(06-16-2019 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-16-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-16-2019 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-16-2019 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.
And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.
You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.
Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.
One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.
But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.
Good fing grief.
The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.
I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.
Let's see - I've acknowledged that choices have been reduced. I've held that your original statement that choice is extinct is incorrect. Yes, I'm the one digging in, not you...
I guess you do not understand the comment that "Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three."
I would definitely call the reduction of a population from *thousands* (if not tens of thousands) an extinction event.
Literally the vast vast vast vast vast majority of choices ceased to exist.
What the **** do *you* call that event in lad-world?
But feel free to fing downplay the scope of that event in your fing cha cha cha dissembly. You are doing such a fing rich job of it, why stop now? A 'minor reduction' perhaps?
Funny thing is that the 'extinction' terminology is precisely the term my friends and colleagues in medium sized insurance industry refer to the ACA as. Perhaps I should set up an appointment for you to lecture these 30+ year industry professionals on their word usage? Come to think of it, your approximately 1 year of being alive when they started their professions should insulate you as the crack expert on how they term it, shouldnt it. Should I forward your name on to them for their re-education?
For the fifth (?) time - you said there was no choice. That is patently false. I am insured through my employer. There are still private plans. There are plans offered on the marketplace. There are also government plans.
We are not at a point where everyone is insured the same way.
You can keep arguing against points I'm not making, and I could care less how you define extinction events, whether you think me saying that choice was reduced is not the right way to describe one of the negative aspects of the ACA, and so on. This all started with your initial statement that is patently false:
Quote:...they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual..
You're the one dancing the jig away from your statement - you've not once admitted you were wrong and just keep trying to attack my statements instead.
I have -- I have admitted one is not three. I dont see the major league difference in the distinction of 'no choice from ten thousand' as opposed to 'three choices from ten thousand', but apparently in lad-world that is a *major* fing difference. Got it. Loud and clear.
Then the offer is made that to have a choice -- get a job-based insurance plan that has added bells and whistles.
But what is seemingly overlooked, is for private insurance offerings the three levels are *mandates* on the companies on what precisely has to be sold.
Or is the issue that it wasnt a 'mandate' but "found" to be a tax? Again, this turns to the previous comments abut taxes and wielding power, son.
*That* is a major difference you Sherlock Holmes, you. All the difference.
Yep, for private insurance the selection is a three whole ******* choices from the tens of thousands available pre-ACA --- that doesnt seem to be the major fing difference you seeingly want to preen about. But extinction seems to be hyperbolic for that reduction in population. Solution -- get a W2 job.
I mean, accept the fact that your side has no issue making industries extinct, drastically limiting choices in products, and mandating what everyone *must* purchase. Embrace it. It *is* your side.
But, dont dance on fing pinhead and say that there is anywhere near the level of fing choice pre-ACA and post-ACA. Not even close to the level. Is it that fing hard for you to do?
Or still dance on that lad-world pinhead, you know, the one that somehow expertly 'knows' that 3000 people are booing at one candidate for an absolutely fing absurd reason that it 'makes a mockery of a valued Democratic position and plays into rightie talking points' -- I am still in awe of your absolutely worldly certainty on that issue.
Being able to read the minds of 3000 people for one comment, then distinguish the same reaction to a closely related comment is impressive. When are you going to drop this board some stock tips with that Edgar Cayce-esque prescience?
But this one that is trying to cha cha cha your way out of the utter and almost absolute reduction of choice effectuated by the ACA really has to go into a lad-world top 10. <clap>
As I noted before -- good fing god.
But at least you havent invoked the 'gaziklion and fifty eight people that went in bankruptcy' argument in the last day or so. Nothing like an 'its for the kids' emotional response to defend the fing Santa Claus aspects that you push for that are borne on everyone else's back -- both financially and in the aspect of freedom of choices in commerce.