What's new
By:

#CruzSexScandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Obama is the one who hung his hat on this. His claims about the costs played a huge role in passing the legislation.

Oh well. I really visited this thread because I'm so fascinated by Cruz's sex life. I'm not getting nearly as much info on that as I'd expected.
Click to expand...

Well, Obama did what every politician does, optimistically inflates the positive benefits of his/her policies, while Republicans also did what every politician does, over inflate the negative costs of opponents' policies. Truth is, you never know how things will play out until they play out. I'm open to reforming the ACA, but ONLY if they are good faith discussions, and Republicans have failed to deal with this issue in good faith from the beginning.

As for Cruz, it looks like this sex scandal doesn't have legs. Our good friend Dalamon jumped the gun a bit on it. While I'd love to see Cruz go down in flames, it looks like it's not going to happen, at least not due to this rumored (and that appears to be all it is) sex scandal.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Well, Obama did what every politician does, optimistically inflates the positive benefits of his/her policies, while Republicans also did what every politician does, over inflate the negative costs of opponents' policies. Truth is, you never know how things will play out until they play out. I'm open to reforming the ACA, but ONLY if they are good faith discussions, and Republicans have failed to deal with this issue in good faith from the beginning.

As for Cruz, it looks like this sex scandal doesn't have legs. Our good friend Dalamon jumped the gun a bit on it. While I'd love to see Cruz go down in flames, it looks like it's not going to happen, at least not due to this rumored (and that appears to be all it is) sex scandal.
Click to expand...
Kind of amazing that you would admit that the actual costs of ACA are in line with what the Republicans projected and about double what Obama predicted, but then say that the GOP are the ones who are not debating this issue in good faith. It's pretty clear that "deal with this issue in good faith" is actually a liberal synonym for "agree with us."
 
Health care costs were out of control BEFORE the ACA. So it didn't reverse them, okay. Cost were rising and they continued to rise. I don't think they've been going up as fast as they were, but I don't really have any idea. We can all bust out some anecdotal stories about our own coverage, I'm sure some people are paying a lot more, some people are paying a little more and some people now have coverage who didn't before.

I would rather, if we're moving away from our completely broken private system, just go ahead and go single payer and get rid of health insurance all together. What we have now seems like a lame compromise that benefits health insurance companies more than it helps anyone else.
 
we got so many popular myths going on we've become unthinking mystics prattling nonsense.

socialism was an element of early Christianity, you know, those folks who thought Jesus would come soon and rule the Earth in love and take care of the poor and sick, and end death and taxes.

What happened after the American revolution, and the French revolution is that the remaining nobles were scared spitless, and thought it necessary to invent some popular political distractions to crowd out actual human hopes and ideals, and we've been once again a well-managed little flock of peasants ever since.

That's the reality you progressives love.
 
babe said:
we got so many popular myths going on we've become unthinking mystics prattling nonsense.

socialism was an element of early Christianity, you know, those folks who thought Jesus would come soon and rule the Earth in love and take care of the poor and sick, and end death and taxes.

What happened after the American revolution, and the French revolution is that the remaining nobles were scared spitless, and thought it necessary to invent some popular political distractions to crowd out actual human hopes and ideals, and we've been once again a well-managed little flock of peasants ever since.

That's the reality you progressives love.
Click to expand...

Damn...
 
babe said:
socialism was an element of early Christianity, you know, those folks who thought Jesus would come soon and rule the Earth in love and take care of the poor and sick, and end death and taxes.
Click to expand...
Who says this won't still happen?
 
fishonjazz said:
Who says this won't still happen?
Click to expand...

socialist ideals appear to be timeless, an enduring element of human nature, I admit. Jesus just might appear in the skies and be seen at once from every vantange point on earth, or he might just appear in the middle of a hopeless Mideast war where the whole world is hoping to execute the Final Solution to the problem of the Jews.

One of my friends of the past 25 years just suddenly left the Mormon Church because Denver C. Snuffer Jr. said Jesus came to him and told him to tell the people they could all just sit in their homes and invite Jesus in, no need for a corporate Church anymore.

What grabs me by the balls is politicians who will say anything to get themselves elected, and believe they are somehow special to the welfare of the world. Did you ever notice how sociopaths are drawn to the seat of power, and how it's you they burn?

I just hope my friend is still alive and still has her retirement kittie. Her professing Snufferite friends did get her to sell her home and move into an 1100 square foot home and share expenses while they wait for Jesus. I have grave concerns she might be just done in by the religious fanatic fraudsters. . . .

Call me a skeptic if you will, I just don't buy blue sky.
 
babe said:
socialist ideals appear to be timeless, an enduring element of human nature, I admit. Jesus just might appear in the skies and be seen at once from every vantange point on earth, or he might just appear in the middle of a hopeless Mideast war where the whole world is hoping to execute the Final Solution to the problem of the Jews.

One of my friends of the past 25 years just suddenly left the Mormon Church because Denver C. Snuffer Jr. said Jesus came to him and told him to tell the people they could all just sit in their homes and invite Jesus in, no need for a corporate Church anymore.

What grabs me by the balls is politicians who will say anything to get themselves elected, and believe they are somehow special to the welfare of the world. Did you ever notice how sociopaths are drawn to the seat of power, and how it's you they burn?

I just hope my friend is still alive and still has her retirement kittie. Her professing Snufferite friends did get her to sell her home and move into an 1100 square foot home and share expenses while they wait for Jesus. I have grave concerns she might be just done in by the religious fanatic fraudsters. . . .

Call me a skeptic if you will, I just don't buy blue sky.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Gameface said:
Health care costs were out of control BEFORE the ACA. So it didn't reverse them, okay. Cost were rising and they continued to rise. I don't think they've been going up as fast as they were, but I don't really have any idea. We can all bust out some anecdotal stories about our own coverage, I'm sure some people are paying a lot more, some people are paying a little more and some people now have coverage who didn't before.

I would rather, if we're moving away from our completely broken private system, just go ahead and go single payer and get rid of health insurance all together. What we have now seems like a lame compromise that benefits health insurance companies more than it helps anyone else.
Click to expand...
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but health care service providers would still be privately owned, right?

Ok, fair enough. Keep in mind that where it comes to health care, the US is the outlier among developed nations. Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts. Why, then, would we not want to take a closer look at their models to learn from them . . . other than, perhaps, our misguided sense of American exceptionalism, which dictates that, even when we are producing sub-optimal outcomes compared to other developed countries, the way we do it is better, because . . . . America!
Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me of the benefits of healthcare reform and a move to single payer system. I'm all for it.

But just because the actual hospitals are not government owned does not mean single payer is not more similar to socialism than what we currently have.

There are a lot of different ways a single payer system can be built, but every single one of them involves more government, and is more similar to socialized medicine than what we have.


I think it's great progress, and hope he have a single payer system within the decade.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...

I never felt as if I was promised that the aca would do more than it has for me and people I know who use the health care exchange. And that is provide health coverage at an affordable rate that reasonably covers the ailments we come across in our lives.

What do you think it promised? Free unicorns?
 
b_line said:
I never felt as if I was promised that the aca would do more than it has for me and people I know who use the health care exchange. And that is provide health coverage at an affordable rate that reasonably covers the ailments we come across in our lives.

What do you think it promised? Free unicorns?
Click to expand...
That conversation was specifically about the fact that the real costs of Obamacare are double what Obama said they would be when he was trying to get the bill passed. I wouldn't turn down a free unicorn, though.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
That conversation was specifically about the fact that the real costs of Obamacare are double what Obama said they would be when he was trying to get the bill passed. I wouldn't turn down a free unicorn, though.
Click to expand...

Please proceed a link for Barry estimating the costs to be half of what they are.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I guess I don't understand what you meant.
Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian, but I've given up on making libertarian based arguments in general. I don't think libertarianism can work in a mixed economy. I also think my form of libertarianism is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I don't want piecemeal libertarianism and I'm happy living in a non-libertarian world. So, despite my ideology, I'd prefer that things work well and satisfy most of the people most of the time.

The ACA did some of what it set out to do, it provided more people with more health insurance coverage than they had before. It was also supposed to save some money, but hasn't really saved all that much if it has saved anything at all.

I don't think we should go single payer because teh ACA failed because it didn't go far enough, I think single payer is worth a shot because I think fundamentally it will work better than the ACA. The ACA seems like something cooked up between bleeding heart liberals and health insurance CEOs. So, it's just not something that benefits as many people as much of the time as a single payer system would, imo. Single payer would essentially eliminate all health insurance (maybe I don't understand how it would work if that statement is not true) and eliminate the overhead that comes along with health insurance. It would be less complicated in many ways. If you walked into an ER they wouldn't have to spend any time or resources to try to figure out what kind of treatment you were entitled to. They would already know what the standard was and that as a human being you were entitled to it.

But the ACA came about because we were in an all out health care crisis with premiums jumping dramatically and healthcare related bankruptcies galore. The ACA didn't create the problem, it was put forth as a solution to the problem. The fact that it hasn't worked doesn't mean is was a dishonest effort. Many times solutions don't work as well as we hope they will. But in the case of the ACA, I think insurance CEOs had a very large say in the nitty gritty details and that is a big reason why it isn't very good.
 
Gameface said:
I'm a libertarian, but I've given up on making libertarian based arguments in general. I don't think libertarianism can work in a mixed economy. I also think my form of libertarianism is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I don't want piecemeal libertarianism and I'm happy living in a non-libertarian world. So, despite my ideology, I'd prefer that things work well and satisfy most of the people most of the time.

The ACA did some of what it set out to do, it provided more people with more health insurance coverage than they had before. It was also supposed to save some money, but hasn't really saved all that much if it has saved anything at all.

I don't think we should go single payer because teh ACA failed because it didn't go far enough, I think single payer is worth a shot because I think fundamentally it will work better than the ACA. The ACA seems like something cooked up between bleeding heart liberals and health insurance CEOs. So, it's just not something that benefits as many people as much of the time as a single payer system would, imo. Single payer would essentially eliminate all health insurance (maybe I don't understand how it would work if that statement is not true) and eliminate the overhead that comes along with health insurance. It would be less complicated in many ways. If you walked into an ER they wouldn't have to spend any time or resources to try to figure out what kind of treatment you were entitled to. They would already know what the standard was and that as a human being you were entitled to it.

But the ACA came about because we were in an all out health care crisis with premiums jumping dramatically and healthcare related bankruptcies galore. The ACA didn't create the problem, it was put forth as a solution to the problem. The fact that it hasn't worked doesn't mean is was a dishonest effort. Many times solutions don't work as well as we hope they will. But in the case of the ACA, I think insurance CEOs had a very large say in the nitty gritty details and that is a big reason why it isn't very good.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for that well thought out post. Sorry that I misunderstood you before. You've given me some things to think about. Also, I must spread rep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top