Trying to spread the same resources over a larger number of people.

One of three things will likely happen:

1. Costs will go up.
2. Quality will go down.
3. Both.

Yep. Helluva plan.

(04-25-2013 08:37 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start up your own thread and I'll comment on it. Let's get back to commenting on the article.

I'm instituting the Machiavelli rule. Don't tell me what we can't talk about. Your positions don't square. You're inconsistent and I was pointing that out.

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

I said the same thing. Machiavelli just bobs and weaves...

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

(04-25-2013 04:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Trying to spread the same resources over a larger number of people.

One of three things will likely happen:

1. Costs will go up.
2. Quality will go down.
3. Both.

Yep. Helluva plan.

You aren't factoring in the HopeChange fairy dust that Obama sprinkled on it, altering the laws of economics. Rookie mistake.

If you are a person with a pre existing condition the Affordable Health Care Law is a life saver. Literally.

The administration just hired a PR firm yesterday for $8,000,000 to push
Obamacare. Funny how they have to keep doing that.

(04-25-2013 08:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you are a person with a pre existing condition the Affordable Health Care Law is a life saver. Literally.

I didn't say the program was completely meritless. Hell, as a parent of a kid about to start college, I like the coverage to 26, as well.

But then chandelier in the ballroom of the Titanic was beautiful.

(04-26-2013 06:45 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you are a person with a pre existing condition the Affordable Health Care Law is a life saver. Literally.

I didn't say the program was completely meritless. Hell, as a parent of a kid about to start college, I like the coverage to 26, as well.
But then chandelier in the ballroom of the Titanic was beautiful.

Exactly.

And we could have had the good things without the bad, and with bipartisan support. Republicans were totally ready to sign on to a bill that included both those things and a few others.

But that's not what the left wanted. They wanted the bad crap, and knew it would never pass by itself, so they had to tie it to the few good things and then rave about them.

At least 80% of us will pay more to wait longer for worse health care. And the other 20% won't be any better off than they were before.

And Mach, I know you don't believe this yet, but your daughter would never have seen her first birthday under Obamacare. When the pressure comes to cut costs, with her needs she would very quickly become expendable. I am going to give you one piece of very serious advice. If she is continuing to need additional care, then you need to become VERY heavily involved in union and democrat politics in your area. Because the time is coming when you will need the political pull of a communist commissar if you expect her to be able to get the care she needs. Sorry if that offends, and you can call me a liar or whatever you feel like, but just wait and see.

(04-26-2013 06:45 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you are a person with a pre existing condition the Affordable Health Care Law is a life saver. Literally.

I didn't say the program was completely meritless. Hell, as a parent of a kid about to start college, I like the coverage to 26, as well.

But then chandelier in the ballroom of the Titanic was beautiful.

And Machiavelli reminds me of the violinist standing on the deck playing like nothing is happening while the ship sinks...

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

(04-25-2013 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start up your own thread and I'll comment on it. Let's get back to commenting on the article.

You mean you'll thread jack it talking about going into Iraq for oil?


In regards to your OP - essentially the story says "seniors are stupid, and got their diapers in a wad over Medicaid part B, so we should be so lucky that Obama passed the ACA because it's only about 10x as bad"

The ABSOLUTE DUMBEST logic I've ever read since registering on this board.

OWL....


You've known me long enough to know I would never call you a liar. Not my style.

(04-26-2013 07:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OWL....


You've known me long enough to know I would never call you a liar. Not my style.

You're style is to piss on Niners grave.....stay classy mach

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

(04-26-2013 07:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OWL....
You've known me long enough to know I would never call you a liar. Not my style.

Understand.

And I hope you realize that I feel very awkward making the comments about your daughter.

But please believe me when I say that it is precisely because of people in her situation that I oppose Obamacare. Those are the people who are going to be absolutely screwed when the IPAB and CCO and HCC fire up and are running.

I don't mean to offend, and apologize if I do, but I just think that needs to be said over and over. I hope people understand before it's too late.

"Republicans were totally ready to sign on to a bill that included both those things and a few others. "

Owl Eric Cantor would disagree with you about the GOP signing on.

House conservatives met Wednesday for the latest installment of their “Conversations with Conservatives” luncheon series, but they took their places on the dais without sampling the Chick-fil-A sandwiches and nuggets on offer.

These days, House conservatives prefer to eat their own.
Republican leaders had scheduled a vote in the chamber for Wednesday on a plan to help people with preexisting health problems get insurance — part of a broader scheme by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) to make Republicans appear to care about the little guy. But the conservatives lunching in the Rayburn House Office Building weren’t biting.

One after the other, they vowed to defeat the Republican leaders’ bill, which they said was not much better than President Obama’s health-care reform:

“I’m going to vote no,” said Jim Jordan (Ohio).

“I’m a ‘no’ on expanding Obamacare,” said Tim Huelskamp (Kan.).

“I feel very uncomfortable that we’re moving this bill forward,” said Marlin Stutzman (Ind.).

“I don’t like seeing one big-government Democrat program replaced by a Republican big-government program,” said Trey Radel (Fla.).

The five other men on the dais — Mick Mulvaney (S.C.), Steve Scalise (La.), Justin Amash (Mich.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.) and Raul Labrador (Idaho) — also declared their plans not to back the bill.

The wall of conservative opposition appeared to doom Cantor’s warm-and-fuzzy strategy, and party leaders were looking foolish. At the leadership team’s morning news conference, The Post’s Paul Kane asked Cantor if he had the votes to pass his Helping Sick Americans Now Act.

“Well, listen, this is — that is the whip’s purview,” Cantor replied, shifting the blame to Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.).

McCarthy had no good answer, so he quoted a movie line. “The first rule of Fight Club: We don’t talk about Fight Club,” he said.

He didn’t need to talk about it; House Republican leaders’ actions said it all. At 3:30 p.m., they pulled the bill from consideration rather than let it face certain defeat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html


So you can you please stop saying the GOP would have signed on for people with pre existing conditions. It's just sadly. Not the truth.

(04-26-2013 12:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So you can you please stop saying the GOP would have signed on for people with pre existing conditions. It's just sadly. Not the truth.

I'm not going to stop, because it's factually correct.

I'm not quite sure how an article discussing an April 2013 meeting about whether to expand Obamacare is relevant to a discussion of what would or would not have been done in 2009 or 2010. Particularly when there were any number of on the record comments at the time by any number of republicans saying that they would sign onto both the pre-existing condition and the 26-year old provisions, and several other provisions, if they could be separated from the other stuff. Ryan was one of them, IIRC.

This is the problem, the left has to pretend that implementing things like IPAB and CCO and HCC were the only way to achieve things like pre-existing condition coverage and the 26-year old provision. That's simply a lie, and I'm going to call it out every time I see it.

Honest to goodness. Can you show me an article where Ryan said something like that? That meeting wasn't about expanding the affordable health care act either. The bill chipped away at it. That's why you weren't going to get any D support.

(04-26-2013 01:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Honest to goodness. Can you show me an article where Ryan said something like that? That meeting wasn't about expanding the affordable health care act either. The bill chipped away at it. That's why you weren't going to get any D support.

There was a televised meeting with Obama and the republicans, for one thing, where it was made pretty clear that republicans favored reforming the system but felt that Obamacare went too far. And during that meeting Ryan and several other R's took specific exception to a number of elements of Obamacare, but I don't recall anyone taking exception to those.

As for the purpose of the meeting, what you say is not what the author of the article suggests, not is it consistent with the comments of the opposing congress persons.

Do you have any link to any republican taking exception to the pre-existing condition or 26-year old provisions?

And remember the rush to paint the mandate as a republican idea? Well the mandate is a response to the free rider problem presented by the pre-existing condition provision. So the mandate was a republican idea but the situation it was responding to wasn't?