Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
And that was before people stated that you have to pass the bill in order to read it.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Random Politics & Religion #11
Random Politics & Religion #11
This talking point never stops being HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.
[+]
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Obamacare never went far enough, and like so many things in politics is focused entirely too much on cities and population centers to the exclusion of everyone elsewhere.
No, you're right. Totally a better idea to keep on the way we've gone for years, letting people choose between death/lingering diseases or crippling debt.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
While you're at it, you can throw "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" in there too, King. That one's a tad harder to "remove the context", considering it was repeated a bunch of times.
[+]
And then the insurance companies completely reworked plans when they weren't required to do so... but you know semantics.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
While you're at it, you can throw "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" in there too, King. That one's a tad harder to "remove the context", considering it was repeated a bunch of times.
But in her eyes, people who don't vote for her are deplorable.
But that's taking that statement out of context to, even though what I described not only is true, it actually occurred.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
To be fair, a statement like that doesn't need context. There is literally no context you could put it in that would make it sound like a rational sentence.
I have no idea what this has to do with healthcare reform other than that she was talking about a healthcare bill.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Obamacare never went far enough, and like so many things in politics is focused entirely too much on cities and population centers to the exclusion of everyone elsewhere.
No, you're right. Totally a better idea to keep on the way we've gone for years, letting people choose between death/lingering diseases or crippling debt.
Or are you going to tell me that somehow the people who couldn't afford health insurance then can now.
eliroo said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
To be fair, a statement like that doesn't need context. There is literally no context you could put it in that would make it sound like a rational sentence.
I have no idea what this has to do with healthcare reform other than that she was talking about a healthcare bill.
[+]
A Single-payer plan would be a huge improvement.
Regulating medical expenses would also be huge. The price will always be high since the demand is infinite. If we don't regulate it in some ways we will just continue to impoverish people.
I despise Hillary Clinton KN but just because I don't like her doesn't mean I can't take a "leftist" view on healthcare. You should definitely consider how our current Healthcare system effects the rich and the poor and how Insurance companies and Hospitals are making millions exploiting it.
Regulating medical expenses would also be huge. The price will always be high since the demand is infinite. If we don't regulate it in some ways we will just continue to impoverish people.
I despise Hillary Clinton KN but just because I don't like her doesn't mean I can't take a "leftist" view on healthcare. You should definitely consider how our current Healthcare system effects the rich and the poor and how Insurance companies and Hospitals are making millions exploiting it.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Obamacare never went far enough, and like so many things in politics is focused entirely too much on cities and population centers to the exclusion of everyone elsewhere.
No, you're right. Totally a better idea to keep on the way we've gone for years, letting people choose between death/lingering diseases or crippling debt.
Actually, it would have been better to have drafted a bipartisan, well thought-out plan that wasn't single payer instead of forcing this perfectly partisan load of crap on us. If they sucked at this, why do you think they would be able to handle more responsibility with a single payer system? A lot of smaller countries can't handle it without making people overpay for the services they receive. Our government isn't smart enough to handle it on a larger scale.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Obamacare never went far enough, and like so many things in politics is focused entirely too much on cities and population centers to the exclusion of everyone elsewhere.
No, you're right. Totally a better idea to keep on the way we've gone for years, letting people choose between death/lingering diseases or crippling debt.
Or are you going to tell me that somehow the people who couldn't afford health insurance then can now.
No, that's what I meant when I said it doesn't go far enough.
We need to scrap the entire private health insurance industry in general. Profiteering off of life-saving services is a revolting practice that thrives in our country.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Low cost/high deductible plans are a function of just how insurance works and not really a reflection of the ACA per se.
If you are going to force people to pay regardless then just give us actual national health care, not this jump through hoops for ***that doesn't work in your area bull crap.
Interesting loooong article on just how that veto override just might bite us in the economy:
Will Saudis seek revenge for Congress' veto override?
CNN
Has more to do with mid eastern politics than who might sue us.
Will Saudis seek revenge for Congress' veto override?
CNN
Has more to do with mid eastern politics than who might sue us.
You don't *** with the oil mafia...unless you got fusion reactors or modified carburetors that give you 100mi/gallon in every vehicle.
eliroo said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Yeah link the :09 snippet that completely removes the context.
To be fair, a statement like that doesn't need context. There is literally no context you could put it in that would make it sound like a rational sentence.
I have no idea what this has to do with healthcare reform other than that she was talking about a healthcare bill.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
but Pelosi's point was that people would be glad to see the actual details outside of the talking points and doom-and-gloom predictions.
If that was her point, she was wrong about that too.
[+]
Point being that the manufactured controversy over death panels and subsidized abortions were overshadowing what was actually in the bill.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Obamacare never went far enough, and like so many things in politics is focused entirely too much on cities and population centers to the exclusion of everyone elsewhere.
No, you're right. Totally a better idea to keep on the way we've gone for years, letting people choose between death/lingering diseases or crippling debt.
Or are you going to tell me that somehow the people who couldn't afford health insurance then can now.
No, that's what I meant when I said it doesn't go far enough.
We need to scrap the entire private health insurance industry in general. Profiteering off of life-saving services is a revolting practice that thrives in our country.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You say profiteering, but when a lot of the profits goes towards R&D, I think other people will say otherwise.....
Sadly, you're probably right, because our country can never get away from its me-first, money-first, money-for-me first mentality.
Unfortunately there's little antidote for the disease of greed, and humans are extremely susceptible to this particular illness.
Ackeron said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Low cost/high deductible plans are a function of just how insurance works and not really a reflection of the ACA per se.
If you are going to force people to pay regardless then just give us actual national health care, not this jump through hoops for ***that doesn't work in your area bull crap.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Point being that the manufactured controversy over death panels and subsidized abortions were overshadowing what was actually in the bill.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You say profiteering, but when a lot of the profits goes towards R&D, I think other people will say otherwise.....
Sadly, you're probably right, because our country can never get away from its me-first, money-first, money-for-me first mentality.
Unfortunately there's little antidote for the disease of greed, and humans are extremely susceptible to this particular illness.
The pharmaceuticals, who also receive R&D grants from the US government to help pay for R&D (they still put in a huge portion of their profits into R&D themselves), are basically subsidizing the world's healthcare industry. If other countries actually put money into their own R&D budgets instead of making us do it for them, the US healthcare costs wouldn't be so high.
But in your mind, it's still the businesses fault, huh? Cause greed, blah blah blah.
Ackeron said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Low cost/high deductible plans are a function of just how insurance works and not really a reflection of the ACA per se.
If you are going to force people to pay regardless then just give us actual national health care, not this jump through hoops for ***that doesn't work in your area bull crap.
Thing is people would rather risk it in a lot of cases cuz they think they're healthy or don't want to spend the money on it... Until they need it that is and then there's a real problem...
Out of the top ten pharma companies they spend more on advertising and sales than they do r&d so yeah.... The top company spends 17 billion in sales and advertising as opposed to 8billion in r&d to tap into a $320billion dollar a year market(2013).
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You say profiteering, but when a lot of the profits goes towards R&D, I think other people will say otherwise.....
Okay, I do have to admit that it sucks that we foot most of the bill for R&D when some countries that we ship medicine to pay a tiny fraction of what we have to in the states. But on that note, I'm not sure what can be done. It'd be nice to make it more fair, but we also don't want to kill research by taking away a huge chunk of their money. If we subsidized more research through taxes, we'd still be getting screwed in the pocketbook anyway.
The problem is compounded by sleazebags like Shkreli who profiteer for the sake of "research", when really it's just a lie to fatten the wallets of executives.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
the ACA was built on the foundation of a flawed system in the first place
yes... but when we tried to warn you that the foundation sucked you said we were evil heartless jerks that wanted to kill children and old people
and nobody likes having that pointed out to them reagrdless of how true it is
[+]
other countries do put money into R&D... It's ludicrous that you think they don't...
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.