You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:buzzsaw wrote:More convincing than the 10,000 word pile of bullshit you posted, I'll give you that.
2 facts that are simple and no opinion post you can make will ever refute: The Dems forced a plan through that Republicans had major issues with and the Republicans did something about it. The rest of whatever you want to throw out there is just opinionated garbage.
We all know that post was too in-depth for you to read all the way through. Matter of fact, you probably only got to "we" of this post before it became too intellectually taxing for you. Take a breather.
They were never going to be for it. They were milking the clock hoping that it’d never come to fruition.
You’ll never be forgiven for that...I’ll either never vote again or vote anti republican whom ever that may be.
And even still the self proclaimed healthcare expert hasn’t offered a single fact of n the topic.
Dumbfuck, you quoted two facts that I posted which neither of you geniuses even attempted to refute. Why? Because you can't. All the rest of your garbage about what people think might have happened or could have happened doesn't matter. I posted what happened and the rest of it is just hopes and prayers that aren't in any way based in fact.
Re: US Politics Thread
We already played this game. I laid down facts and you ignored them. Like this:
1. CO-OPs short-changed from the start
Let’s start by considering the ACA’s Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or CO-OPs. Early drafts of the ACA called for $10 billion in federal grants for the CO-OP program. But insurance lobbyists and conservative lawmakers insisted on $6 billion in loans instead of $10 billion in grants, restrictions limiting CO-OPs to the individual and small-group market (and not the more stable and profitable large-group market), and limitations stating that the federal loan money could not be used for marketing.The ACA passed in 2010 and the CO-OPs were to be up and running in the fall of 2013, in time for the first open enrollment period. But during 2011 budget negotiations, $2.2 billion was cut from the CO-OP funding. And then during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at the end of 2012, another $1.4 billion in CO-OP loan funding was eliminated.
So instead of $10 billion in grants, the CO-OPs got $2.4 billion in short-term loans, and a slew of restrictions on their business practices. Some of those restrictions were relaxed in 2016 under new HHS regulations, but it was too little, too late for most CO-OPs.
As of 2017, only five of the original 23 CO-OPs are still operational. (Evergreen Health in Maryland is technically still operational, but it’s in the process of being acquired and converted to a for-profit insurer.)
Just to humor you and point out how idiotic this is, let's just nip this one in the bud. It's really easy.
The Dems had enough control to pass whatever they wanted, so why did they tear their own plan apart? Why did they give in to lobbyists and conservative lawmakers? You think that somehow had they been given another 7.6 billion dollars to piss away (which they would have) everything would have been great?
See, these opinion articles aren't actually facts at all. Sure, they contain facts, but they conveniently ignore other facts to try to convince weak minded people that they have everything figured out. The excuses start flying (they gave into lobbyists and conservative lawmakers)...okay, but why? They didn't have to. So why? That seems to be conveniently left out of the article.
Re: US Politics Thread
If you can't acknowledge that the Dems set the ACA up to fail on purpose so that they could get to single-payer, there's no point in having an intellectual conversation about it. You can post all the opinion articles you want. You can post gazillion word long posts and it doesn't change any of that.
I'm not going to go back 8 years and try to remember all of the details and I'm sure the fuck not going to waste my energy doing research and then posting opinion pieces on it. Let's keep it simple. They could have done whatever they wanted. So how did we end up where we are today? Why would they give in on their key legislation unless they knew it was bad or they wanted to make sure it was bad?
Re: US Politics Thread
And it was literally a Republican plan.
Like the immigration bill they created and then voted against.
That still doesn't answer the question. We all know the Republicans weren't going to support it no matter what (those obstructionist bastards), so how the fuck did this happen?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Joe Lieberman
The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. Are you suggesting Lieberman would have filibustered his own party? Vote no, sure. But filibuster?
They had 255 seats in the house, 37 more than they needed. I’m not going to rehash arguments that were debated 8 years ago and even 6 months ago. The math is there.
All 60 Senators voted for it. 34 Democrats voted against it in the House. They could have passed whatever they liked. They chose the ACA, warts and all.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Joe Lieberman
The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. Are you suggesting Lieberman would have filibustered his own party? Vote no, sure. But filibuster?
They had 255 seats in the house, 37 more than they needed. I’m not going to rehash arguments that were debated 8 years ago and even 6 months ago. The math is there.
All 60 Senators voted for it. 34 Democrats voted against it in the House. They could have passed whatever they liked. They chose the ACA, warts and all.
Absolutely. He was the reason the public option was removed.
I've been reading up on Nixon and it's incredible how ahead of his time he was on a lot of issues, like a basic income for the poor, that were inevitably dismantled by his own paranoia. He had a fairly similar healthcare plan that was destroyed by Arch Angel of healthcare Ted Kennedy. We wouldn't have an EPA without him.
Re: US Politics Thread
If you can't acknowledge that the Dems set the ACA up to fail on purpose so that they could get to single-payer, there's no point in having an intellectual conversation about it. You can post all the opinion articles you want. You can post gazillion word long posts and it doesn't change any of that.
I'm not going to go back 8 years and try to remember all of the details and I'm sure the fuck not going to waste my energy doing research and then posting opinion pieces on it. Let's keep it simple. They could have done whatever they wanted. So how did we end up where we are today? Why would they give in on their key legislation unless they knew it was bad or they wanted to make sure it was bad?
No they didn't set it up to fail. The dems did not start sabotaging it the day it was passed. That's conspiracy nonsense. The biggest issue was that Obama had an awful advisory team and a shit stew of cooks.
No, they could not do what they wanted, like the Republicans can't repeal it like they wanted and said they would. They've tried how many times with a majority?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:If you can't acknowledge that the Dems set the ACA up to fail on purpose so that they could get to single-payer, there's no point in having an intellectual conversation about it. You can post all the opinion articles you want. You can post gazillion word long posts and it doesn't change any of that.
I'm not going to go back 8 years and try to remember all of the details and I'm sure the fuck not going to waste my energy doing research and then posting opinion pieces on it. Let's keep it simple. They could have done whatever they wanted. So how did we end up where we are today? Why would they give in on their key legislation unless they knew it was bad or they wanted to make sure it was bad?
No they didn't set it up to fail. The dems did not start sabotaging it the day it was passed. That's conspiracy nonsense. The biggest issue was that Obama had an awful advisory team and a shit stew of cooks.
No, they could not do what they wanted, like the Republicans can't repeal it like they wanted and said they would. They've tried how many times with a majority?
Tried without a filibuster or veto threat? Once, and they failed.
