Ignore Republican nihilism. Obamacare is already working

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 5:33 PM GMT
    The media parrots GOP talking-points about ACA bugs, but the fact is it's cutting healthcare costs and expanding coverage.

    If you bought your healthcare coverage on the individual market before Congress passed Obamacare – and that plan no longer adheres to the law's requirements – that plan will be cancelled. It's a wrinkle that millions of Americans are finding out in the form of cancellation letters from their health insurance companies.

    But this particular element of Obamacare is not a bug of the law. It's a feature.

    In fact, it's yet another reminder that, for all its hiccups, Obamacare is well on its way to transforming how Americans receive healthcare – and almost certainly for the better. For most Americans, Obamacare will mean little evident change. If, like the vast majority of Americans, you receive your insurance through your employer today … you will continue to receive it from them tomorrow. And you will do so with greater security and more flexibility if you leave your job.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/30/ignore-republican-nihilism-obamacare-working
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    How would you know? You aren't an American citizen and you live in the UK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 7:10 PM GMT
    Lol! Wow. As soon as I read the title, I knew exactly what they were going to say. I guess if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth! That's how propaganda works, right? I don't know of a single person that is happy with Obamacare. Actually, the more people are learning about it, the more pissed off they get! I guess the whole "we will find out what it means after we pass it" thing isn't working in the democrats favor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 9:28 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidThe media parrots GOP talking-points about ACA bugs, but the fact is it's cutting healthcare costs and expanding coverage.

    If you bought your healthcare coverage on the individual market before Congress passed Obamacare – and that plan no longer adheres to the law's requirements – that plan will be cancelled. It's a wrinkle that millions of Americans are finding out in the form of cancellation letters from their health insurance companies.

    But this particular element of Obamacare is not a bug of the law. It's a feature.

    In fact, it's yet another reminder that, for all its hiccups, Obamacare is well on its way to transforming how Americans receive healthcare – and almost certainly for the better. For most Americans, Obamacare will mean little evident change. If, like the vast majority of Americans, you receive your insurance through your employer today … you will continue to receive it from them tomorrow. And you will do so with greater security and more flexibility if you leave your job.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/30/ignore-republican-nihilism-obamacare-working


    Seriously?

    This is total bullshit. Posted by a total bullshiter who swallowed hook line and sinker the bullshit spoon fed him.

    Just a few facts.

    Those of us who are in the Individual Insurance market are there for a reason. The majority of us are in this market because we are self employed, small business owners with businesses too small to benefit from the small business plans available, we're in high risk pools because we're a risk for insurers health wise or any combination of the above.

    As for lower cost insurance, it isn't there. The fact is that they are talking about having to come up with more money to subsidize those of us being displaced from the individual market because.....wait for it............... most of us don't qualify for subsidies. maybe you in all your wisdom can explain how it is better to take our insurance from us and then create a new subsidy where one didn't exist before? maybe you can explain where the money for such a subsidy would come from?
    As for using the website, it doesn't matter if it's working or not for most of us in the Individual market, because we don't qualify for subsidies and the web site is only for those who do qualify.
    As for the pre-existing thing, the ACA High risk Pool for those who have pre-existing conditions closed back in April because they estimated the cost of covering those people too low and they ran out of money before they even reached their target, so those with preexisting conditions are dumped into the market with the rest of us.


    As far as employer based insurance, that too is being canceled. As many as 67% of the small business plans and as much as 45% of the big business plans will be canceled.
    If you think this is a mess, now wait until this next year when the small business policies that were extended for 11 months start to be dropped by providers and business owners are forced to dump their employees into the market on their own. "Little change for most Americans", seriously? The conservative estimates of how many people are going to be displaced when providers begin to drop business policies next year is 100 million, that added with those in the individual market that are being dropped is about half of all insured "Americans".

    But you're right, you Brits know better than we do because your own health care system is a model of efficiency and compassion! Maybe you should worry about fixing you own failed health care system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 9:37 PM GMT
    Obamacare will lead to the destruction of all humanity.
    Or maybe it won't. It's too soon for either side to pretend to have any answers.

    My opinion, my worthless opinion is that we could benefit from universally available preventative care. This could do a lot to keep costs down.

    I would add to this a subsidized catastrophic care policy so that medical bankruptcies would be rare.

    When government tries to offer comprehensive care to an already sick and old society it fails us all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidAmerican opinion will not be formed by left wing sites, and certainly not by a left wing column in a British newspaper, and certainly not by a left wing RJ Brit who is nothing but obsessed with our politics.


    Haha. What are you going to do about it, set the Feds on me or 'dish the [non-existent] dirt', like you threatened to do when you were having your little Romney/Ryan Campaign breakdown?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2013 10:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    I heard within the past few weeks you lied about this so here's the thread that sets the facts straight.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2596356


    Lol. Thanks. It certainly does set the facts straight: the fact that you threatened to call the Feds and made a thinly veiled threat against me, because I upset your attempts to turn the RJ News & Politics Forum into a Romney/Ryan Telephone Campaign recruiting site. (Fat lot of good it did them too.)
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 3:28 AM GMT
    lol, socalfitness called security? Seriously?

    Romney needed more than telephone calls.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 14, 2013 3:44 AM GMT
    He's right though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 5:11 AM GMT
    A representative from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office noted that as of October 1, taxpayers had already spent more than $600 million on Obamacare's failed websites. Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) followed up by asking the panel how much additional cash has been, and will be, required to clean up the mess. It's a very simple question -- one that you'd think at least one of them would have anticipated. Their response? They can't say for certain. What a royal mess. How much money do we have to pour into trying to fix this? I think Obamacare should be repealed completely.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 11:57 AM GMT
    Romneycare had initial glitches too and was slow to enroll, and it turned out to be a success. $600 million pales in comparison to the billions Republicans cost the nation with a shutdown.

    How about the millions of dollars Republicans spend in drafting, passing, and defending unconstitutional abortion bills—sounds like real fiscal responsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 12:01 PM GMT
    Heh - too bad that article was so devoid of facts to be taken seriously.

    Here's the reality:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/13/CNN-Tapper-no-Dems

    Tapper confirmed that Democrats were suddenly silent: “To be completely honest, we had difficult time booking Democrats to come on after those numbers were released, to have them come on and talk about fixing the problem.”


    Here's the fundamental problem - the article assumes people will sign up. No one knows this as yet. In fact, the evidence is very much against it. And better coverage? That's code in Michael Cohen's world for coverage that most people don't need - e.g. do you really need maternity benefits or female birth control? Well, maybe you do.

    Cohen *claims* that the costs are going down for most people but um... where are the facts? This is what we do know:
    HHS-40-yo-men2.png
    HHS-40-yo-women2.png

    HHS-27-yo-men2.png
    HHS-27-yo-women2.png

    Rate-shock-breakeven-vs-median-income2.p

    Here's one typical state:
    Wash-median-nongroup-premiums.png

    Oh and what about that thing about healthcare exchanges increasing competition? Well... not quite on that either:
    ib4082_map1_600.ashx

    So... who to trust, you or your own damn lying eyes? It's kind of funny to see how married some people are to seeing Obamacare succeed. That makes following this saga all the more entertaining. And "Republican talking points"? Really? Maybe he should have a look at what *Democrats* are saying.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 12:14 PM GMT
    Oh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable news source.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 12:16 PM GMT
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 12:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Did Paul lie? About his plagiarism? You're saying no?

    Riddler, you never cease to amaze me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 12:22 PM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Did Paul lie? About his plagiarism? You're saying no?

    Riddler, you never cease to amaze me.


    Your contention is that Breitbart is unreliable because they hired Rand Paul. His plagiarism doesn't make what he wrote/copied a lie. I'm surprised you aren't able to see this. I can however see why you want to make this about Rand Paul though. On this I'm really not amazed.

    So are you acknowledging that you are going to have your Obamacare premiums entirely subsidized? Are your reasoning skills so basic that you can't differentiate some basic facts versus ad hominem attacks?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 12:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Did Paul lie? About his plagiarism? You're saying no?

    Riddler, you never cease to amaze me.


    Your contention is that Breitbart is unreliable because they hired Rand Paul. His plagiarism doesn't make what he wrote/copied a lie. I'm surprised you aren't able to see this. I can however see why you want to make this about Rand Paul though. On this I'm really not amazed.

    So are you acknowledging that you are going to have your Obamacare premiums entirely subsidized? Are your reasoning skills so basic that you can't differentiate some basic facts versus ad hominem attacks?


    I was talking about Paul's defense—that was a lie. First he denied any wrongdoing and then finally he admitted an error and tried to circumvent the definition of plagiarism, which didn't fool most people, certainly not the journalists covering the news.

    I brought Rand Paul into this because breitbart.com hired Rand Paul in the midst of the controversy. Doesn't sound like journalistic integrity to hire someone who was exposed as a serial plagiarist, certainly during the height of the controversy. So you will have to excuse me for taking anything on that site with a grain of salt.

    As for the other points, I'll answer them when I return home. I have to go to work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 12:47 PM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Did Paul lie? About his plagiarism? You're saying no?

    Riddler, you never cease to amaze me.


    Your contention is that Breitbart is unreliable because they hired Rand Paul. His plagiarism doesn't make what he wrote/copied a lie. I'm surprised you aren't able to see this. I can however see why you want to make this about Rand Paul though. On this I'm really not amazed.

    So are you acknowledging that you are going to have your Obamacare premiums entirely subsidized? Are your reasoning skills so basic that you can't differentiate some basic facts versus ad hominem attacks?


    I was talking about Paul's defense—that was a lie. First he denied any wrongdoing and then finally he admitted an error and tried to circumvent the definition of plagiarism, which didn't fool most people, certainly not the journalists covering the news.

    I brought Rand Paul into this because breitbart.com hired Rand Paul in the midst of the controversy. Doesn't sound like journalistic integrity to hire someone who was exposed as a serial plagiarist, certainly during the height of the controversy. So you will have to excuse me for taking anything on that site with a grain of salt.

    As for the other points, I'll answer them when I return home. I have to go to work.


    I fail to see your point. Rand Paul has nothing to do with the fact Breitbart quoted CNN's Jake Tapper. Your basic claim is that everything - everything should be overlooked because Breitbart quoted CNN - except he did it on video. That only makes you look silly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 12:49 PM GMT
    Just a reminder that the *one thing* you've focused on is that I've used Breitbart as a source that links to CNN's Jake Tapper who said what he did *on video*.

    riddler78 saidHeh - too bad that article was so devoid of facts to be taken seriously.

    Here's the reality:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/13/CNN-Tapper-no-Dems

    Tapper confirmed that Democrats were suddenly silent: “To be completely honest, we had difficult time booking Democrats to come on after those numbers were released, to have them come on and talk about fixing the problem.”


    Here's the fundamental problem - the article assumes people will sign up. No one knows this as yet. In fact, the evidence is very much against it. And better coverage? That's code in Michael Cohen's world for coverage that most people don't need - e.g. do you really need maternity benefits or female birth control? Well, maybe you do.

    Cohen *claims* that the costs are going down for most people but um... where are the facts? This is what we do know:
    HHS-40-yo-men2.png
    HHS-40-yo-women2.png

    HHS-27-yo-men2.png
    HHS-27-yo-women2.png

    Rate-shock-breakeven-vs-median-income2.p

    Here's one typical state:
    Wash-median-nongroup-premiums.png

    Oh and what about that thing about healthcare exchanges increasing competition? Well... not quite on that either:
    ib4082_map1_600.ashx

    So... who to trust, you or your own damn lying eyes? It's kind of funny to see how married some people are to seeing Obamacare succeed. That makes following this saga all the more entertaining. And "Republican talking points"? Really? Maybe he should have a look at what *Democrats* are saying.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 9:39 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidOh, so to be taken seriously we should go over to breitbart.com, which has hired Rand Paul after Washington Times dropped him after his laundry list of plagiarism was revealed.

    Oh yes, a much reliable new source.


    In this case, yes - did Paul lie? Oops, no he didn't. And in this case, Breitbart is just reporting what was quoted - apparently you aren't aware that Jake Tapper works for CNN. Also oddly, I think there was polling yesterday that pointed out that Fox News is trusted more than the Obama Administration when it comes to Obamacare reporting. But you know, thanks for your ad hominem attacks - I'm guessing you qualify as having all your healthcare premiums subsidized? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Did Paul lie? About his plagiarism? You're saying no?

    Riddler, you never cease to amaze me.


    Your contention is that Breitbart is unreliable because they hired Rand Paul. His plagiarism doesn't make what he wrote/copied a lie. I'm surprised you aren't able to see this. I can however see why you want to make this about Rand Paul though. On this I'm really not amazed.

    So are you acknowledging that you are going to have your Obamacare premiums entirely subsidized? Are your reasoning skills so basic that you can't differentiate some basic facts versus ad hominem attacks?


    I was talking about Paul's defense—that was a lie. First he denied any wrongdoing and then finally he admitted an error and tried to circumvent the definition of plagiarism, which didn't fool most people, certainly not the journalists covering the news.

    I brought Rand Paul into this because breitbart.com hired Rand Paul in the midst of the controversy. Doesn't sound like journalistic integrity to hire someone who was exposed as a serial plagiarist, certainly during the height of the controversy. So you will have to excuse me for taking anything on that site with a grain of salt.

    As for the other points, I'll answer them when I return home. I have to go to work.


    I fail to see your point. Rand Paul has nothing to do with the fact Breitbart quoted CNN's Jake Tapper. Your basic claim is that everything - everything should be overlooked because Breitbart quoted CNN - except he did it on video. That only makes you look silly.


    My claim is not that everything should be overlooked on the basis that Breitbart quoted CNN. Reading is fundamental. Re-read what I wrote. I said that I will take any reporting from Breitbart very lightly because of its recent poor ethical decision to hire notorious serial plagiarist rand Paul in the midst of his controversy, in addition, of course, to the other poor ethical decisions made by the Breitbart news site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2013 9:41 PM GMT
    Again, I repeat.

    riddler78 saidJust a reminder that the *one thing* you've focused on is that I've used Breitbart as a source that links to CNN's Jake Tapper who said what he did *on video*.

    riddler78 saidHeh - too bad that article was so devoid of facts to be taken seriously.

    Here's the reality:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/13/CNN-Tapper-no-Dems

    Tapper confirmed that Democrats were suddenly silent: “To be completely honest, we had difficult time booking Democrats to come on after those numbers were released, to have them come on and talk about fixing the problem.”


    Here's the fundamental problem - the article assumes people will sign up. No one knows this as yet. In fact, the evidence is very much against it. And better coverage? That's code in Michael Cohen's world for coverage that most people don't need - e.g. do you really need maternity benefits or female birth control? Well, maybe you do.

    Cohen *claims* that the costs are going down for most people but um... where are the facts? This is what we do know:
    HHS-40-yo-men2.png
    HHS-40-yo-women2.png

    HHS-27-yo-men2.png
    HHS-27-yo-women2.png

    Rate-shock-breakeven-vs-median-income2.p

    Here's one typical state:
    Wash-median-nongroup-premiums.png

    Oh and what about that thing about healthcare exchanges increasing competition? Well... not quite on that either:
    ib4082_map1_600.ashx

    So... who to trust, you or your own damn lying eyes? It's kind of funny to see how married some people are to seeing Obamacare succeed. That makes following this saga all the more entertaining. And "Republican talking points"? Really? Maybe he should have a look at what *Democrats* are saying.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 14, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    How many times are you going to spam those pretty graphs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 2:39 PM GMT
    creature saidlol, socalfitness called security? Seriously?


    Yes. Most people would be ashamed of displaying such paranoid behaviour, but he seems quite proud of it.

    Which reminds me. Didn't Blakes7 recently claim to have made a call to Aristoshark's former place of employment, to verify whether he'd worked there? What a co-incidence, that we should have two phone-happy amateur sleuth Teabaggers here on RJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:21 PM GMT
    angela_lansbury_hg_temp2_s_full_l.jpg

    "Security please. I wish to report a global socialist conspiracy."