Obamacare's Entire Financial Model is In Danger of Collapsing

Moving the goalposts are ya Buckie.

Unlike you, I don't mind helping paying for those who truly cannot afford healthcare.
My biggest objection is the federal government forcing Americans to purchase any kind of product or service, especially if they are the regulators.

then don't ever get a bank/car loan of any kind or credit card..all regulated..to PROTECT the consumer!
 
Don't compare obamacare to real universal healthcare... It's chalk and cheese...

I DIDN'T.

I COMPARED ONE PROVISION OF THE PPACA TO THE REST OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH SYSTEMS.

YOU'RE AS SLOPPY WITH YOUR LANGUAGE AS YOU ARE WITH SMALL CHILDREN.


a
 
Now I am confused (probably because I don't care that much to keep myself so intimately informed).

Wasn't this whole Obamacare idea mutated into its present form by the Red team?
Or is this guy lying to me, too?

[video=youtube;KihilnQVi0Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KihilnQVi0Q[/video]

heh.... bunnies
 
I don't care which color wrote the bill, it's a counter-intuitive, corrupted piece of shit. Can I just blame it on the system? You guys can argue over who's fault it is, but in the meantime, blame the other team for why it sucks, agree it sucks but it's the other guys fault, and get rid of it.
 
I don't care which color wrote the *bill, it's a counter-intuitive, corrupted piece of shit. Can I just blame it on the system? You guys can argue over who's fault it is, but in the meantime, blame the other team for why it sucks, agree it sucks but it's the other guys fault, and get rid of it.

*law:wall:
 
lol, yeah, law. Freudian or wishful thinking for us I guess. I guess i think of it as more of a bill than a law because it keep evolving. How many times has it been changed now to exempt special interests? 20? I guess this happens a lot, I mean there was the..., or the ....um, can't think of any.
 
lol, yeah, law. Freudian or wishful thinking for us I guess. I guess i think of it as more of a bill than a law because it keep evolving. How many times has it been changed now to exempt special interests? 20? I guess this happens a lot, I mean there was the..., or the ....um, can't think of any.

and it will keep evolving..i've never been in a company where they beta tested the shit out of new products and they worked perfectly out of the gate..there are always adjustments made.
 
then don't ever get a bank/car loan of any kind or credit card..all regulated..to PROTECT the consumer!


Not really. A regulation is often a barrier to entry into a particular service market. Meaning that only some players are allowed to provide a particular service in spite of the supply side demand. When that happens, it is a form of protectionism, not for the responsible consumer, but for the SUPPLIER.

You seem to see things thru the prism of a nanny statist and think people are incapable of making informed choices for themselves. That's sort of an egotistical point of view.
 
Not really. A regulation is often a barrier to entry into a particular service market. Meaning that only some players are allowed to provide a particular service in spite of the supply side demand. When that happens, it is a form of protectionism, not for the responsible consumer, but for the SUPPLIER.

You seem to see things thru the prism of a nanny statist and think people are incapable of making informed choices for themselves. That's sort of an egotistical point of view.

trolling early RR?
 
and it will keep evolving..i've never been in a company where they beta tested the shit out of new products and they worked perfectly out of the gate..there are always adjustments made.

True, me neither. But I've been in companies that beta test the shit out of things before release. I know of no company that would release a website that crashed with 100 visits, was tested only for a week, yet released anyway. This is a unique situation never before seen. Comparing it to a company is laughable. Apple stock would be worthless right now if the latest i product was released in this condition.

Did you catch any of the congressional hearings? The programmers said they were told a week before the release to take down pricing guides and put up the min prices for age groups, being purposefully deceptive. I'm aware these guys could have been just covering their asses, it's a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that we are still being told we can shop and compare and that's a difficult to impossible task at the moment.

I think you would be better off admitting it's a clusterfuck and blaming republicans than denying it's a clusterfuck.
 
trolling early RR?


I don''t have to "troll" you. You leap right into the boat with your illogical conclusions. BTW, you seem to have a hard time with rationally defending your point of view when I point things out and you get all "Uncle Buck" and throw insults or smoke bombs to avoid the discussion, why is that? Can't defend your ideas?
 
5841508978_StatismIdeasSoGoodTheyHaveToBeMandatory_xlarge.jpeg
 
I don't care which color wrote the bill, it's a counter-intuitive, corrupted piece of shit. Can I just blame it on the system? You guys can argue over who's fault it is, but in the meantime, blame the other team for why it sucks, agree it sucks but it's the other guys fault, and get rid of it.

Just don't call it socialist.
 
No. There are no such socialist or utopian messages. Public healthcare has been privatized. It is fascist, not socialist.

You'll have to explain what public health care is and how it has been privatized. From the inside it seems a private industry has been conscripted by government.

I'm not arguing There are no such socialist or utopian messages this with you. It's pointless when you make up your own definitions to words and it becomes a semantic tail chase. But your other claim is going to need examples, for I say the opposite is true.
 
They are both the same argument dipshit. One is semantic and one is an appraisal of facts but both are the same argument. You can try to make it out to be a purely semantic attempt on my part but you're the one calling it socialist. It is not socialist. It is clearly privatized.
 
They are both the same argument dipshit. One is semantic and one is an appraisal of facts but both are the same argument. You can try to make it out to be a purely semantic attempt on my part but you're the one calling it socialist. It is not socialist. It is clearly privatized.

Alright, so we are going down the name calling road, fine, I'll play.

Listen you dumbass waste of a person. I never called it socialist, you are claiming I did. I've maintained from the beginning that this entrenches the health care trinity instead of the opposite like people think. You are the stupid fuck who said our public health care was privatized when the opposite is happening. Health care was private industry before it was a public industry and if you are too stupid or too dishonest to see this, then you are not only hopeless, you are helpless.

What I said about not arguing with you about semantics stand. You have definitions for words the rest of don't have, arguing with you on this basis is a fools errand I've learned to avoid.

I'd rather not roll in the mud with you, but for a handful of you idiot fuckhead syphilis sucking gonorrhea gobbling extra chromosome useless wastes of space mouth breathers, it's the only thing you seem to understand. You should just collect your welfare and be grateful we don't cut your sorry, useless, unproductive waste of life off and make you actually take care of yourself.

There, that was fun. Should get a response from those handful.
 
The promises may have socialist utopian messages


No, there is absolutely nothing socialist about Obamacare.

The promises are shared sacrifice, everyone covered, 1st step to universal healthcare....

I've states several times the promises don't match the reality. How in the world do you make the leap that I'm calling the actual law socialist?

I'd much rather keep the debate civil if you don't mind, but I can play either way.
 
Back
Top