dayman

I mean I agree they can be somewhat useful early, definitely to show if things are going terrible. But all in all like a good driver I'm sure most are concerned about polling the highest on the day of the election. I don't think either campaign cares much about winning the polls today. If anything I think the polls are important to Romney to show it will be tight and to combat the few that still assume Obama will win handily...and to combat the idea that he's a terrible candidate who's own party doesn't even like. Then on the flip side I think Obama could care less about being behind so long as he doesn't fall too far behind. He's saving most of his campaign juice for...the campaign (which even conservatives agree he is good at)...and if anything showing a threat early can help him combat the fall in enthusiasm his political momentum is expected to eat. I mean if I were Romney I would want to be as high as I could right now, and if I were Obama I would want to create a sense of urgency among my supporters and wouldn't mind if that meant a few polls coming in lower than they could have been (for now). Plus one of the big talking points for Romney seems to be that Americans are pissed and hate this President so he sort of needs to poll well comparatively (the entire time)...where as Obama can sort of be presidential and eat a slump for the time being and then hit hard when the time comes. In any event...I agree they aren't totally useless but I really think more than anything else they are more tools of campaigns then they are indicators of campaigns success at this point. The closer to the election the more important they will become IMO. And of course, I have no experience in politics. The one thing I know is if I ran either mans campaign they would lose.

How do you feel about polls in general, especially this early. I only ask b/c you appear to pay a lot of attention to them based on the post.

LOL. No. It really is that way. The "white, over 40s" are not "better at putting up references" either (neither are the left necessarily). But the white over-40 thing is stupid anyway. Don't worry about that. Just participate and find out yourself. And remember if you aren't having some sense of entertainment out of it then you are doing it wrong.

Obvious gang-bang of right wing idiocy in most of the big threads. However, there are some people more left of center and not all of the conservatives are retarded/obnoxious. But all in all, absolutely this is a right wing board. But don't let that stop you from posting whatever you want here if you are thinking about it. And remember, it's not that bad. So what. And really I would say it's more accurate to characterize the board as "extreme anti-obama" than anything else.

Well there is no public option in the exchange so what it really was (IMO, he'll never admit it) was an outdated talking. Update your talking points already guys. As for there being less PCPs in the future, won't happen either way (my opinion). With or without Obamacare the industry is shifting and the demand for specialist services will decline while the demand for PCP will rise. This will happen as the pay structure changes (happening right now with private insurance companies independent of Obamacare) and the patients will be paying more out of pocket for the special services they do ultimately need (thus allowing the market to work like a free market, lowering prices etc etc). It's a slow process though but some of the reform is poised to have Medicare lead the way and possibly speed this up (but that would depend on Obamacare surviving). I see no signs of medical school enrollment falling right now, and I'm not sure I look at increased demand for PCP services long term equating to less PCPs long term. Just can't see it. Would be willing to listen more though...if there is something I missing (totally possible)

Ya but gay or not gay if you had a license to !@#$ people in the ass you would probably frame it and stick it on the wall no?

ACA talk in this topic too! Ahhh! Where have I been all your life 3rdnlng? Can you just explain your view here as well as you can?

...an 11 year old AMERICAN boy told me this stuff 6 years ago...

Nothing about what you just said sounds right. "Authority"

Willfully dense? When the federal judiciary tells Texas it can't prohibit dicks in asses, that's called authority. Stop bending over backwards to disagree with me. (pun intended)

Haha the answer is yes Tom. Dicks up asses is a protected privacy interest under federal constitution. They has some authority.

Certainly sounds like they have some "authority" over dicks up asses no? Federal approval..federal protectoin...whatever... Anyway I just jumped to the end of this topic...not trying to start any riff raff in this topic have no spare calories to burn on PacMan's thoughts on gays. Maybe his singing career but not this...

That or you could refer him to Lawrence v. Texas and just show that the federal government actually is concerned with dicks in asses.

I think you can look at the post you quoted and get all the answers you just asked for, save for maybe the last one. Should I drive you into a state of madness and say no to that? ...now that would be trolling... Also sorry to hear you have to stop responding to people who you don't agree w/. Hell I couldn't even post here if that was the case. It would probably be less eventful...

For one I'm not sure the law creates any new agency...but that's a small point I concede it will expand the roles of existing agencies anyway. The reason that I come off like a "freedom hating elitist" though is b/c the "freedom arguments" really are just political noise to me. It's partisan hurling of crap and yes it's done by the left and right depending on the issue. But "freedom" ... with nothing is more more often than not (not never) just a load of BS. Certainly if you use a general freedom argument then comparing ACA to MA law is not only relevant but it would be a logical crime not to. Now if the debate centers around legitimate discussion of law or policy then that is different. But just know it isn't freedom I hate, it's people defending what they call freedom.

LOL. Well I disagree that's all I can say. If the argument is one of general personal freedom as the good sir who posted that was making...then the conclusion that he will remove Obama for an official that is on the side of freedom doesn't make much sense when that same person enacted that legislation when he was governor. I said in the damn post you quoted to respond that questions of commerce clause, federalism, and the like are debatable and general claims of freedom are not. What we had there, was a general rambling about personal freedom which makes little sense.

Are you a free person by virtue of living in the state of NY? B/c as I'm sure you are aware the debate is about the commerce clause in the federal constitution (not about "freedom"). Forcing people to by health insurance is totally fine on the state level. Does that get you riled up too under the general concept of freedom? Well then you are working to elect a guy who did that! Questioning the commerce clause? Fine. Questions of federalism...ok as well. Questions of "FREEEDOOOOMMM!!!" Not really questions. You don't have some vague/general right "to be free" and that's the end of it. You aren't free in a million different ways. One of them may or may not include buying health insurance and that determination will depend on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's abilities under the commerce clause. As for just your right to not be compelled to buy a private good...there is no such federal law (as of yet anyway)...and there was no such state law in Mass when Romney did just that. Just screaming "freedom" and making the 3rd grade point that you make above over and over as if I cannot understand it isn't going to inform me of anything that may change my mind. I know you may not care, and I certainly am not trying to change your mind I can see that is pointless. But I do like to try and understand WHY you are so set in your logic...and screaming "freedom" doesn't do much to that end. Other than you think somehow this is drastically different than a million other things concerning your freedom already which it really just isn't... I would love to here you bash this concept on grounds of general "freedom" and explain how you are working to elect a man who will defend you b/c he feels it isn't freedom to have a mandate.

Well you should probably get over that.

LOL you are so mad. Keep on raging.

For one thing if I ever said it "doesn't address costs" then I simply misspoke. It clearly does do things that address costs. My point was that the level of impact this Bill will have on cost is debatable and that's an area for fair game. Like I've said over and over the basic reform in this bill will go to the cost of both insurance for the person as well as to the cost of service itself (the fee shifting the uninsured make happen)...and so and so on. The idea that healthCARE and healthINSURANCE are not intrinsically linked is absurd. One of the big things they're doing with medicare is implementing new experimental payment plans trying to coordinate change with the providers in a way that helps the natural movement from fee-for-service to fee-for-result. The idea being that the government being such a big spender is an ideal entity to lead the charge with these experimental payouts and hopefully the private sector can then adopt them (when of course the providers themselves are adjusted to take them which will take time). Reforming the system of CARE through reform targeted at INSURANCE is just the way it is going to be done. What do you want caps on rates doctors can charge? (I already know the answer to that so don't bother I'm just making a point...this is how it will be done...reforming the CARE through the method of payment...unless of course you do want a cap on service charges... ) First off if part of that response is basically saying "I like that people can't see doctors b/c I want to and there aren't enough"...I can't really address that. Secondly pages and pages back I described how I see the insurance market reforming (with the main focus that we will have to shift form a fee-for-service to fee-for-outcome payments system and then we have to make individual patients put more skin in the game so they actually shop and the market for the services they actually do need functions more like an actual free market). That change (which will happen btw it's just slow moving and we are really only just now starting to move that way) will put a larger demand in the service market for general practitioners and lower the demand for specialists.

Doc the idea is that uninsured ER visits will magically decrease, b/c the mandate has pushed more people into the market. And part of it is that yes, many ER visits can be avoided by preventative care which is mandatory under the insurance reforms, so the would-be non-insured person in the ER w/ a huge bill he can't pay is now someone who either 1) got the preventative care they needed under their insurance and avoided the costly ER visit or 2) is in the ER w/ insurance. Will there still be some people in the ER who simply have no insurance? Yes. Point is not as much. Everyone constantly attacks this Bill as if it has to be perfect. NO BILL IS PERFECT! Oh the mandate won't work on everyone...ok well it will work on most people according to the damn insurance companies that support it and other places it is in effect. Oh there will will still be some people that end up being diagnosed w/ an ongoing illness while uninsured who then receive help managing the condition while insured at a later date...no **** until we go to single payer that can never COMPLETELY be eliminated. The point is can it work? The answer is clearly yes. Can it start as in and be tweeked? Yes. Is "the government can't do anything right" a valid excuse for not reforming an industry that is bankrupting us? No. blah blah...and so on and so on... What freedom are you so concerned about? The freedom to not purchase health insurance? Guess what...it's chalked up right there with the millions of other freedoms that you don't actually have. It's bankrupting the country, so you have to buy it. Don't like it? Then push for a true public option. Don't like the public option? Then deal w/ the mandate. Don't like either? Then propose something different that could work or suck it up. We have to do something. We aren't doing nothing about this anymore. BTW as you point out over and over saying it won't actually compel many more people into the market (which nobody else agrees with)...if you refuse to comply you pay a tax penalty. So don't comply...and pay your damn tax. Wow you are so oppressed b/c you pay a tax penalty for not doing something the government wants you to do. Your rights have changed over night that has never happened in American history before....

Hold on here for a minute now. What I'm saying first and foremost is to refute the argument that people are going to realize they need care, then sign up, then forward the bills onto the insurance company. My point there is that it's not just a free for all in that way, you are still subjecting yourself to huge risk still by not having insurance. You will not be allowed to just sign up w/ no limitations 5 minutes before surgery, and obviously nobody will pay you back after these bills come in. As far as completely eliminating all costs associated with free riders developing preexisting conditions while they are not insured and then becoming insured after the fact...that is impossible unless we go to single payer anybody can see that. Point being people need insurance (sick or not) and the only way to keep it private (which conservatives want) is to compel many more people into the market so the numbers work. As for my claim that there is something that makes you unable to buy it at any point? That's the insurance company. They are subject to guarantee issue yes, but they may restrict enrollment to open/special periods subject to rules that will be promulgated by the secretary of HHS. As for confusing the group regulation with individual purchases just go back and read the section I posted from the ACA addressing it. Group and Individual right there together in the enrollment provision. The reason it isn't a significant step backwards is b/c you can't be refused (guaranteed issue) based on your preexisting conditions! Obviously that is a step forward from the individual view, no? The fact that he can't be insured 5 minutes before a heart transplant is not a step backwards that's just staying the same...and that will never change b/c that would be insanity (as we all agree I'm sure).

Clearly man on man is detestable. Clearly woman on woman is awesome so long as neither woman is butch. -Leviticus

Since you are correcting me I've noticed that a number of posters (not just you) don't understand the word is "emboldened." Just a small point to make sure I'm being a sufficient jackass in this response. As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured. As for B-Man and the tea party...lol As for 3rdnlng...do some looking around and educate yourself there's stuff everywhere. I'm not doing homework for you. I already know that mandate being toothless is not a big concern. If you insist it is, then you provide all these links you fixate on. Or just go ahead and refute the facts I have given whatever...point is I'm not making stuff up and never have been. Also I even went back and saw you edit some post accusing me of quoting you but changing the text in the quote! LOL...sorry dude...I don't know what your weird little mind does but that never happened.

The act does some significant reworking of both medicare and medicade (a big part of why it's so large). Of course it doesn't touch SS that has nothing to do with it and that's untouchable politically anyway (by anyone).