scarykitties on 26/1/2012 at 06:26
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
It sounds like your family members bought fully into the Fox News Death Panels hysteria over the ACA, without doing any actual research into what it is.
No, that was their professional estimation of the results of Obamacare based on years of experience in the field.
Fafhrd on 26/1/2012 at 06:32
Except their professional estimation was not, apparently, in any way based on the actual content of 'Obamacare.'
scarykitties on 26/1/2012 at 06:39
Well, that is why I asked the economic/political experts at Through The Looking Glass.
Aerothorn on 26/1/2012 at 22:08
Of course, people's beliefs and undestanding is principally shaped by the people they found themselves surrounded by; and since the insurance companies (and some of the pharamaceuticals) ultimately decided that the ACA would be bad for business (in the short term - there is rarely a consideration of the long-term due to a focus on quarterly goals and stockholder needs) it inevitably created a culture and mythology about the ways in which the ACA would destroy the country. Which in and of itself doesn't disqualify such views, but I really think that's how a lot of these come about, and how people who should be most in the know (by being professionals) often end up having the most warped views.
I'm not an ACA expert, but I'll expand on what has been said: it's really not very radical. The most radical move we could have done (which is to say, what would have changes the system the most) would be switching to a single-player system; and even this would only be radical in American-centric terms, as the rest of the Western world is already on this system, because it offers the most bang for your buck. Britain spends, if I remember correctly (feel free to double-check these!) about 8% of its GDP on health care; the USA spends twice that, and it's expected to hit 20% in not very long.
The ACA doesn't really do a lot to control that massive cost. On one hand that sucks, beccause it's the elephant in the room in terms of health care, and at some point we're going to have to stop ignoring it. On the other hand, it's my understanding that A. it certainly doesn't *increase* that cost will simultaneously providing more and better care, so that's a clear win, and B. It DOES refuduce the deficit in the long term, which is something that *theoretically* everyone in Congress agrees is a Good Thing. Which is why Republicans keep claiming that it increases the deficit (see Politifact for numbers on why this is wrong).
CCCToad on 27/1/2012 at 15:09
Deth, its not that everyone else thinks you're stupid because they just can't grasp your massive, planet-sized intellect. Everyone else thinks you're stupid because you are.
And, funny how I've been gone forever and you're still bitching about me. Don't you have anything better to do with your life than being butthurt about somebody who hasn't interacted with you in months? A related note: you keep calling me homophobic. Find ONE quote from me that backs up your allegation. But you won't do that....you'll probably just bitch about how you can't be bothered to, not because you actually can't but because you don't want to admit your stupidity and incorrectness.
On the election: I've been in transit, and I happened to be in the terminal at Bagram during the Florida "debate". It was un-fucking-believable. The GOP candidates are all even more grandiose, sophomoric, grandstanding, lying, idiotic, sacks of shit than I thought possible, and I imagined possible. And I imagined quite a bit. In three hours of debate, there was exactly one coherent point made when Paul said that sanctions tend to backfire and strengthen a dictator's position. However one valid point does not a candidate make.
Seems like we're having yet another sophomoric budget debate. And no, dethtoll, I have no intention of advocating any position, nor advocating any candidate. For reasons that I prefer not to discuss over the internet these are no longer my concerns.
For all of yall's own benefit...make sure that you actually believe what you claim to. You can't argue that all government spending (regardless of what its on) benefits the economy, then turn around and talk about how the massive military budget is destroying that same economy. And don't do the opposite either because you'll look equally retarded. Either way you've just disproven your own "in all cases" argument by providing a counterexample.
demagogue on 27/1/2012 at 16:20
Another (
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/gingrich-insurgency-tests-partys-old-guard/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24) article about how impotent the Republican leadership has become... They're largely coming out against Gingrich but doesn't seem to matter. It's like the Rep Party is collapsing as an actual
political party, in the classic sense of a machine to organize and get representatives elected and advancing their causes in a disciplined way. If you don't have a meaningful leadership, you don't have meaningful organization or discipline, then it's not really a political party anymore, just an umbrella term for inchoate reactionaries that watch Fox News. But what's sort of disgusting is how eager so many conservatives are to see their own party self-destruct as a party machine.
Aerothorn on 27/1/2012 at 16:58
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
The most radical move we could have done (which is to say, what would have changes the system the most) would be switching to a single-player system
This is what happens when you spend too much time writing about video games :(
june gloom on 27/1/2012 at 19:30
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Deth, its not that everyone else thinks you're stupid because they just can't grasp your massive, planet-sized intellect. Everyone else thinks you're stupid because you are.
OLOL i love it when ineffectual people try the EVERYONE THINKS UR DUMB argument as if they think they speak for anyone but themselves and their tiny tiny little baby dicks.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
And, funny how I've been gone forever and you're still bitching about me. Don't you have anything better to do with your life than being butthurt about somebody who hasn't interacted with you in months?
It's not butthurt, it's comedy. If I do anything, 90% of the time it's because I think it's funny. And you're certainly one to talk about butthurt considering how much you like to troll me and RBJ and anyone else who gets on your case for the bullshit you fill this forum with.
Too bad you can't
really be "gone forever" though.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
A related note: you keep calling me homophobic. Find ONE quote from me that backs up your allegation. But you won't do that....you'll probably just bitch about how you can't be bothered to, not because you actually can't but because you don't want to admit your stupidity and incorrectness.
Quote:
I personally hold conservative views of whats acceptable sexual conduct
Quote:
However, has demonstrated a proclivity towards homosexuality and seems defensive of them. So dethtoll's a self-hating homosexual.
Perhaps your gay side and assistant writer is a hand puppet who is also a flaming homosexual?
Quote:
Standing up for gay people when they weren't even insulted just makes you delusional.
Inline Image:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/dethtoll/chewasgay.jpgCCCToad on 27/1/2012 at 22:51
Really, that's really the best you can come up with? Throwing out some quotes deliberately cut out of context? If you're as smart as you claim to be, you should have been able to anticipate that I would dig up the original quotes
Quote:
While I personally hold conservative views of whats acceptable sexual conduct, I don't want to anyone else to share my standards because of coercion. I'd rather they'd make that choice freely.
Saying that I have no desire to force my own views on anyone else is hardly "homophobic". Its quite a bit different from somebody like say....you.....who feels the need to try to beat anyone who doesn't share your views back into line.
And the other one:
Quote:
Coming from a dude who regularly uses the hurtful, spiteful, and bigoted term "fag" as an insult.
However, has demonstrated a proclivity towards homosexuality and seems defensive of them. So dethtoll's a self-hating homosexual.
Perhaps your gay side and assistant writer is a hand puppet who is also a flaming homosexual?
Which still reminds a valid point. You've really got no standing to call ANYONE in this forum a gay hater, given that you're more prone to call other people "faggots" than anyone else who posts here(and that's saying something). Ever been to a gay bar? With the language you use in your posts you would probably get your ass beat there.
Quote:
It's not butthurt, it's comedy. If I do anything, 90% of the time it's because I think it's funny.
ie. "I'm a troll"
I would have linked to Urban's definition here, but it seems Urbandictionary is blacklisted under the category "questionable" here. So look it up yourselves.
Quote:
Another article about how impotent the Republican leadership has become... They're largely coming out against Gingrich but doesn't seem to matter. It's like the Rep Party is collapsing as an actual political party, in the classic sense of a machine to organize and get representatives elected and advancing their causes in a disciplined way. If you don't have a meaningful leadership, you don't have meaningful organization or discipline, then it's not really a political party anymore, just an umbrella term for inchoate reactionaries that watch Fox News. But what's sort of disgusting is how eager so many conservatives are to see their own party self-destruct as a party machine.
That's been a long time coming though. Remember the lack of enthusiasm for McCain, and several rebellions against Bush '43 by the GOP base during his second term. The Tea Party also made a point of targeting GOP elitists, at least for the few months it took for Fox News segment to coerce the movement. This year it was obvious that the election is going to be a mess for the GOP because every candidate has in some way crossed the dogma. Romney pushed through an individual mandate, Gingrich supported Cap and Trade, and Paul (gasp!) believes that the terrorists are actually NOT about to destroy America as we know it. Not one candidate effectively represents the GOP base, and the outcome is obvious. Obama's going to win re-election in spite of himself.
