Jump to content

Towards a New Progressivism?


Recommended Posts

 

The point was, as explained already, was that it was not the job killer its claimed to have been. Do you understand that? Please answer

 

 

How do you know? Maybe the unemployment rate would be even lower if not for ACA. Also the ACA is still in it's infancy and many of the challenges don't come until next year.

You did, in a slightly different phrased way. Mr Literal

 

No, I was just asking what you meant by talking about the drop in unemployment in the same sentence as the ACA and I would love to have you explain how you came to the conclusion they should be talked about in the same sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So how many people have insurance but not care? And what type of situations are you talking about?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/04/emergency-room-visits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/

 

 

Three-quarters of emergency physicians say they've seen ER patient visits surge since Obamacare took effect — just the opposite of what many Americans expected would happen.

[...]

A major reason that hasn't happened is there simply aren't enough primary care physicians to handle all the newly insured patients,

 

Just one example...

 

Now it's maybe. So in other words you have no clue (none of us do at this point) but you felt the need to throw something out there that you knew nothing about.

 

No, it's not "maybe." It's "yes, maybe." Don't you know the difference between "maybe" and "yes, maybe?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/04/emergency-room-visits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/

 

 

 

Just one example...

 

No, it's not "maybe." It's "yes, maybe." Don't you know the difference between "maybe" and "yes, maybe?"

A poll released today by the American College of Emergency Physicians shows that 28% of 2,099 doctors surveyed nationally saw large increases in volume, while 47% saw slight increases. By contrast, fewer than half of doctors reported any increases last year in the early days of the Affordable Care Act.

 

28% vs 47%?

 

Ok, but still, a lot of people still get health care--millions--because of Obamacare.

 

Now it's maybe. So in other words you have no clue (none of us do at this point) but you felt the need to throw something out there that you knew nothing about.

If no one has a clue why should I? Duh!

 

Seriously!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28% vs 47%?

 

Ok, but still, a lot of people still get health care--millions--because of Obamacare.

 

 

 

A major reason that hasn't happened is there simply aren't enough primary care physicians to handle all the newly insured patients,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my point was that ending Obamacare would end health care for millions. Point stands

 

Your point is completely !@#$ing idiotic, given that the discussion is about health insurance and health care being two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your point is completely !@#$ing idiotic, given that the discussion is about health insurance and health care being two different things.

 

Ah, the facts and details of obfuscation once again rear their head.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your point is completely !@#$ing idiotic, given that the discussion is about health insurance and health care being two different things.

 

The funny thing is his point is that without insurance no one would have health care. And the funnier thing is that I bet at some point in his pathetic little life he has accused insurance of being a huge scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The funny thing is his point is that without insurance no one would have health care. And the funnier thing is that I bet at some point in his pathetic little life he has accused insurance of being a huge scam.

When did I say that? Point that out.

 

So all you clowns pull apart every single word I say, interpret those words in the most perverse manner possible and pat your dumb asses on the back for it, and now you are making crap up.

 

Pathetic!

 

Your point is completely !@#$ing idiotic, given that the discussion is about health insurance and health care being two different things.

Is that what the discussion is about?

 

So you really think this has been a discussion about something aside from all you losers trying to make a gotcha point? Get real

 

Ah, the facts and details of obfuscation once again rear their head.....

Shoo fly

 

Be honest, you never had a point.

You mean like when you talk about "control"? No point like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what the discussion is about?

 

 

 

Your argument is that making it more expensive to employ workers doesn't discourage employing workers?

 

Further, heath insurance is not the same thing as health care.

 

 

2) What's your point here? Can you expand on this?

 

 

His point is: just because you give people health insurance, does NOT mean they therefore have access to health care.

 

 

What part of that exchange did you not understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like when you talk about "control"? No point like that?

 

No, because unlike you, when I discussed control in relation to illegal data collection, I had a point which was backed up with sources and facts. Because you're too busy trolling to understand the point (even when the answer is evident in the posts you quote) doesn't mean there isn't any point. But go on thinking you're making a point in this thread. You're doing a bang up job of it. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your point is completely !@#$ing idiotic, given that the discussion is about health insurance and health care being two different things.

And I don't think you proved your point very well. Yes, less than a third of doctors reported people WERE getting care but through the ER, and almost half said that number had dropped. But they were still getting care. Care.

 

The point that there is not enough doctors is a fair argument to a point. As of now there are not enough Primary Care docs in a few areas, but since the law is new, along with other factors--aging population--this seems like a temporary situation. More doctors from abroad, new technology and new ways of seeing the sick like with nurse practitioners and urgent cares will take care of that. Market forces in action. More money in the system is leading to the health care market adjusting.

 

The same argument was used against Romneycare but it never materialized.

 

No, because unlike you, when I discussed control in relation to illegal data collection, I had a point which was backed up with sources and facts. Because you're too busy trolling to understand the point (even when the answer is evident in the posts you quote) doesn't mean there isn't any point. But go on thinking you're making a point in this thread. You're doing a bang up job of it. :lol:

no you didn't, you spewed nonsense and threw out a few mindless emoticons. You are so weak.

 

Then what did you mean when you said ending Obamacare would end healthcare for millions? We're not twisting your words we're using your words.

I didn't mean this:

 

The funny thing is his point is that without insurance no one would have health care.

 

You made that up. Millions is not everyone. You need to make stuff up to argue, its the only way you can do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...