I would much rather know what is going on then being out of the process. You have a chance to influence things if you are involved. No chance if you are isolated.

yeah... they sure did let us know what was going on.

(06-17-2017 10:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would much rather know what is going on then being out of the process. You have a chance to influence things if you are involved. No chance if you are isolated.

I agree. And I think the current process is absolutely nuts. Republicans are going to own whatever problems arise.

But republicans had no more input to what actually got passed as Obamacare than democrats are having here. And letting them make a few technical amendments to a draft bill that isn't what was passed doesn't change that. That's why Obamacare sucks, and that's why whatever republicans come up with is going to suck.

Let's just agree that what's going on now is both bad and stupid.

(06-17-2017 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 10:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would much rather know what is going on then being out of the process. You have a chance to influence things if you are involved. No chance if you are isolated.

I agree. And I think the current process is absolutely nuts. Republicans are going to own whatever problems arise.

But republicans had no more input to what actually got passed as Obamacare than democrats are having here. And letting them make a few technical amendments to a draft bill that isn't what was passed doesn't change that. That's why Obamacare sucks, and that's why whatever republicans come up with is going to suck.

Let's just agree that what's going on now is both bad and stupid.

This 2x

Here's the thing that partisan hacks (and you know whom I mean) can't seem to get through their heads... because they're more interested in appearances than anything else.... and claiming to be 'right' by manipulating the question to SOUND meaningful, but not actually be so....

When the ACA was passed, I had dozens, even hundreds of suggestions as to how to fix many of the obvious flaws.... I wasn't included in the process that set the stage for the ACA, but I certainly would have been included in 'amendments' to it and details.... because I'm an expert in the subject... so someone could claim that I was consulted on the issue and some of my ideas actually might have been incorporated into the final package...

However... If you had started asking for my input before you decided what the general framework was going to look like, I would have had completely different suggestions. The ACA is a pile of crap. It can be improved, but it can't be fixed. The only way to FIX it is to eliminate many of the key components of it... and THOSE are the things that Democrats didn't consult Republicans on.

I said at least 2 years ago, Republicans needed now to find some way to keep the Democrat passed taxes and spend the money differently... and that is EXACTLY what you've heard being tossed around... Because Democrats made promises and didn't fulfill them.

It's like when a couple decides on buying a car or Truck. If you actually negotiate and consult with each other, you probably end up with an SUV or crossover. If it is predetermined that one opinion 'has the votes', in this case, let's say the car... then all the other side can do is try and make sure the car has a large trunk and that a trailer hitch with a 250lb tongue weight can be welded onto it.

If you conclude that this means that the side that wanted a truck was consulted, you might technically be correct... but only AFTER the primary decision was made to buy a car.

Then when you put it to a vote, despite being consulted on 'what kind of car' you end up with, you STILL don't vote for it because you know damn well that you really need a truck. Sure, a car with a large trunk and a tiny hitch is better than a Smart4Two, but it's not anything remotely LIKE a Truck... which is what you think you really need.

So... you can weld an entirely new frame onto the car to make it do what a truck does... and 'fix' it... or you can just sell it and go buy a truck... or better, compromise and get an SUV/Crossover like you should have done in the first place but didn't because 'elections have consequences'.

Get back to me when you are willing to discuss tort reform. Until then, go get your ****** shoeshine box.

Hey Billy........

Maybe you haven't heard. I don't shine shoes anymore.

You insulted him. You did a little bit.

(06-17-2017 08:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 08:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a half true because the guy said hundreds of amendments were approved. That's a far far cry from them being shut out of the process like Owl claimed. Look you either side on the falsehood or the truth. It's not a half truth. They were involved. Nothing like it is today. Stop the lies. That's all I am saying.

Im not really concerned with this pissing contest issue Mach. All I know is the ACA was a disaster and the Left owns it. I expect a similar result will occur with what the GOP will put forth. They also will own it. I hold BOTH gangs equally responsible for me having to pay almost 7 grand a year more now than I did before. BOTH sides can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned on this issue.

I suppose you'll never hold the for-profit insurance industry responsible for any of it then?

(06-18-2017 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here's the thing that partisan hacks (and you know whom I mean) can't seem to get through their heads... because they're more interested in appearances than anything else.... and claiming to be 'right' by manipulating the question to SOUND meaningful, but not actually be so....

When the ACA was passed, I had dozens, even hundreds of suggestions as to how to fix many of the obvious flaws.... I wasn't included in the process that set the stage for the ACA, but I certainly would have been included in 'amendments' to it and details.... because I'm an expert in the subject... so someone could claim that I was consulted on the issue and some of my ideas actually might have been incorporated into the final package...

However... If you had started asking for my input before you decided what the general framework was going to look like, I would have had completely different suggestions. The ACA is a pile of crap. It can be improved, but it can't be fixed. The only way to FIX it is to eliminate many of the key components of it... and THOSE are the things that Democrats didn't consult Republicans on.

I said at least 2 years ago, Republicans needed now to find some way to keep the Democrat passed taxes and spend the money differently... and that is EXACTLY what you've heard being tossed around... Because Democrats made promises and didn't fulfill them.

It's like when a couple decides on buying a car or Truck. If you actually negotiate and consult with each other, you probably end up with an SUV or crossover. If it is predetermined that one opinion 'has the votes', in this case, let's say the car... then all the other side can do is try and make sure the car has a large trunk and that a trailer hitch with a 250lb tongue weight can be welded onto it.

If you conclude that this means that the side that wanted a truck was consulted, you might technically be correct... but only AFTER the primary decision was made to buy a car.

Then when you put it to a vote, despite being consulted on 'what kind of car' you end up with, you STILL don't vote for it because you know damn well that you really need a truck. Sure, a car with a large trunk and a tiny hitch is better than a Smart4Two, but it's not anything remotely LIKE a Truck... which is what you think you really need.

So... you can weld an entirely new frame onto the car to make it do what a truck does... and 'fix' it... or you can just sell it and go buy a truck... or better, compromise and get an SUV/Crossover like you should have done in the first place but didn't because 'elections have consequences'.

Stand back folks...he's an "expert"!

How much you wanna bet all those who crafted the nuts and bolts of the ACA and those who are now crafting the nuts and bolts of the AHCA also fancy themselves as "experts"?



But the funniest part is that the Democrats did not consult the the Republicans on key components...you know...like the individual mandate!

And the biggest flaw in this "expert" analysis is the fantasy of democrats and republicans working together on the ACA or anything major...you know...like they did throughout the entire presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

Finally, nice tap dance of calling Mach a name without directly doing so as to avoid a violation. Sad. But hey...at least you're not interested in appearances are you? Mr. "Expert".

(06-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stand back folks...he's an "expert"!
How much you wanna bet all those who crafted the nuts and bolts of the ACA and those who are now crafting the nuts and bolts of the AHCA also fancy themselves as "experts"?

There are people who fancy themselves as experts, and there are people that others know to be in fact experts. Hambone fits in the latter category. So do I, for what it's worth, but that's not the subject here.

Quote:But the funniest part is that the Democrats did not consult the the Republicans on key components...you know...like the individual mandate!

They didn't. Or at least they didn't take anything republicans told them into consideration, or include it in the final bill.

There's this false narrative that the individual mandate was a republican idea, apparently because the Heritage plan included a mandate. It wasn't really anybody's idea, it was the solution to a problem. If you are going to require coverage of preexisting conditions, you need some way to eliminate the free rider problem. A mandate is one way to accomplish that, so it's not something that arises on its own, but a way to address the problem inherent in pre-existing condition coverage.

The Heritage plan did include a mandate, but it was very different from the Obamacare mandate. The Heritage mandate was offset by a large tax credit. If you recall, one of the criticisms of the Heritage plan would be that it would be harder for poor, or particularly unemployed, people to be able to take advantage of a credit contemporaneously with having to make premium payments. Obamacare did not include the tax credit, so it was no conceptually the same. The Heritage tax credit was large enough to encourage participation, while the Obamacare penalties for nonycoverage are not. Mainly, they just hurt people who can't afford insurance. You can say that just by using the word mandate, Obamacare incorporated republican ideas. But without actually incorporating the concept, it's really just using a word.

Democrats did not offer compromises to republicans in order to try to get their votes. They had to compromise with democrats in order to get their votes.

Quote:And the biggest flaw in this "expert" analysis is the fantasy of democrats and republicans working together on the ACA or anything major...you know...like they did throughout the entire presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

So let me get this straight, democrats consulted republicans on major provisions of Obamacare, but the idea of working together on anything major is a joke? How do you square those two statements?

FWIW, I am in total agreement with current criticism of republicans for the way they are handling health care. What we need is a thorough analysis of various alternatives used throughout the world, to determine what works best and adopt those best practices. Republicans are not doing that; democrats didn't either when drafting Obamacare.

This article argues the whole problem is what Obamacare tried to make universal-Health insurance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opini...inion&_r=1

"The problem with American health care is not the care. It’s the insurance.

Both parties have stumbled to enact comprehensive health care reform because they insist on patching up a rickety, malfunctioning model. The insurance company model drives up prices and fragments care. Rather than rejecting this jerry-built structure, the Democrats’ Obamacare legislation simply added a cracked support beam or two. The Republican bill will knock those out to focus on spackling other dilapidated parts of the system...."

To op (Tom):

While I can certainly believe FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) are contributing to higher premiums ... ObamaCare itself was a half baked deliberately-hidden-from-public-and-passed-in-secret-before-analysts-could-even-read-the-bill abomination. The act itself is totally indefensible and has failed to deliver upon literally EVERY promise it made as far as I'm concerned. It has been the biggest blow to the healthcare system in this country since FDR began the unholy marriage of employer and health insurance during WWII. As such trying to pillory the GOP for somehow being the downfall of the bill is at best deceitful at worst deliberately deceptive.

If you want to pillory the GOP for healthcare ... do it where they've richly earned it: their cowardice in having real vision for real reform. There's maybe .... MAYYYYYBE .... two dozen GOP members of Congress counting both chambers who either have put forward or supported real plans for real reform. The most well known of which is Rand Paul's bill.

An argument that is essentially, "it would work if you would just trust us" is never good.

(06-19-2017 09:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 08:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 08:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a half true because the guy said hundreds of amendments were approved. That's a far far cry from them being shut out of the process like Owl claimed. Look you either side on the falsehood or the truth. It's not a half truth. They were involved. Nothing like it is today. Stop the lies. That's all I am saying.

Im not really concerned with this pissing contest issue Mach. All I know is the ACA was a disaster and the Left owns it. I expect a similar result will occur with what the GOP will put forth. They also will own it. I hold BOTH gangs equally responsible for me having to pay almost 7 grand a year more now than I did before. BOTH sides can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned on this issue.

I suppose you'll never hold the for-profit insurance industry responsible for any of it then?

No. Because the ACA banned our company plan because it did not meet its "standards" and I had to go on out on my own and buy an individual policy. We had a lousy..but..inexpensive plan before. What I have now? A lousy expensive plan.

(06-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here's the thing that partisan hacks (and you know whom I mean) can't seem to get through their heads... because they're more interested in appearances than anything else.... and claiming to be 'right' by manipulating the question to SOUND meaningful, but not actually be so....

When the ACA was passed, I had dozens, even hundreds of suggestions as to how to fix many of the obvious flaws.... I wasn't included in the process that set the stage for the ACA, but I certainly would have been included in 'amendments' to it and details.... because I'm an expert in the subject... so someone could claim that I was consulted on the issue and some of my ideas actually might have been incorporated into the final package...

However... If you had started asking for my input before you decided what the general framework was going to look like, I would have had completely different suggestions. The ACA is a pile of crap. It can be improved, but it can't be fixed. The only way to FIX it is to eliminate many of the key components of it... and THOSE are the things that Democrats didn't consult Republicans on.

I said at least 2 years ago, Republicans needed now to find some way to keep the Democrat passed taxes and spend the money differently... and that is EXACTLY what you've heard being tossed around... Because Democrats made promises and didn't fulfill them.

It's like when a couple decides on buying a car or Truck. If you actually negotiate and consult with each other, you probably end up with an SUV or crossover. If it is predetermined that one opinion 'has the votes', in this case, let's say the car... then all the other side can do is try and make sure the car has a large trunk and that a trailer hitch with a 250lb tongue weight can be welded onto it.

If you conclude that this means that the side that wanted a truck was consulted, you might technically be correct... but only AFTER the primary decision was made to buy a car.

Then when you put it to a vote, despite being consulted on 'what kind of car' you end up with, you STILL don't vote for it because you know damn well that you really need a truck. Sure, a car with a large trunk and a tiny hitch is better than a Smart4Two, but it's not anything remotely LIKE a Truck... which is what you think you really need.

So... you can weld an entirely new frame onto the car to make it do what a truck does... and 'fix' it... or you can just sell it and go buy a truck... or better, compromise and get an SUV/Crossover like you should have done in the first place but didn't because 'elections have consequences'.

Stand back folks...he's an "expert"!

How much you wanna bet all those who crafted the nuts and bolts of the ACA and those who are now crafting the nuts and bolts of the AHCA also fancy themselves as "experts"?



But the funniest part is that the Democrats did not consult the the Republicans on key components...you know...like the individual mandate!

And the biggest flaw in this "expert" analysis is the fantasy of democrats and republicans working together on the ACA or anything major...you know...like they did throughout the entire presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

Finally, nice tap dance of calling Mach a name without directly doing so as to avoid a violation. Sad. But hey...at least you're not interested in appearances are you? Mr. "Expert".

The smug superiority is strong with this one.

(06-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here's the thing that partisan hacks (and you know whom I mean) can't seem to get through their heads... because they're more interested in appearances than anything else.... and claiming to be 'right' by manipulating the question to SOUND meaningful, but not actually be so....

When the ACA was passed, I had dozens, even hundreds of suggestions as to how to fix many of the obvious flaws.... I wasn't included in the process that set the stage for the ACA, but I certainly would have been included in 'amendments' to it and details.... because I'm an expert in the subject... so someone could claim that I was consulted on the issue and some of my ideas actually might have been incorporated into the final package...

However... If you had started asking for my input before you decided what the general framework was going to look like, I would have had completely different suggestions. The ACA is a pile of crap. It can be improved, but it can't be fixed. The only way to FIX it is to eliminate many of the key components of it... and THOSE are the things that Democrats didn't consult Republicans on.

I said at least 2 years ago, Republicans needed now to find some way to keep the Democrat passed taxes and spend the money differently... and that is EXACTLY what you've heard being tossed around... Because Democrats made promises and didn't fulfill them.

It's like when a couple decides on buying a car or Truck. If you actually negotiate and consult with each other, you probably end up with an SUV or crossover. If it is predetermined that one opinion 'has the votes', in this case, let's say the car... then all the other side can do is try and make sure the car has a large trunk and that a trailer hitch with a 250lb tongue weight can be welded onto it.

If you conclude that this means that the side that wanted a truck was consulted, you might technically be correct... but only AFTER the primary decision was made to buy a car.

Then when you put it to a vote, despite being consulted on 'what kind of car' you end up with, you STILL don't vote for it because you know damn well that you really need a truck. Sure, a car with a large trunk and a tiny hitch is better than a Smart4Two, but it's not anything remotely LIKE a Truck... which is what you think you really need.

So... you can weld an entirely new frame onto the car to make it do what a truck does... and 'fix' it... or you can just sell it and go buy a truck... or better, compromise and get an SUV/Crossover like you should have done in the first place but didn't because 'elections have consequences'.

Stand back folks...he's an "expert"!

How much you wanna bet all those who crafted the nuts and bolts of the ACA and those who are now crafting the nuts and bolts of the AHCA also fancy themselves as "experts"?



But the funniest part is that the Democrats did not consult the the Republicans on key components...you know...like the individual mandate!

And the biggest flaw in this "expert" analysis is the fantasy of democrats and republicans working together on the ACA or anything major...you know...like they did throughout the entire presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

Finally, nice tap dance of calling Mach a name without directly doing so as to avoid a violation. Sad. But hey...at least you're not interested in appearances are you? Mr. "Expert".

Says the guy who, 3 weeks ago, didnt know what a deductible was....

(06-19-2017 11:01 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To op (Tom):

While I can certainly believe FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) are contributing to higher premiums ... ObamaCare itself was a half baked deliberately-hidden-from-public-and-passed-in-secret-before-analysts-could-even-read-the-bill abomination. The act itself is totally indefensible and has failed to deliver upon literally EVERY promise it made as far as I'm concerned. It has been the biggest blow to the healthcare system in this country since FDR began the unholy marriage of employer and health insurance during WWII. As such trying to pillory the GOP for somehow being the downfall of the bill is at best deceitful at worst deliberately deceptive.

If you want to pillory the GOP for healthcare ... do it where they've richly earned it: their cowardice in having real vision for real reform. There's maybe .... MAYYYYYBE .... two dozen GOP members of Congress counting both chambers who either have put forward or supported real plans for real reform. The most well known of which is Rand Paul's bill.

They all fall into that category GTS...and are all to blame for not making real reform. They are doing the same thing with immigration. They simply cannot work together. That is a failure of leadership from Obama and also now from trump, in addition to Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan, Reid and McConnell, etc.

But as to your first comment that I bolded...no, that simply just does not comport with the facts. The ACA debate took basically a year and was covered virtually non-stop by the cable news media. Of course the public did not know every last detail, but that's a product of living under a representative republic, not something specific to an R or a D.

(06-19-2017 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here's the thing that partisan hacks (and you know whom I mean) can't seem to get through their heads... because they're more interested in appearances than anything else.... and claiming to be 'right' by manipulating the question to SOUND meaningful, but not actually be so....

When the ACA was passed, I had dozens, even hundreds of suggestions as to how to fix many of the obvious flaws.... I wasn't included in the process that set the stage for the ACA, but I certainly would have been included in 'amendments' to it and details.... because I'm an expert in the subject... so someone could claim that I was consulted on the issue and some of my ideas actually might have been incorporated into the final package...

However... If you had started asking for my input before you decided what the general framework was going to look like, I would have had completely different suggestions. The ACA is a pile of crap. It can be improved, but it can't be fixed. The only way to FIX it is to eliminate many of the key components of it... and THOSE are the things that Democrats didn't consult Republicans on.

I said at least 2 years ago, Republicans needed now to find some way to keep the Democrat passed taxes and spend the money differently... and that is EXACTLY what you've heard being tossed around... Because Democrats made promises and didn't fulfill them.

It's like when a couple decides on buying a car or Truck. If you actually negotiate and consult with each other, you probably end up with an SUV or crossover. If it is predetermined that one opinion 'has the votes', in this case, let's say the car... then all the other side can do is try and make sure the car has a large trunk and that a trailer hitch with a 250lb tongue weight can be welded onto it.

If you conclude that this means that the side that wanted a truck was consulted, you might technically be correct... but only AFTER the primary decision was made to buy a car.

Then when you put it to a vote, despite being consulted on 'what kind of car' you end up with, you STILL don't vote for it because you know damn well that you really need a truck. Sure, a car with a large trunk and a tiny hitch is better than a Smart4Two, but it's not anything remotely LIKE a Truck... which is what you think you really need.

So... you can weld an entirely new frame onto the car to make it do what a truck does... and 'fix' it... or you can just sell it and go buy a truck... or better, compromise and get an SUV/Crossover like you should have done in the first place but didn't because 'elections have consequences'.

Stand back folks...he's an "expert"!

How much you wanna bet all those who crafted the nuts and bolts of the ACA and those who are now crafting the nuts and bolts of the AHCA also fancy themselves as "experts"?



But the funniest part is that the Democrats did not consult the the Republicans on key components...you know...like the individual mandate!

And the biggest flaw in this "expert" analysis is the fantasy of democrats and republicans working together on the ACA or anything major...you know...like they did throughout the entire presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

Finally, nice tap dance of calling Mach a name without directly doing so as to avoid a violation. Sad. But hey...at least you're not interested in appearances are you? Mr. "Expert".

Says the guy who, 3 weeks ago, didnt know what a deductible was....

Wrong again. It was more than 3 weeks ago. Additionally, I explained already that I misspoke and was talking about co-insurance. I also corrected the record, owned up to my error and apologized because I have integrity. Something you will NEVER have.

BTW - Still waiting for you to own up to not actually owning a company and refusing to say how much you were actually paying for your insurance when you claimed someone was magically charging you just $15 for an expensive knee procedure because you apparently had an insurance plan with the same provider who sold Jack his beanstalk beans...lol

(06-19-2017 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are people who fancy themselves as experts, and there are people that others know to be in fact experts. Hambone fits in the latter category. So do I, for what it's worth, but that's not the subject here.

You two kill me.