Hardly the doom that the GOP is telling us we are headed. So yours was only an effort to miss the point.
The point was that (and do I have to assume you have no idea what that expression means?) I already know plenty about people using ideology to deny information, I have plenty of experience in identifying good sources of information from the bad, so thank you very much for teaching us. :rolleyes:
The problem is to think that your sorry effort makes your points sound smarter.
Well. That certainly settles that.
I’m afraid, sir, that YOU have missed MY point.
I’m objecting to the ACA on reasonable grounds which you consider FUD. I am not espousing “doom and gloom” from the GOP, no matter what you want to characterize my statements as.
I have never heard this expression before in my life. I know it’s hard to believe, but different people are exposed to different things through their lives.
I’m distressed that you believe the effort that was sorry, here, was mine.
And again, my point stands, the problems described are not enough to justify the dismissal of the law.
True, but I also have to tell you that I have lived in places were health care access is universal, so I can tell you with plenty of experience that what the GOP is telling you is poppycock.
Whoa, steady now! There are ladies present, you know.
I don’t know. Automation (And/or outsourcing, but that’s another topic) is getting more and more widely adopted. I can imagine a world within my lifetime where the robots run everything (and/or Skynets everything) where people aren’t really needed to make things. If one person can service, say, 100 robots that do the manufacturing of 1,000 people…We may NOT have enough riverbank.
I disagree. In my opinion, shoe-horning a half-baked health care law with rosy assumptions that we can’t hold the originator to the fire over when it doesn’t materialize like we were told it would will do more damage than it would have to just phase in single payer.
MassCare is having troubles. A nationally-run system that’s very similar will also have similar troubles, plus troubles of scope, plus troubles we can’t anticipate, yet. Plus, there will be meddling from both sides to introduce more uncertainty. And the people will suffer. Not the bureaucrats who have a host of staff looking out for their needs. The people.
ACA is nothing like single payer. My Ferrari goes 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. Why can’t your Toyota Yaris? 
Also, you still haven’t told me what that statement meant.
And I would like a pony too, but that that is not in the law, and there is no mechanism nor any plausible way to see the current GOP supporting that.
And as pointed before, even the GI bill had many screw ups and it is now recognized as a very successful law.
Oh, like me that has no insurance, no doctor and thanks to family got to travel overseas to get care?
Spare me your FUD. Many minorities and working poor understood how sorry the GOP points were and remain so.
Your inability to Google is reaching legendary levels, so I’m not doing the simple work for you.
That was originally passed in 1945 and was a product of a Congressional attitude of working together to solve problems. What was that you just said right before this?
So I guess we aren’t going to spend the next 40 years slowly revising this law to make it suitable, we are just going to add ‘n’ slash pieces and parts to and from it to try and burn the other team.
Goody. I look forward to a dysfunctional Congress continually messing with us in their bid for partisan brownie points.
Shouting anecdotes about a situations that doesn’t apply to either ACA or the Single Payer idea and accusing me of FUD, which you still haven’t bothered to back up or discuss in any way, isn’t really debate.
mmhmm
No, I am convinced that as technology grows, other avenues will open up. The concerns you mention were the same ones brought up at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Merely because those commentators could not predict how the labor market would change did not mean they were right in their predictions of gloom. Like you, they saw the end to the ways of doing things that had kept people employed, and reasoned that massive unemployment would result.
But it didn’t then, and it won’t now.
Aw. Robots giving me martinis on a (crowded) riverfront is out the window, I guess. 
At the beginning of the IR (which is not my historical strong point) though you had machines with force multipliers of, like, 5. One person could knit a sweater 5 times as fast as the old way.
Now, the force multipliers are staggering. A lot of things you don’t need (or maybe even want?) a human doing the work as they get fatigued, where a laser, for instance, checking the dimensions on a manufactured widget will never have that issue.
I think the penultimate test will be building something like a car factory that doesn’t need laborers on the manufacturing floor as a matter of course (ignoring the “clear SUV jam” errors and such).
As for jobs that open up, I don’t want that. I want easy martini’s on the beach.
Do you ever wonder if what you type is not going to help your points?
As I said before, there is no way the republicans will go for single payer, you are only missing the point again, it was that it is really silly to demand a repeal of a law even before we find how to make it work properly.
I don’t think so, the most likely outcome is that the republicans will lose for being the do nothings.
Oh, that is rich, the subsidies and expanded medicare for the poor does not apply to the ACA. But thank you for that huge ignorant bit, as I told other opponents of the ACA that point of your is only good to show other less well to do working poor and minorities and other relatives what Republicans really think about them, that they will not matter.
As it turn out, in places like Florida, in the last presidential election, many voted for Obama as it was clear that health care for the working poor and many minorities was on the line.
Now, think of a small kid trying to show an old trick to grandma or grandpa, it only shows that the kid is ignorant or dismisses what the old person is bound to know already.
Not surprising that you are unwilling to read his words for comprehension. He is saying among other things it is not proper to use economics as an excuse for letting people go hungry. Which is exactly what you want to do. Are you against the reduction in food stamp benefits? It was justified by an argument close to yours.
But what do I know? I’m just an immoral atheist against hunger, who gives money to my local food bank but appreciate they will never have enough to cover food stamps.
I’m working on a GOP version of the Bible. In it Jesus will create loaves, but as for the fishes will just tell everyone to take care of it themselves. Jesus Christ - the first person to offer socialized healthcare, since he didn’t charge for healing.
Looked at the right way, the Sermon on the Mount was the sort of motivational lecture your boss sends you to, with a Tony Robbins wannabe at the Holiday Inn out on Rte. 9.
“For verily, I say unto you that thou shalt always be closing…”
Wait… wait. Are you saying we’re not doing the mind control chip thing? :smack:
Great. There goes my retirement fund. :mad: I knew I should have invested in the Death Panel Lotteries instead.
If you claim that Romneycare is making things more expensive, you would have to demonstrate that people in other states did not see an increase in insurance or health care costs. Think you can? If not, then your claim that Romneycare was responsible for the increase is invalid. Healthcare costs are increasing everywhere - in Mass at least everyone was able to get insurance.
No, a slight increase in the number of people who find access difficult. That does not mean that they didn’t have access. Driving to work is more difficult once summer is over - but I still get there.
No, somewhat satisfied is not neutral. Typically measures of satisfaction combine these two categories. The neutral category is given as neither satisfied or dissatisfied. That makes 84% satisfied, which is damn good. I wonder how the rest of the country feels?
One impact is that more people are going to be able to see a doctor which will increase wait times until the number of doctors increases. However 10% waiting an extra week for a non-emergency visit is far better than some number being excluded period, or being forced to use the emergency room for treatment that should be given by a PCP.
Natch. But this kind of thing would help lower health care costs. We can’t expect to combat cost increases without changing anything.
What is the percentage unnecessary use in other states? I can buy that some people are used to the ER, and may not have a doctor. They need to work harder.
Mostly FUD still.
BTW, do you have a cite saying that pre-existing conditions are rare? The problem goes beyond people who don’t get insurance. I have one - I suspect most people over 50, certainly over 55 do. I have good coverage from my employer, and if I moved to another big company their insurance company would be forced to ensure me. However if I wanted to set up a start up or go into consulting I’d be in deep shit until ACA kicks in. How much innovation has been lost because people who would have trouble getting insurance were discouraged from starting the kinds of small businesses that make America great?
So we shouldn’t try or advocate for anything else. Gotcha. And my demand for repeal isn’t “Oh, we should repeal it! Maybe by something in 2073 we can get Single Payer” it’s tit-for-tat. Drop it, enact SP in the next sentence of the same bill that drops ACA.
But, PLEASE keep putting words and positions you don’t bother to ask about in my mouth. it means so much to me.
Maybe, but it goes back and forth every 4-8 years. The Democrats will do something wildly unpopular in a few years, swing the R’s back in, and they’ll attack the ACA. The then R’s will do something wildly unpopular and swing the D’s back in and they’ll add things to the ACA.
Glee.
More attributing to me that I have never said, nor a position I do not take. And if your anecdote was in a place where you were covered for Medicaid, why did you go out of country?
Did you intentionally leave it vague so you could make any further statement you wished instead of being locked into what you said?
So, you post an opinion piece from before the election that is one person (or at most one medical center) advocating for Latinos to support Obama. It’s not even a survey. It’s an editorial opinion.
On top of that you ascribe your own meaning to said link and how all the minorities and poor voted for Obama because of the health care law.
Now, if we look at actual exit poll data, you can see that more Florida Latino voters, specifically, voted for Romney instead of Obama compared to the National elections in 2012. 39% Latino Vote in Florida versus 27% National. This means that in the 2012 elections, Florida Latinos were less sure of Obama than their peers nationwide.
In 2008, for comparison, National held 33% was Latino for McCain and Florida held 42% Latino vote for McCain. So Obama was still less popular amongst Florida Latinos than their peers.
Granted, over the 4 years there was a 3% overall erosion from Republican to Democrat among the Florida Latino voters, but that’s not the glowing endorsement of health care that you want to make it out to be.
Why are you trying to hide behind ageism? I don’t know your age. I don’t know if you are older or younger than me. And I certainly don’t care what your age is when I respond to the words you leave on the screen, which has no age attached to them. :dubious:
13.7% of the workforce would like to have some unpleasant words with you.
Are they the 13.7% that don’t know how to fish?
Listen, the moment you agree we should have a government based on the Pope’s teachings, you let me know. But he doesn’t teach in a vacuum, nor can you cherry-pick from his teaching the one or two things you want to hear and then dismiss him on the rest.