Canada or NHS. The ACA act sits on top of the existing system, making it even more complex (for better or worst).

#4 Not ONE Republican voted for it... the Democrats owns this now.

#5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." (a politician not keeping his promise)... if nothing change... the CBO itself said they'll have to get a new Plan/Doctor and there's no tell whether it's better than Medicare.

#6 Businesses would stop providing their own healthcare coverage in favor of just paying the tax/penalty because it would be cheaper. Thus, leaving the workers no choice to enroll in the exchange. (potentially driving private insurer out of business)

#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...

#8 IPAB will be tasked with and given the authority to oversee ACA and Medicare to reduce costs to the government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. Which on surface, doesn't look bad... but here's the gooey part:

Any recommendations by the IPAB automatically become law. The only way around this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act of Congress, with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the president, essentially becomes its own shadow legislative branch.

#9 The tax is just a mess... with over 20 new taxes levied. Here's an example:

if you sell a house or other asset (like stocks) you will be taxed an ADDITIONAL 3.8% on the proceeds, over and above any capital gains taxes. So, if you bought a home when young, paid off the mortgage over 30 years and now your home is worth $100,000 more than what you paid, you will have to pay (currently) $15,000 in cap gains PLUS another $3,800 in taxes. And anyone - especially the elderly - who sells off stocks and bonds to supplement their income will lose an additional 3.8% of their net gains, over and above cap gains taxes.

#10 With all the problems with current entitlements... we added another big one in form of ACA? Something gotta give...

 Amaya wrote:
I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am a Republican simply because I disagree with you.

I never did. The Republican party and their backers and corporate contributors are primary political beneficiaries of their campaign, but they're not the only supporters.

 Amaya wrote:
Other than that I appreciate your informative posts. I still disagree with it and do not think the Supreme Court's ruling that it can be justified as a tax is correct or right.

Thanks. You can hold that opinion, but it is legally correct and lawful per the legislative process and the law of the land. Speaking as (like d-usa) a person with some years of professional experience in the health care and insurance industries, health care reform is desperately needed and the ACA is the first progress we've seen in literally decades.

It is certainly needed. I question the time and methodology of the ACA. Not that I think Romneycare would be any better.

 whembly wrote:
#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future? GM (Government Moters)??

By that same token, you could say that the protection of your police department, fire department, and military are goods and services which you are forced to pay for. Taxpayers and people who have insurance (including you and me) already pay for care for irresponsible people who choose not to get insurance. Emergency Room care must be provided to anyone in need, and hospitals write off care all the time, the cost of which goes to increased costs of services for everyone else, and to tax breaks which we subsidize. This kind of emergency care is also the most expensive care there is. If we actually give people real coverage, or require them to buy it, then they are far more likely to actually USE that coverage to get preventive care and otherwise catch problems BEFORE they become emergencies and require emergency care. This will save American taxpayers and insurance-premium payers a great deal of money.

 whembly wrote:
#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

Ask your Canadian neighbors if their government does this. It's a make-believe boogeyman. Individual liberty should include not having to go bankrupt because you get cancer or another serious illness or injury at a young age and can't afford care/don't have insurance. It's dumb. It results in lots of people going broke. It hurts our communities and our economy, and the rest of us wind up paying for it anyway.

 whembly wrote:
#3 it's NOT universal healthcare... it's a half-arsed attempt. If we were honestly serious about it, we should go to a single-payor system like Canada or NHS. The ACA act sits on top of the existing system, making it even more complex (for better or worst).

I agree that single-payer would be better. What we've got is the compromise version, because the Democrats aren't actually socialists, and not even enough of them would vote for a proper single-payer system, much less any Republicans. Again, this was specifically supposed to be a compromise plan which could get bipartisan support. The Republicans chose to instead...

A) Pretend there was nothing wrong with our current system, and claim it's the best in the world.
B) Refuse to cooperate or go along even with ideas which originated from them.
C) Prioritize making Obama fail over advancing any healthcare reform, which their consituents (us) have been needing for at least twenty years.

 whembly wrote:
#4 Not ONE Republican voted for it... the Democrats owns this now.

The Republicans chose not to vote for it for their own political gain, despite a year of Dems bending over backwards to create and compromise a plan they thought and hoped could be a bipartisan accomplishment and achievement for the benefit of the American people. Remember Obama wanted a public option; they tossed that out immediately in the interest of courting Republican support.

 whembly wrote:
#5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA.

This is not accurate, but it'll take a while to get you the facts on it. Let me get back to you.

 whembly wrote:
# Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." (a politician not keeping his promise)...

No one has had to change their plan or their doctor.

 whembly wrote:
#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...

Worse than forcing pacifists to pay taxes which go to wars? I don't see anything bad about it whatsoever. Religious PEOPLE have the right not to use contraceptions or have abortions if their religion forbids them. Religious organizations do not have the right to make religious and moral decisions FOR their employees, about what kind of health care the EMPLOYEES are allowed to use. The Republicans have the religious freedom argument backwards on this one. The employee has the right to decide if they use contraception. In the general interests of the American people, we are better off as a society (it keeps people healthier and saves money on healthcare and government services) if everyone has easy access to contraception.

Amaya wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Amaya wrote:There is somebody out there who hates you for no good reason at all! Probably quite a few of them at that. Getting bent out of shape about is a pointless waste of energy.

But I don't constantly hear about people trying to legislate away my personal rights.

EDIT: Nor trying to justify it by claiming it's God's will or fake science.

She is fully capable of tuning it out. Even then, nothing justifies anger randomly expelled in all directions.

Especially at those who are Pro Feminist. That's just silliness.

Justifies? perhaps not. Excuses? Perhaps sometimes.

Now, I want you to imagine that you hang out somewhere everyday, and everyday you hear people talking in circles about how you shouldn't be allowed to have all the rights that you currently do, for reasons that make no sense. How long would it take until your civility and patience runs out?

deleted

whembly wrote:#5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA.

Okay, first...

Kevin Drum, Mother Jones wrote:Money that's paid into the Medicare system — which comes mainly from payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue* — goes into Medicare's two trust funds. Money that's paid out to doctors and hospitals comes out of the trust funds. So there are only two ways you could "rob" money from the trust funds: you could reduce taxes going in or you could increase money being paid out. Obamacare does neither of these things. In fact, it reduces reimbursement rates to hospitals, which means that it improves the financial health of the trust funds because less money is flowing out. In particular, after Obamacare was signed into law in 2010, the Medicare trustees estimated** that it had extended the life of the HI trust fund by 12 years.

*: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7731-02.pdf
**: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3823

The $716 billion figure refers to a reduction in how much money CBO projects Medicare to spend over the period 2013-2022. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals. About a third comes from reducing overpayments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans, which are private competitors to standard Medicare. The remaining third comes from cuts in reimbursements to various other healthcare providers.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/itsy-bitsy-716-billion-medicare-qa
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/no-obama-didnt-steal-money-medicare-trust-fund


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
Words are wind. The Pro Feminist (or at least anti misogynist) force in the US is too large for any constraints against females to actually be passed.

You mean like additional restrictions on abortions, or new laws and funding restrictions which force clinics to close and limit the options available to women in many states, particularly in rural areas? Might want to do some reading.

And how on Earth did coverage for contraception become a subject of debate this year? It's insane. It's fundamental good public health policy, it saves money in healthcare and social services costs, it reduces the spread of disease... It's just nuts.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

Dogma for Philosopher-King?

I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.

Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?

Plato's Republic, book I or II, not too sure. It was the myth the philosopher kings were supposed to feed their population from birth in order to get them to accept both familial communism and the caste system. ''You were born from the Earth, and not from a women, so you shall share all women and all women shall share all men and children. Those born of Gold will lead, those born of Silver will fight and those born of Bronze will toil'' or some crap like that.

Edit ; Crap I was far off : Book V. The Noble Lie, it's called.

Thanks, humorously I'm reading The Republic at the moment, but it's been going so slowly that I must have forgotten about that story.

Guys, guys, guys.... you are losing site of the big picture.

They want to take your porn.

Let's keep this in perspective here.

 Easy E wrote:
Guys, guys, guys.... you are losing site of the big picture.

They want to take your porn.

Let's keep this in perspective here.

I hope they do, I can make a fortune smuggling porn into the US

Don't know where to put this... but this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/08/_you_didn_t_build_that_it_doesn_t_matter_what_obama_meant_to_say_but_what_people_heard_.html
a snippet:

“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed.”

The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?

So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.

Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".

Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.

 d-usa wrote:
So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.

Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".

Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.

Right... ya see?

deleted

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.

Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".

Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.

Right... ya see?

Except it really has nothing to do with what Obama "conveyed".

It had everything to do with what people want to hear.

People want Obama to be a big communist anti-business bad guy, so they will interpret anything he says to reinforce what they want him to be.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.

Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".

Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.

Right... ya see?

Except it really has nothing to do with what Obama "conveyed".

It had everything to do with what people want to hear.

People want Obama to be a big communist anti-business bad guy, so they will interpret anything he says to reinforce what they want him to be.

Right. Everyone does it. That's the sport known was "American Politics".

If I have to listen to people excuse asshatery an willful ignorance and lying one more time with an "it's okay, it's just politics" I will have to go to the shooting range to let off some steam.

 d-usa wrote:
If I have to listen to people excuse asshatery an willful ignorance and lying one more time with an "it's okay, it's just politics" I will have to go to the shooting range to let off some steam.

Sorry dude.

Let's agree, to disagree.

Cool?

But I wanna go shooting now....

Porn is a lucrative large industry in the U.S. with too much popular use (aka 100%). Ideological gak like this is used in election season to mobilize your grassroots but leaders always moderate themselves when they deal with the realities of politics.

TL;DR: Porn ban not gonna happen.

 Amaya wrote:

The correct term is "Constitutional Republic."

Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy are not mutually exclusive. A Constitutional Republic does not have to be a democracy of any sort.

 Amaya wrote:
Well...

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.

Clearly you don't know much about academia.

 Amaya wrote:
Well...

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.

They do exist:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...

Freedom of religion is not equivalent with the freedom to impose religion. Your right to decide for you what is appropriate does not extend to the right to decide for others what is appropriate.

If we won't accept religious tests as a condition for employment, why would we allow religious doctrines to influence terms of employment?

 IceRaptor wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...

Freedom of religion is not equivalent with the freedom to impose religion. Your right to decide for you what is appropriate does not extend to the right to decide for others what is appropriate.

If we won't accept religious tests as a condition for employment, why would we allow religious doctrines to influence terms of employment?

Say what?

Are you saying that a Catholic institution should be forced to cover it?

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Well...

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.

I find it hard to believe Blossom has a PhD in Neuroscience, stranger things.

whembly wrote:Don't know where to put this... but this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/08/_you_didn_t_build_that_it_doesn_t_matter_what_obama_meant_to_say_but_what_people_heard_.html
a snippet:

“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed.”

The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?

If you run a business and you profit margins are so thin that paying your employees another $0.25 an hour will put a strain on your business, then your business is failing.

"I need people to work for me for free" = you have failed as a business owner, were destined to do so from the start, and I am unsympathetic.

 AustonT wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Well...

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.

I find it hard to believe Blossom has a PhD in Neuroscience, stranger things.

Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years has a PhD in Mathematics.