JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Karma's a B word ain't it? Note the bolded above and figure out what you did wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (like you did with jboyst) Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it??? Because it's an absolute perversion of the role of the federal government for it to force individuals to give their money to private companies. You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards. No, we don't "want it both ways". We don't cry when it cancels insurance policies, that's an absolutely false characterization. We point out that that's exactly what we said it would do, which is one of the reasons we opposed the law in the first place. And it's something the President vehemently denied would happen. We then complain that the Persident isn't following the law, because it's the law. So now tte President has done two things: destroyed healthcare delivery, and violated the Constitution. What we want is for the President to stop destroying heathcare, and to stop violating the Constitution. So with that in mind, are you saying that there is no way he can avoid destroying heathcare without violating the Constitution, or are you saying there is no way he can avoid violating the Constitution without destroying heathcare? This is the dillema you've created with your own assertions. There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare Given that you're they guy who just created the above false dillema, I'm not sure that you're any sort of authority figure on logic. Infact, given the absurdity of the dillema you're created, I can only arrive at the notion that you've embraced an ideology yourself, and are weilding it in lieu of logic. Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America. And one of those acceptable costs is the final destruction of Constitutional government and the seperation of powers? Also, you've now mentioned "affordable care". Provide non-ancedotal evidence of this affordable care. Heard that several states are putting their prison population on Obamacare. Well, that explains the uptick in the insured. Cruel and unusual punishment.
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos. No you ass, your condescending attitude towards others for the same thing is what caused me to point out your blunders. I don't review your posts for common grammar typos. I actually read your posts and your blunders stood out like a sore thumb. Are you ready for a Rick Santorum to have the same usurped powers as Obama?
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it??? You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards. There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America. So the individual mandate is the guts of the ACA, and delaying it a year would have doomed it... ...but now that it is delayed, the benefits still outweigh the costs? Doomed, but beneficial? Who, exactly, is being blindly partisan here?
IDBillzFan Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 So the individual mandate is the guts of the ACA, and delaying it a year would have doomed it... ...but now that it is delayed, the benefits still outweigh the costs? Doomed, but beneficial? Who, exactly, is being blindly partisan here? He's not even being blindly partisan. He's genuinely stupid enough to believe what he is arguing makes sense.
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements. This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work.
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements. This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work. Then it's not a mandate.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 JuanGuzman: I've noted that you've not responded to my posts.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations." Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer= If anybody ever needed an example of "moving the goalposts" here it is. We've left all sorts of "promises" and outcomes behind....that were central to the promised value of the law. If Obamacare was any other product: the FTC would have locked Pelosi, Bauchus, Waxman, Obama and everybody else involved in this conspiracy up, fined them into oblivion, and thrown away the key. If Obamacare was a stock: they'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff. But now, we are supposed to forget all the projected "value" that isn't coming true(ahem, 31 million remain uninsured), and be happy with what we bought, because it lets some people get over on others? Are...you...high? Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. Krugman is a hack to the point that other academics have come out now and questioned his academic cred. There was a time when he intimidated, but, his own posts have been his undoing. It's only going to get worse now that the University of Chicago guys have said: enough is enough. and people have the gall to wonder why the GOP doesn't trust the administration... I consider MadCap to be a fairly good representation of "undecided" and "independent". Hey Dims: how much do you want to bet that this is the general impression of most of the independents, undecideds, "not much interest in politics" demographic, which btw, almost always decide elections?
JuanGuzman Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) JuanGuzman: I've noted that you've not responded to my posts. Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray. here is my response: First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government. Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example. Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers. Here are the stats on executive order: So what if the President does executive orders! Did not prior presidents do the same thing? Yes and no! George Washington did 8, John Adams 1, Thomas Jefferson 4, James Madison 1, James Monroe 1, John Quincy Adams 3, and Andrew Jackson 12. The first seven presidents totaled 30 executive orders over forty-seven years. The most recent seven presidents Barack Obama 168, George W. Bush 291, William J. Clinton 364, George Bush 166, Ronald Reagan 381, Jimmy Carter 320, and Gerald R. Ford 169 totaled 1,859, over forty years — sixty-two times as many. Obviously something has radically changed. http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.html Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare? Edited February 8, 2014 by JuanGuzman
DC Tom Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray. here is my response: First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government. Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example. Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers. Here are the stats on executive order: http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.html Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare? All you've managed to do is demonstrate you're a total idiot. Do you even understand that the president is bound by the law?
JuanGuzman Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act. Interesting. Obama has already chosen not to do so, yet you still have faith that he will. I suppose that's what this entire debate comes down to: faith vs. fact, empirical evidence, reason, and business experience. How strange that the left finds itself on the faith side of things.
birdog1960 Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) He's not even being blindly partisan. He's genuinely stupid enough to believe what he is arguing makes sense. i thoroughly disagree with your assessment but would this not disqualify juan as a troll? How strange that the left finds itself on the faith side of things. not at all. there are many liberals of faith. that doesn't necessarily divorce us from reason. some would argue it links us more closely. Edited February 8, 2014 by birdog1960
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act. Then it falls to you to explain why the president threatened to veto a law suspending the individual mandate, and then issued, by dictate, a suspension of the I divi dual mandate. Speak to this.
IDBillzFan Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 i thoroughly disagree with your assessment but would this not disqualify juan as a troll? Absolutely. Trolls are intentionally stupid. Juan's is more natural. The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . So the plan was to mandate participation, but make the penalty for failing to comply less than $8 a month, and only collectible if you are due an IRS refund. Clearly this plan was devised by people with a wealth of private sector business experience.
Doc Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act. Did you really just type that?
meazza Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579367143880532248
3rdnlng Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 http://online.wsj.co...367143880532248 From your link: "The Keynesian economists who dominate Mr. Obama's Washington are preoccupied by demand, and their explanation for persistently high post-recession unemployment is weak demand for goods and thus demand for labor. Mr. Mulligan, by contrast, studies the supply of labor and attributes the state of the economy in large part to the expansion of the entitlement and welfare state, such as the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. As these benefits were enriched and extended to more people by the stimulus, he argues in his 2012 book "The Redistribution Recession," they were responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more."
meazza Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 From your link: "The Keynesian economists who dominate Mr. Obama's Washington are preoccupied by demand, and their explanation for persistently high post-recession unemployment is weak demand for goods and thus demand for labor. Mr. Mulligan, by contrast, studies the supply of labor and attributes the state of the economy in large part to the expansion of the entitlement and welfare state, such as the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. As these benefits were enriched and extended to more people by the stimulus, he argues in his 2012 book "The Redistribution Recession," they were responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more." To be honest I can't possibly imagine wanting to remain poor/low income to receive benefits but that's just me.
Recommended Posts