B-Large Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 It's just a cover the GOP's ass move. The Party of No wants to pretend they have an alternative for Obamacare, they don't really. Imagine if this came up for debate, the Tea Party would freak out over universal care. They don't want the poor to be helped, they think the poor get too much already. Where was the outrage over Bush's prescription drug bill(Over a Trillion Dollars) No where, it was for the elderly, not specifically the poor, and it was from a Republican President. a few thoughts: 1. I do think Tea Partiers might be miffed about universal coverage, but that is an idealogical stumbling block with limited govermment. 2. I don't think they hate the poor, they just differ on routes to help the poor- theyre proposal are less immediate and feel good, but but in the end get people off assitance quicker and for longer. 3. Liberals hated Bush's passage of the Medicare Part D- it was called a handout to Drug Compaines... to my knowledge is continues to help seniors and has come in under budget. What I really see as the difference between this and ACA? It's 44 pages. 44 !@#$ing pages!!! Chef, its the proposal not the legislation- with congressional law formatting this proposal would be hundreds of pages long.. just being fair here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Chef, its the proposal not the legislation- with congressional law formatting this proposal would be hundreds of pages long.. just being fair here. No kidding. I forgot to deliver that with sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) a few thoughts: 1. I do think Tea Partiers might be miffed about universal coverage, but that is an idealogical stumbling block with limited govermment. 2. I don't think they hate the poor, they just differ on routes to help the poor- theyre proposal are less immediate and feel good, but but in the end get people off assitance quicker and for longer. 3. Liberals hated Bush's passage of the Medicare Part D- it was called a handout to Drug Compaines... to my knowledge is continues to help seniors and has come in under budget. 1. It's a hate based ideology 2. Yes they do 3. That's not the questions, why didn't Conservatives hate that spending like they did Obamacare? A trillion dollars and nothing from our "fiscally responsible" crowd?? Come on, what, they were too busy cheering on massive spending on the Iraq War to notice? Edited August 9, 2013 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 1. It's a hate based ideology 2. Yes they do 3. That's not the questions, why didn't Conservatives hate that spending like they did Obamacare? A trillion dollars and nothing from our "fiscally responsible" crowd?? Come on, what, they were too busy cheering on massive spending on the Iraq War to notice? And your answers to 1 and 2 are based on what? And be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 No kidding. I forgot to deliver that with sarcasm. I figured as much.... 1. It's a hate based ideology 2. Yes they do 3. That's not the questions, why didn't Conservatives hate that spending like they did Obamacare? A trillion dollars and nothing from our "fiscally responsible" crowd?? Come on, what, they were too busy cheering on massive spending on the Iraq War to notice? 1. I don't agree- while I do believe the Tea Party and Conservative Group has hateful, racist, bigoted people on the Rolls, my neighbors are Democrats and won't even speak to us, because we are white. How do I know? Because they talk with every black neighbor, and won't speak to a white one... to me, that's racist... so you get them in both crowds. 2. I disgree, I think Tea Partiers feel good jobs relieve poverty, and does the incentive to get up everyday and work. Now if you want to debate the best way to create jobs, that is a whole different discussion. 3. You will still see a few "tight-asses" here B word and whine about the PPACA, AEI or any other HCR pricetag. What else would they do with their day after they take their Centrum Silver and their big dose of Senecot? And your answers to 1 and 2 are based on what? And be specific. Cuz he Sayz So Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 And your answers to 1 and 2 are based on what? And be specific. He's right. I hate everyone. It fuels my power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I figured as much.... Do you didn't. He's right. I hate everyone. It fuels my power. Well I hate everyone too but that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 a few thoughts: 1. I do think Tea Partiers might be miffed about universal coverage, but that is an idealogical stumbling block with limited govermment. 2. I don't think they hate the poor, they just differ on routes to help the poor- theyre proposal are less immediate and feel good, but but in the end get people off assitance quicker and for longer. 3. Liberals hated Bush's passage of the Medicare Part D- it was called a handout to Drug Compaines... to my knowledge is continues to help seniors and has come in under budget. Alright "B"...................turn in your liberal "papers"..................you're obviously not right in the head. no wonder your enlightened neighbors won't speak with you.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 1. I don't agree- while I do believe the Tea Party and Conservative Group has hateful, racist, bigoted people on the Rolls Every bit as much as Democrats and Progressive groups have hateful, racist, bigoted people on the rolls. Hateful, racist bigots don't toe party line, and to try to pinpoint those attributes to a political party is the work of a pathetically lazy mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 a few thoughts: 1. I do think Tea Partiers might be miffed about universal coverage, but that is an idealogical stumbling block with limited govermment. 2. I don't think they hate the poor, they just differ on routes to help the poor- theyre proposal are less immediate and feel good, but but in the end get people off assitance quicker and for longer. 3. Liberals hated Bush's passage of the Medicare Part D- it was called a handout to Drug Compaines... to my knowledge is continues to help seniors and has come in under budget. ignoring the first two points since both are pure conjecture and can neither be proved or disproved, lets move on to the third point. medicare part d omitted and strictly prohibited gov't negotiations of drug prices, widely agreed to be the most effective way to lower drug costs and deliver effective drugs to seniors at reduced cost. this omission can be seen as nothing other than a gift to big pharma. additionally, as gator pointed out, this was a huge on going fiscal expense with no significant offsetting revenue. seems a bit schizophrenic to applaud this while bashing the aca on the same grounds. Alright "B"...................turn in your liberal "papers"..................you're obviously not right in the head. no wonder your enlightened neighbors won't speak with you.......... so, can we now document that you feel the us health care system's outcomes are generally lacking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 Alright "B"...................turn in your liberal "papers"..................you're obviously not right in the head. no wonder your enlightened neighbors won't speak with you.......... Do I turn those in at the closest government office??? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) ignoring the first two points since both are pure conjecture and can neither be proved or disproved, lets move on to the third point. (This response sure says a lot about you, too scared to even contemplate those statements in your little world, huh?) so, can we now document that you feel the us health care system's outcomes are generally lacking? No actually that was just a joking response to Mr. Large, your desperation is showing...................lol . Edited August 10, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 No actually that was just a joking response to Mr. Large, your desperation is showing...................lol . so about those outcomes..? desperation and exasperation are 2 very different things. but carry on imagining your own creativity and original thoughts. it's still the same mousetrap and you still haven't caught on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 so about those outcomes..? desperation and exasperation are 2 very different things. but carry on imagining your own creativity and original thoughts. it's still the same mousetrap and you still haven't caught on. Your arrogance and faux moral superiority are quite laughable after your post regarding Rick Perry and the "!@#$head" sign found on hunting land that his family leased. It turned out to be something quite different than what you claimed. Your intellectual dishonesty has become quite apparent here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 I never once said that reform didn't need to happen/that the US doesn't spend a lot per capita. What I did say is that the reports claiming that the US has worse health care compared to other industrialized nations with socialized medicine are spurious and reflect situations unique to the US and stupid criteria that are unrelated to health care by WHO, as well as differences in reporting, eg. infant mortality. John Stossel and others have done reports on this. What I have also said is that without the same system as other countries, i.e. free medical school, revamped tort system, and socializing medically-related companies, you can't say "well, it works there, it can work here." Not that it's working there since they have to ration and are still facing problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 gaterman, do you have your hand on your whazisname when you type this drivel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) Your arrogance and faux moral superiority are quite laughable after your post regarding Rick Perry and the "!@#$head" sign found on hunting land that his family leased. It turned out to be something quite different than what you claimed. Your intellectual dishonesty has become quite apparent here. let's see it. " turned out" meaning what exactly? link to the definitive source. i'm betting what you and i define as definitive differs widely. I never once said that reform didn't need to happen/that the US doesn't spend a lot per capita. What I did say is that the reports claiming that the US has worse health care compared to other industrialized nations with socialized medicine are spurious and reflect situations unique to the US and stupid criteria that are unrelated to health care by WHO, as well as differences in reporting, eg. infant mortality. John Stossel and others have done reports on this. What I have also said is that without the same system as other countries, i.e. free medical school, revamped tort system, and socializing medically-related companies, you can't say "well, it works there, it can work here." Not that it's working there since they have to ration and are still facing problems. so are our systems overall outcomes better, worse or equal to the top performing systems? simple question. Edited August 10, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 let's see it. " turned out" meaning what exactly? link to the definitive source. i'm betting what you and i define as definitive differs widely. so are our systems overall outcomes better, worse or equal to the top performing systems? simple question. You pretty much indicated that Perry's "lodge" was named "!@#$head". It turned out that land that his family leased hunting rights on had a rock with the name "!@#$head" painted on it. When they found out about it they painted over it and eventually turned it over. Schit like this is why I haven't been around to discuss things with you for quite some time. You are constantly distorting and twisting things. All you are is a partisan hack, and in being so, make it impossible for you to convince others here that there may be some validity in your arguments. So, nobody is ever going to get to the crux of your argument because your blind allegiance to "progressive" doucheness has convinced everyone here of your intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 Your arrogance and faux moral superiority are quite laughable after your post regarding Rick Perry and the "!@#$head" sign found on hunting land that his family leased. It turned out to be something quite different than what you claimed. Your intellectual dishonesty has become quite apparent here. Come on 3rdrate cut Birdog a break he probably got his information from a conservative like Herman Cain and you know how those conservatives are- a bunch of pathological liars . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 so are our systems overall outcomes better, worse or equal to the top performing systems? simple question. When you correct for the differences, it's better. And a driver of innovation. All of which lead to greater costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts