@willpayton why are you trying to mislead people about Obamacare increases.?
I was doing no such thing. I'm only pointing out that the truth about Obamacare is more complicated than just cherry-picking one set of statistics and ignoring everything else. Personally I would have rather had the Dems try to pass a universal healthcare bill, rather than the ACA which was a compromise to try to appease Republicans. The ACA, lets not forget, was modeled on Republican plans form the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare in Massachusetts. But, it was what it was, and it was much better than what came before. Yes Obama misspoke when he said that everyone could keep their plans if they wanted, but it was not a deliberate lie... unlike almost everything that comes from Trump. The truth was that a lot of those plans that people could no longer keep were gone because they were shit and covered very little, so Obamacare rightfully eliminated them.
The plans that Obamacare eliminated may or may not have been 'shit', it really depends on what the consumer thinks. For instance, why should a 70 year old heterosexual couple or a 20 year old male gay couple be forced to have a health care plan that covers pregnancy? Choosing to not have that in a plan makes it cheaper for them and makes it more likely that they will be able to afford health insurance. You may think that someone needs a plan that covers a lot more than they do, but why should someone have to get coverage for things they don't want or will not use? Why should your standard be the same for everyone else? Should the government take away someone's freedom to have a plan that covers less and reduce their options? I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty and allow people as much choice as possible. You choose to impose YOUR standards through the enforcement of the government's guns.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty!! @willpayton throughout this thread you have claimed that Republicans will defend Trump no matter what. Yet, by refusing to admit that the 2013 Lie of the Year Award winner, Barrack Obama, lied about Obamacare is hypocritical. He lied for political purposes to push his agenda. He knew he lied. He knew people would lose their insurance plans. He even told lies to mitigate the damage of his lie by claiming that he only meant you could keep your plan if it didn't change. Politifact rated that lie a 'pants on fire lie'. Why can't you be honest and just admit Obama lied? Why do you feel the need to defend his lies?
Do you know why Obama's lie of "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" won lie of the year in 2013?
I do know why. Simple people thought 'can' meant 'will' and maybe Obama didn't do much to correct that misinterpretation. The provision in the ACA that protects existing plans was literally spelled out to you above and because you had no answer for it, you simply ignored it. You side-stepped it. It is in there that you CAN keep your health plan, so long as it has not changed. Insurance agencies however, are able to change the health plan, just like they have always been able to do.
Why didn't it win lie of the year for 2010 when Obamacare first started? The reason is that in 2013, 4 million people lost their insurance because plans that Obama promised people they could keep - ceased to exist.
That is not because the ACA forced insurance agencies to change existing plans. That is because insurance agencies chose to change the plans or plan holders changed them by changing life circumstances, such as a new job, or wanting to select a different package.
Even as some members of his administration where coming clean and admitting that people would lose their plans, Obama continued to tell his lie.
Obama didn't say "You can force insurance companies to keep your plan". Instead, he said "You can keep your health plan". Do you need me to explain definitions of words to you now? Nothing in that statement is false. At best, it is glossing over the fact that insurance agencies will simply not choose to keep the same health plans. They are now providing health insurance to people like cancer patients, whom they previously were able to drop. So now, they have incentive to change old health plans to new health plans. It is a matter of what insurance agencies are legally able to do.
Obama and some members of Obama's administration, tried to claim that he really never said what he said , and that what the president really said was you could keep your plan if it hasn't changed. Politfact rated that a "pants on fire" lie. Isn't that similar to what you were arguing above?
I love how you think repeating the same swill that I just debunked somehow makes it fact. Press Secretary, Jay Carney verified exactly what I have been telling you. The insurance agencies are not being forced to change plans, they are choosing to. You are tilting at the wrong windmill, as usual.
Members of Obama's Administration cited the statement, that you made, that ACA did not cancel any plans, and that all were grandfathered in. Politifact rated this a lie too.
I know the tiny bulb on the top of your spine is struggling with this but it isn't a lie if it is literally part of the law. Preventing the Federal government from regulating private companies should be making you disturbingly excited anyway. How is it that it suddenly is a bad thing, just because it is in an Act made by democrats? Hypocrite much? I'm almost certain it was put in there to appease republicans anyway.
Politifact noted that insurers really had no choice because of how the law is written.
This is not true. They did have a choice. They could have simply not changed the plans. It would take an entire course to teach you what you don't know about health economics.
If a co-payment increased by as much as $5 the plan was not permitted. I guess where there is 1 Obama lie, another blossoms to cover it up.
Jesus Christ, you are so adorable. If the insurance agencies change the plan by increasing co-payments, they lose the ability to keep offering the plan and you somehow think this makes Obama a liar? If the insurance company changes the plan, then it is no longer protected by a grandfather clause. This goes for any legal matter. If you change the contract, the old contract is void. You can't create a new plan and call it grandfathered in under old rules. Please, if you don't understand what words mean, look them up. 'Grandfathered' clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.
So again, Obama's statement that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your health care plan (2013 lie of the year) is a much bigger deal than Trump's tweet that Comey had better hope there are no tapes. MILLIONS lost their health insurance plans while Obama continued to lie about it.
So again, I have twice explained to you how you simply are speaking about stuff that you know absolutely nothing about. Believe me, I would much rather be enjoying my vacation from CV. Talking to someone who so desperately wants to see poor or sick people die makes me feel a need for a shower. I'm only here because someone told me you were spreading misinformation about health care. Once again, you are guilty of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance. Probably the Backfire Effect too. I gave you the actual legal jargon that protects existing health plans. You ignored it completely because you know it obliterates your entire bullshit, recycled rhetoric. You can't even come up with your own reasons for hating Obama or the ACA. You have to use the already proven false piles of shit from other conservatives. Let me ask you, have you ever had an independent thought in your life? It was a provision that was and is an existing part of the ACA. Just because it is an option, does not mean that insurance agencies are forced into it. The ACA does have problems, but robbing people of health care is certainly not one of them. The President trying to publicly intimidate someone who may or may not have potentially legally damning information on him is far and away worse than our President trying to catch our nation up to vastly superior nations in terms of health care.
@just_sayin: So I'm sure you will admit that Trump lies for political gain, correct? I mean, you're so incensed about Obama lying, but this thread isnt even about Obama. Trump said that everyone was going to have health insurance. But, both of the plans for Trumpcare from the House and Senate would result in tens of millions of people who currently have insurance losing it.
Do you know why Obama's lie of "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" won lie of the year in 2013?
I do know why. Simple people thought 'can' meant 'will' and maybe Obama didn't do much to correct that misinterpretation. The provision in the ACA that protects existing plans was literally spelled out to you above and because you had no answer for it, you simply ignored it. You side-stepped it. It is in there that you CAN keep your health plan, so long as it has not changed. Insurance agencies however, are able to change the health plan, just like they have always been able to do.
Why didn't it win lie of the year for 2010 when Obamacare first started? The reason is that in 2013, 4 million people lost their insurance because plans that Obama promised people they could keep - ceased to exist.
That is not because the ACA forced insurance agencies to change existing plans. That is because insurance agencies chose to change the plans or plan holders changed them by changing life circumstances, such as a new job, or wanting to select a different package.
Even as some members of his administration where coming clean and admitting that people would lose their plans, Obama continued to tell his lie.
Obama didn't say "You can force insurance companies to keep your plan". Instead, he said "You can keep your health plan". Do you need me to explain definitions of words to you now? Nothing in that statement is false. At best, it is glossing over the fact that insurance agencies will simply not choose to keep the same health plans. They are now providing health insurance to people like cancer patients, whom they previously were able to drop. So now, they have incentive to change old health plans to new health plans. It is a matter of what insurance agencies are legally able to do.
Obama and some members of Obama's administration, tried to claim that he really never said what he said , and that what the president really said was you could keep your plan if it hasn't changed. Politfact rated that a "pants on fire" lie. Isn't that similar to what you were arguing above?
I love how you think repeating the same swill that I just debunked somehow makes it fact. Press Secretary, Jay Carney verified exactly what I have been telling you. The insurance agencies are not being forced to change plans, they are choosing to. You are tilting at the wrong windmill, as usual.
Members of Obama's Administration cited the statement, that you made, that ACA did not cancel any plans, and that all were grandfathered in. Politifact rated this a lie too.
I know the tiny bulb on the top of your spine is struggling with this but it isn't a lie if it is literally part of the law. Preventing the Federal government from regulating private companies should be making you disturbingly excited anyway. How is it that it suddenly is a bad thing, just because it is in an Act made by democrats? Hypocrite much? I'm almost certain it was put in there to appease republicans anyway.
Politifact noted that insurers really had no choice because of how the law is written.
This is not true. They did have a choice. They could have simply not changed the plans. It would take an entire course to teach you what you don't know about health economics.
If a co-payment increased by as much as $5 the plan was not permitted. I guess where there is 1 Obama lie, another blossoms to cover it up.
Jesus Christ, you are so adorable. If the insurance agencies change the plan by increasing co-payments, they lose the ability to keep offering the plan and you somehow think this makes Obama a liar? If the insurance company changes the plan, then it is no longer protected by a grandfather clause. This goes for any legal matter. If you change the contract, the old contract is void. You can't create a new plan and call it grandfathered in under old rules. Please, if you don't understand what words mean, look them up. 'Grandfathered' clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.
So again, Obama's statement that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your health care plan (2013 lie of the year) is a much bigger deal than Trump's tweet that Comey had better hope there are no tapes. MILLIONS lost their health insurance plans while Obama continued to lie about it.
So again, I have twice explained to you how you simply are speaking about stuff that you know absolutely nothing about. Believe me, I would much rather be enjoying my vacation from CV. Talking to someone who so desperately wants to see poor or sick people die makes me feel a need for a shower. I'm only here because someone told me you were spreading misinformation about health care. Once again, you are guilty of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance. Probably the Backfire Effect too. I gave you the actual legal jargon that protects existing health plans. You ignored it completely because you know it obliterates your entire bullshit, recycled rhetoric. You can't even come up with your own reasons for hating Obama or the ACA. You have to use the already proven false piles of shit from other conservatives. Let me ask you, have you ever had an independent thought in your life? It was a provision that was and is an existing part of the ACA. Just because it is an option, does not mean that insurance agencies are forced into it. The ACA does have problems, but robbing people of health care is certainly not one of them. The President trying to publicly intimidate someone who may or may not have potentially legally damning information on him is far and away worse than our President trying to catch our nation up to vastly superior nations in terms of health care.
Well @erik_soong, I'm confident that you are every bit as smart as you say. And I have no doubt that you are smarter than a hayseed from Copperhead Creek. But, it seems to me, your anger is misplaced. I have been citing from a source, Politifact. I think your beef is with them.
Now how is a dumb guy like me suppose to know who the smarter one between you and Politifact? I mean, you could be right, or they could be right. This is your area of expertise. That's a point for you. They are a well respected fact check organization, a little left of center, but well respected. That's one for them. Wait, they won a Pulitzer for their quality fact checking journalism. Have you won a Pulitzer? It would help me to know who is more likely to be right. But I'll assume that a smart guy like you has won a Pulitzer for your fact checking and give you a point too.
Since its a tie between the two of you, I guess I have to look at why a fact checking organization like Politifact said Obama not only lied but he told the biggest lie on the planet for calendar year 2013. They quoted Barrack Obama, over and over again. Here's what they said, he said:
Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: "No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: "I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: "Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."
Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: "If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health."
In remarks in Portland, Maine, on April 1, 2010, Obama said that "if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
Obama then repeated the remarks during several campaign events in 2012, as well as at the first presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012: "If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around."
a speech in Largo, Md., on Sept. 26. "So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you -- especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything."
Politifact concluded: "But we found at least 37 times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the "grandfathering" process, when the impact would be clear."
Since Obama himself promised "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." I'm going to have to choose Politifact over you, its not personal. I mean, I'm sure your more informed than a Pulitzer prize winning fact check organization, but Obama's own words say "period. No one will take it away, no matter what". And someone took away 4 million insurance plans in 2013. Sorry dude, it was close.
There are a lot of LONG posts about what Obama did or did not say or mean in the creation of the Affordable Care Act for a Donald Trump discussion thread.
- The length and breadth spent on Obama is mystifying. To an extent, I get that this could be considered a rebuttal about hypocrisy, but when the posts go on, in enormous length about the honesty of Obama without a scrap of defense about the honesty of Trump, I think this strategy draws the same criticism you are trying to level against others: hypocrisy. Even if you are correct about hypocrisy, that doesn't really make the accusations of Trump untrue. This is a thread about Trump. He is the current president. Recognizing what is or isn't true about what he says has to do with where we go from here on. And, of course, this thread is about him, not Obama, as willpayton already noted.
- I even find this particular battleground a little off-topic. Despite folks wanting to label the Republican health care bill as Trumpcare, I don't find that particularly accurate. Trump seems to have little to do with the legislation, and he even seems to be fighting both for and against it, criticizing it as "mean" one day and berating unsupportive Republicans on another. This is wildly different from the Affordable Care Act - President Obama and his team were instrumental in the creation, support, and lengthy negotiations involved in its creation and continued to go to the wall in supporting the law after it was passed. The Obamacare nickname was certainly well-earned. I would expect debate about President Trump to be more focused on things that are more about Trump.
You choose to impose YOUR standards through the enforcement of the government's guns.
Uhuh....
OK, I'll elaborate. I don't assume that what I think is best, is necessarily best for you. I don't assume that you know what is best for me. I don't won't to force a 70 year old couple to have a health insurance plan that covers childbirth, nor a gay male couple, if they don't think they need it. You do. You have deemed certain health insurance plans 'shit' and you want the government to force people to only purchase plans that meet your standards, rather than letting people choose the options that they feel are best for them. So the gay guy couple and that 70 year old couple have to have a more expensive plan that covers childbirth, because you think they need it. Government laws are all ultimately enforced by force. All laws ultimately force people's compliance or those people end up in jail or dead.
@just_sayin: So I'm sure you will admit that Trump lies for political gain, correct? I mean, you're so incensed about Obama lying, but this thread isnt even about Obama. Trump said that everyone was going to have health insurance. But, both of the plans for Trumpcare from the House and Senate would result in tens of millions of people who currently have insurance losing it.
You may want to sit down for this. This may be as traumatic as when you found out about the tooth fairy or when you caught your Uncle Bob secretly dressing up like the tooth fairy. Donald Trump lies. He lies a lot. So far he hasn't been given an award for telling the biggest lie on the planet in a calendar year like Obama has, but he does lie.
I think conservatives should point that out. Pretending Trump doesn't lie just makes you partisan and dishonest. Covering for a guy who lies all the time would make us like Clinton and Obama supporters. I never want us to sink that low.
@just_sayin: So I'm sure you will admit that Trump lies for political gain, correct? I mean, you're so incensed about Obama lying, but this thread isnt even about Obama. Trump said that everyone was going to have health insurance. But, both of the plans for Trumpcare from the House and Senate would result in tens of millions of people who currently have insurance losing it.
You may want to sit down for this. This may be as traumatic as when you found out about the tooth fairy or when you caught your Uncle Bob secretly dressing up like the tooth fairy. Donald Trump lies. He lies a lot. So far he hasn't been given an award for telling the biggest lie on the planet in a calendar year like Obama has, but he does lie.
I think conservatives should point that out. Pretending Trump doesn't lie just makes you partisan and dishonest. Covering for a guy who lies all the time would make us like Clinton and Obama supporters. I never want us to sink that low.
Show me a politician you think doesn't lie and I'll show you someone who's been fooled by them.
You choose to impose YOUR standards through the enforcement of the government's guns.
Uhuh....
OK, I'll elaborate. I don't assume that what I think is best, is necessarily best for you. I don't assume that you know what is best for me. I don't won't to force a 70 year old couple to have a health insurance plan that covers childbirth, nor a gay male couple, if they don't think they need it. You do. You have deemed certain health insurance plans 'shit' and you want the government to force people to only purchase plans that meet your standards, rather than letting people choose the options that they feel are best for them. So the gay guy couple and that 70 year old couple have to have a more expensive plan that covers childbirth, because you think they need it. Government laws are all ultimately enforced by force. All laws ultimately force people's compliance or those people end up in jail or dead.
So basically you think we should live in a society without laws?
Your argument against Obamacare is a bad one because ultimately the way insurance works is by spreading risk. That 70-year-old might not need coverage for child birth, but if only women who are planning to have a child would get such insurance, then it would be too expensive to buy. Basically without spreading risk insurance would not work. And whether you agree with it or not, it's the role of government to promote what's best for society. Having a system where only the rich would afford health care is not good for society. This is also why we pay taxes for things like highways, schools, etc, even if you dont need a school or a highway.
Also, I said this before and you ignored it, but again... I dont think Obamacare is what we need in the U.S. I think we need universal healthcare like other modern nations.
Show me a politician you think doesn't lie and I'll show you someone who's been fooled by them.
Just because politicians lie sometimes doesnt excuse Trump from being a pathological liar and lying almost all the time. You might as well argue that because everyone breaks the law, it's ok for you to go around stealing and murdering.
You choose to impose YOUR standards through the enforcement of the government's guns.
Uhuh....
OK, I'll elaborate. I don't assume that what I think is best, is necessarily best for you. I don't assume that you know what is best for me. I don't won't to force a 70 year old couple to have a health insurance plan that covers childbirth, nor a gay male couple, if they don't think they need it. You do. You have deemed certain health insurance plans 'shit' and you want the government to force people to only purchase plans that meet your standards, rather than letting people choose the options that they feel are best for them. So the gay guy couple and that 70 year old couple have to have a more expensive plan that covers childbirth, because you think they need it. Government laws are all ultimately enforced by force. All laws ultimately force people's compliance or those people end up in jail or dead.
So basically you think we should live in a society without laws?
Your argument against Obamacare is a bad one because ultimately the way insurance works is by spreading risk. That 70-year-old might not need coverage for child birth, but if only women who are planning to have a child would get such insurance, then it would be too expensive to buy. Basically without spreading risk insurance would not work. And whether you agree with it or not, it's the role of government to promote what's best for society. Having a system where only the rich would afford health care is not good for society. This is also why we pay taxes for things like highways, schools, etc, even if you dont need a school or a highway.
Also, I said this before and you ignored it, but again... I dont think Obamacare is what we need in the U.S. I think we need universal healthcare like other modern nations.
Show me a politician you think doesn't lie and I'll show you someone who's been fooled by them.
Just because politicians lie sometimes doesnt excuse Trump from being a pathological liar and lying almost all the time. You might as well argue that because everyone breaks the law, it's ok for you to go around stealing and murdering.
Once again you let your political bias blind you. I never singled out any politician or made any point other than what I said. That all of them are liars and if you think one you're supporting isn't it's because you've been fooled by them.
The image of the United States has deteriorated sharply across the globe under President Donald Trump and an overwhelming majority of people in other countries have no confidence in his ability to lead, a survey from the Pew Research Center showed.
Five months into Trump's presidency, the survey spanning 37 nations showed U.S. favorability ratings in the rest of the world slumping to 49 percent from 64 percent at the end of Barack Obama's eight years in the White House.
But the falls were far steeper in some of America's closest allies, including U.S. neighbors Mexico and Canada, and European partners like Germany and Spain.
...
Just 30 percent of Mexicans now say they have a favorable view of the United States, down from 66 percent at the end of the Obama era. In Canada and Germany, favorability ratings slid by 22 points, to 43 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
I gave it a quick watch. CNN producer John Bonifield got caught on tape admitting CNN news is bullshit. That the whole pushing the Trump/Russia connection is just ratings and that Trump is right in claiming they're witch hunting him.
I've seen so much fake news that even with something like this I feel doubtful. How much context are we missing? Would it even matter? Was it edited to look a certain way or just to cut it short to show the highlight? I want to know the whole truth before jumping the gun here.
Still I hope this doesn't get thrown under the rug like it has in the past when something gets shown.
EDIT: Ok I just noticed the Project Veritas watermark. Which brings some doubt.
I gave it a quick watch. CNN producer John Bonifield got caught on tape admitting CNN news is bullshit. That the whole pushing the Trump/Russia connection is just ratings and that Trump is right in claiming they're witch hunting him.
I've seen so much fake news that even with something like this I feel doubtful. How much context are we missing? Would it even matter? Was it edited to look a certain way or just to cut it short to show the highlight? I want to know the whole truth before jumping the gun here.
Still I hope this doesn't get thrown under the rug like it has in the past when something gets shown.
EDIT: Ok I just noticed the Project Veritas watermark. Which brings some doubt.
This is a good thing. An honest media is a good media. And anything that helps the media return to an honest approach, regardless of right or left, is a good thing.
I feel bad for the producer. Liberals will forgive him for being 'fake news' but eating at a Chick-fil-a - never. He's history.
Correction: the CNN reporters were not fired - they resigned *cough*after being asked to resign*cough*.
Trump is dumber than a bag of rocks, and does anything for a quick brownie point with his base. The logic is wack as shit. He demands an apology (I'm guessing from the Obama administration), because he didn't do as much as he could of during the Russia hacks, and since he thought Hillary was gonna win/Trump was bitching about it being unfair, he colluded with the Russians? This man is the genius chess player? He couldn't debate someone from a middle school debate team.
I honestly think a single payer system is the best way to go, if every driver is forced to have car insurance, every person living should have some sort of health insurance. Why you might ask? For the same reason that every driver has car insurance, think about it everyone driving a car advertently or inadvertently affects each other driving, and that's the same with the healthcare system, everyone's general health affects the market and affects the available treatment of others. If anything there should be a major overhaul in the healthcare industry it would bring more jobs, and these jobs are stable and can't be outsourced. I think one thing that they could do in my opinion is to refine the employer mandate or even get rid of the employer mandate all together, the individual mandate should stay to make the pool as large as possible, a larger pool will actually bring the costs down, the real culprit of the health insurance travesty is actually the insurance companies themselves, they have gotten too greedy and they have been getting away with murder for years. We spend more money on healthcare than any other country but we don't have the health results to show for it. Also to increase competition, individuals should be able to not only purchase across state lines, but they should also be able to take advantage of health insurance industries across National borders, which means being able to import drugs from countries that sell the same thing cheaper.
Well @erik_soong, I'm confident that you are every bit as smart as you say. And I have no doubt that you are smarter than a hayseed from Copperhead Creek. But, it seems to me, your anger is misplaced. I have been citing from a source, Politifact. I think your beef is with them.
I understand that you are citing from a credible source. I am explaining to you, using evidence and knowledge on the field, how they are wrong. Credible does not mean infallible and you know that this is true. The law aligns with Obama's words. What the law says does not align with their interpretation of Obama's words. It's really that simple. 'Can' does not mean 'will' and you are deferring to Politifact as a means of avoiding responsibility for your own fallacious argument.
Now how is a dumb guy like me suppose to know who the smarter one between you and Politifact?
Politifact is staffed by professionals in journalism. I am not in journalism. I am a graduate student on health care delivery. I am studying the law of health care, the economics that drive it, and the impact that these and other factors have on the US population. In short, you are deferring to those who are not experts on the topic and in fact, were not slamming the law itself but the man advocating the law using their poor understanding of his words.
I mean, you could be right, or they could be right. This is your area of expertise. That's a point for you. They are a well respected fact check organization, a little left of center, but well respected. That's one for them. Wait, they won a Pulitzer for their quality fact checking journalism. Have you won a Pulitzer?
Again, I am not a journalist. I don't need a Pulitzer to be a voice of authority on health care law. I am a master candidate for this exact field though, which trumps out a BA in journalism. The publisher of the article, like you, can't distinguish between 'can' and 'will'. It's lazy. You are lazy. This is just as stupid as trying to dismiss Bill Nye's advocacy for science simply because he does not hold a doctorate. Since you think that a Pulitzer is all that is needed to turn your brain off, then you will lose every single debate ever. You lack the ability to think for yourself and now that I have you quoted to deferring to the authority of a Pulitzer rather than evidence, I can simply demand that you admit defeat in every debate where I can find a Pulitzer winner.
It would help me to know who is more likely to be right. But I'll assume that a smart guy like you has won a Pulitzer for your fact checking and give you a point too.
Making assumptions has never be a difficult task for you. You seem to make them irrespective of what data is presented.
Since its a tie between the two of you, I guess I have to look at why a fact checking organization like Politifact said Obama not only lied but he told the biggest lie on the planet for calendar year 2013. They quoted Barrack Obama, over and over again. Here's what they said, he said:
Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: "No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
How does this run contrary to what has already been said? "Able to" is just another way of saying 'can' and we wind up right back where we started. You don't know the meaning of some very rudimentary words. Read a book, I guess.
Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: "I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Context matters here and you are ignoring it, just like I said you were prone to doing in order to score some points in an argument. I swear to God, if you ever have an honest argument, I would shit myself in disbelief. The context is that the government will not be taking away health care plans and that remained completely true. That promise has been upheld. Now, it was never promised that the ACA will force businesses to deny you the plans you wanted. You know that this is true but you don't even care. You want to keep pushing a certain narrative. A narrative that is a comforting lie.
Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: "Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."
You can keep your doctor and insurance. If however, your insurance organization changes your plan, that is between you and your insurance agency. The federal government simply was not given the power to force businesses to maintain an inferior health coverage because some people liked it more. This was already explained to you before, why are you struggling with it?
Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: "If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health."
Again, this is not a broken promise. I outlined to you how it literally says as much in the ACA provisions that are currently standing provisions. I suppose I could do what you do and just repeat the same arguments. It certainly would save me the effort of having to think for myself but then we both would look like absolute idiots.
In remarks in Portland, Maine, on April 1, 2010, Obama said that "if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
This is true. The government did not take away existing health plans. Insurance agencies did.
Obama then repeated the remarks during several campaign events in 2012, as well as at the first presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012: "If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around."
Which is also true. The powers of insurance companies was limited somewhat. For example, they were given ceilings on just how much they can charge someone. This was simply not the case before. They are also unable to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and they lost the ability to drop sick people from their insurance. Also things that were not previously true.
a speech in Largo, Md., on Sept. 26. "So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you -- especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything."
And this was true. If you had health insurance, you were not required to do a thing.
Politifact concluded: "But we found at least 37 times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the "grandfathering" process, when the impact would be clear."
This clearly states that there is a provision in the ACA for existing health care plans. It just allows insurance agencies to behave exactly like what they are: a business. If the businesses want to change the services that they offer, why shouldn't they be allowed to? As a person who claims to love freedom and oppose government regulation, you sure seem to be advocating for the exact opposite.
Since Obama himself promised "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." I'm going to have to choose Politifact over you, its not personal. I mean, I'm sure your more informed than a Pulitzer prize winning fact check organization, but Obama's own words say "period. No one will take it away, no matter what". And someone took away 4 million insurance plans in 2013. Sorry dude, it was close.
Careful word choice on Obama's part does not make it a lie. Again, at best you can accuse Obama of using words that were easily misinterpreted. But thank you for proving my earlier point on how you ignore evidence that runs contrary to your closely held beliefs and how you cherry-pick evidence, ignore context when it is convenient, and speak on matters that you have no actual knowledge about as though you are a voice of authority. So far, I have proven you wrong on every single point you made. Let's go through the list, shall we?
You said that Obama lied. I have proven that to not be true via the provisions that are actually in the ACA. I proved that you are completely ignorant to the actual law and defer to those who hold positions that make you feel good. You did not even know of the provision that protects existing health plans. I'll post it again, since you clearly are lying to save face:
Sec. 1251 of the ACA is literally titled Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage. Part A (1) of this section is titled No Changes to Existing Coverage. Word for word, it states:
"In general. Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act."
When asked what provisions in the ACA that took away health care plans, you avoided the question entirely because you knew you had no answer for it.
You claimed that republicans were excluded from the discussions on the ACA. I proved that to be a blatant lie by showing you that the ACA was in deliberation for almost an entire year, where it went through countless revisions with more than a few amendments attached by republicans. You would have known this if you spent your time looking for more than evidence that confirms your bias.
You said that not a single republican voted for the ACA. Not only was that wrong, it showed a hilarious level of ignorance of your own party. My god, even a lazy and slow republican should know that a republican voted for the ACA.
You tried to mislead using a quote from Nancy Pelosi. I found this attempt at deception to be quite adorable. For anyone who wants to see Just_Sayin get proven wrong on literally everything he said, look here.
You don't know the difference between 'can' and 'will', despite the fact that it has been explained to you several times. A child could understand this stuff.
You have displayed an alarming commitment to abandoning your own values on freedoms so long as it gives you a chance to drag shit-Obama's name. The hypocrisy that you exude is almost palpable.
Not only have you been given several explanations as to why Obama did not lie, you were also given supporting evidence that proved that the fault does not lie with Obama but with insurance agencies. I surmise that republicans are also responsible for giving insurance agencies freedom. Unfortunately you are so blinded by your hate for anything from democrats, that you don't even see how this is a direct application of the freedoms you advocate for when it originates from republicans.
You don't understand what it means to be grandfathered into a health plan. You seriously think that plans that are grandfathered in can be changed and still qualify as grandfathered. Damn, that is quite a stupid understanding of legal matters.
You are like a living embodiment of everything wrong with the republican party. It's not a surprise though, you get the bulk of your information from snaggletoothed, American-hating bloggers.
The full extent of Just_Sayin's investigative and debate practices.
I am not disagreeing with you on the grandfathering clause in Obamacare. Yes it is there. My initial reference to Politifact's ruling that Obama told the 2013 lie of the year is more about what Obama himself said rather than the language in the bill. He was the primary salesman and had a responsibility to share the information that people would lose their current plans. He did not do that and a rational person would assume that when he said you could keep your plan - period - that he meant "period". This is not a personal attack on your field or knowledge of the subject.
Two quick observations:
1) No Republican voted for Obamacare - that's true.
"The Washington Post reported “The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote.” In March 2010, the U.S. House voted 219 to 212 for Obamacare. 34 House Democrats and all of the House Republicans voted against Obamacare. The NO votes were the only bipartisan votes ." Nov 20, 2013 from http://oregoncatalyst.com/25561-reminder-obamacare-passed-single-republican-vote.html
2) Republicans had no say in ACA and were excluded from discussions.
Of the 159 Republican amendments adopted - almost all (except 2) where technical amendments that were already part of the overall plan anyway.
To quote from the article: "None of the Republicans' priorities have gotten any traction, he said: Tort reform, equalizing the tax code, reducing the proposed cuts to Medicare spending, and scrapping the proposed "public option.""
So you are technically correct, ACA includes Republican "amendments", but the overall tone was indeed one of exclusion as Politifact noted.
Just Sayin' - If your argument is that one of the things wrong with the Affordable Care Act is that one party was essentially excluded, are you in favor of a health care bill being passed with much more exclusion?
I realize you have a lot to say about how this all began, but I'd really like to steer things toward where they are going.
It's easy to get caught up in the partisan politics of who's voting for and against something, and we forget the issue that these guys (mostly guys) in Congress are failing to represent the people of the country. Right now only 17% of people actually support what the Republicans are trying to pass... which is not surprising since according to the non-partisan CBO this plan would cause around 22 million people to lose health insurance. According to every non-partisan examination of this bill, it's just a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes.
It's easy to get caught up in the partisan politics of who's voting for and against something, and we forget the issue that these guys (mostly guys) in Congress are failing to represent the people of the country. Right now only 17% of people actually support what the Republicans are trying to pass... which is not surprising since according to the non-partisan CBO this plan would cause around 22 million people to lose health insurance. According to every non-partisan examination of this bill, it's just a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes.
You are right that the Republican plan is not popular. However, your wording of the CBO's review is a little loose though. 22 million will not "lose" health care. A majority of that amount will CHOOSE not to purchase an insurance plan. That is different than "losing" a plan. The poorest of the poor will still have access with government sponsored plans. There are reductions in the rate of medicare for those making who can work. But they are for those above the poverty line. Regarding the tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor - are you referring to the fact that the CBO said that ALL overall premiums would go down by 30% within a couple of years of implementation? That seems like something beneficial to all people to me.
It's easy to get caught up in the partisan politics of who's voting for and against something, and we forget the issue that these guys (mostly guys) in Congress are failing to represent the people of the country. Right now only 17% of people actually support what the Republicans are trying to pass... which is not surprising since according to the non-partisan CBO this plan would cause around 22 million people to lose health insurance. According to every non-partisan examination of this bill, it's just a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes.
You are right that the Republican plan is not popular. However, your wording of the CBO's review is a little loose though. 22 million will not "lose" health care. A majority of that amount will CHOOSE not to purchase an insurance plan. That is different than "losing" a plan. The poorest of the poor will still have access with government sponsored plans. There are reductions in the rate of medicare for those making who can work. But they are for those above the poverty line. Regarding the tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor - are you referring to the fact that the CBO said that ALL overall premiums would go down by 30% within a couple of years of implementation? That seems like something beneficial to all people to me.
We could certainly argue about whether the term "lost" is appropriate. I think it is, but you're correct that it's not a direct effect. It's due to, like you point out, people deciding not to buy insurance. But we can also argue over whether "choose" is accurate. After all, if people can no longer afford something, are they really "choosing" not to buy it? Are the homeless people on the sidewalk just choosing to not have a home?
To your second point of lower premiums, I think you're talking about the CBO saying that "average" premiums would go down. The important thing is to understand why those average premiums are going down. By getting rid of the ACA regulations, insurance companies will now be able to give very cheap coverage to healthy people, and very expensive coverage to the older and less healthy people. Those in the latter category will then not be able to afford coverage and that means that we now have an average number made up of a lot of cheap plans and few expensive plans. So: lower average premiums.
You cant look at a specific stat in isolation and then use that as an argument for or against something. Looking at the entire picture is what gives us the perspective to understand things.
So when people like Paul Ryan go out there and tell people that this bill is great because it's going to lower premiums, he's basically lying right to their faces.
I am not disagreeing with you on the grandfathering clause in Obamacare. Yes it is there. My initial reference to Politifact's ruling that Obama told the 2013 lie of the year is more about what Obama himself said rather than the language in the bill. He was the primary salesman and had a responsibility to share the information that people would lose their current plans. He did not do that and a rational person would assume that when he said you could keep your plan - period - that he meant "period". This is not a personal attack on your field or knowledge of the subject.
I don't agree with this point though. The problem here is that a rational person does not assume that a business is going to be unfairly regulated. Such an assumption would be made by someone who is decidedly irrational. To force insurance companies to be locked into a health plan is simply absurd. It is that kind of inflexibility that would have made it impossible for insurance agencies to survive. In order for an insurance agency to operate in such a climate, they would be forced to do incredibly costly levels of excessive underwriting and defeat the purpose that it serves, which is to maximize profit and minimize risk. This would have cost insurance companies billions to perform this underwriting before the implementation of the ACA if that were the case and odds are many of these companies would have underwritten themselves into the ground because of it.
Two quick observations:
1) No Republican voted for Obamacare - that's true.
"The Washington Post reported “The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote.” In March 2010, the U.S. House voted 219 to 212 for Obamacare. 34 House Democrats and all of the House Republicans voted against Obamacare. The NO votes were the only bipartisan votes ." Nov 20, 2013 from http://oregoncatalyst.com/25561-reminder-obamacare-passed-single-republican-vote.html
This is called moving the goalposts. Before, you simply said that no republican voted for it. That is untrue. Republican Joseph Cao did vote for it in 2009. His position changed, allegedly, when he became uncomfortable with aid being given to women for abortions and withdrew his support in 2010. That is irrelevant. You stated that no republican voted for it and did not specify a range of dates that this statement was supposed to cover. A republican did vote for it.
2) Republicans had no say in ACA and were excluded from discussions.
This only adds support to my earlier statement where I said that democrats reached out in a show of bipartisanship by adopting amendments from the republicans.
Of the 159 Republican amendments adopted - almost all (except 2) where technical amendments that were already part of the overall plan anyway.
So what? The ACA was designed to expand Medicaid for the elderly, the sick, and the poor. So yeah, denying republican's main concern of cutting funding to Medicaid would obviously be rejected. That was not your initial claim however. You said that republicans were excluded from discussions. That is a fabrication that has no basis in reality. They were included in the discussions. They were included in the design. They were denied the most damaging goals that they had.
To quote from the article: "None of the Republicans' priorities have gotten any traction, he said: Tort reform, equalizing the tax code, reducing the proposed cuts to Medicare spending, and scrapping the proposed "public option.""
Bitching from a republican about how he can't screw the sick, elderly, and the poor is not evidence that they were not contributing or allowed to participate.
So you are technically correct, ACA includes Republican "amendments", but the overall tone was indeed one of exclusion as Politifact noted.
This is not true. It was not a tone of exclusion when they had over 160 hours of debate and revisions over the Bill. It is not a tone of exclusion when they were able to make changes to the ACA, some of which were major revisions. The major purpose of the ACA is to provide health care to those who cannot afford or who have other barriers to prevent access to health care. If the republicans wanted to destroy the design of the ACA, why would those amendments be included?
Look, if the republicans suddenly decided that they had the best interests of the people of our nation at heart and made a health care plan that is better than the ACA in that it offered better health care access at lower costs, I would be all for it. That is not the goal of republicans though. You keep using Politifact, so I'll give you something to think about from them. Politifact has stated that the GOP health care bill will make out of pocket costs higher AND will reduce the tax credits, in addition to eliminating the cost-sharing subsidies. This means you will pay more for less and you will still get screwed when visiting the doctor. It also provides states with waivers to opt out of the health care plan entirely, which they will be pressured to use. Everything the GOP have in mind weakens our nation. I am going into medicine. This will only financially benefit me. I have every financial reason to hope that it will pass so I can take advantage of the poor decisions of people like you. However, I have a moral obligation to oppose what is essentially an unenforceable, toothless bastardization of the ACA. I care about the people in our country. You clearly don't care because you are young and can, in theory, survive without insurance. But I promise you that someone you do care about will be harmed from this eventually. It is inevitable. I hope that when that happens, you have the self-awareness to realize that it is not the Obama's fault for what happens. It will be YOUR fault.
@hatutzeraze: I would prefer as much of a free market approach as possible.
It would be awesome if states covered catastrophic care for people, but I think states and not the federal government should decide that because I don't believe the constitution gives the fed that authority.
As someone who has been medically treated in Cuba and seen a lot of friends suffer through the process, I don't wish socialized medicine upon my worst enemy. over half a year wait to see a doctor for thing like heart issues, poor care, and no medicines.
I'd favor things like:
1) Tort reform that limits excessive damage awards
2) Posted prices - and incentives for customers to find the lowest price
3) Transportability - plan follows you, not your job
4) Increased health savings accounts so when the money is needed you have it. Under Obamacare the poor may have insurance but can't meet the deductible.
5) Promoting private non-profit health clinics and co-ops. When I lived in North Carolina there were places you could go to and see a doctor - the cost was whatever 1 hour's pay for you was. This also covered medicine. Groups like St. Jude's and Shriner's hospitals should be promoted as a non-bureacratic approach. I don't want anyone to get the single payer treatment like our veterans do at the VA.
6) Options - not everyone needs a plan that covers pregnancies, nor should they be forced to buy one. People may want to do away with some features for a lower deductible. Having a plan that you still can't use because you can't afford the deductible is like not having a plan at all.
@hatutzeraze: I would prefer as much of a free market approach as possible.
It would be awesome if states covered catastrophic care for people, but I think states and not the federal government should decide that because I don't believe the constitution gives the fed that authority.
As someone who has been medically treated in Cuba and seen a lot of friends suffer through the process, I don't wish socialized medicine upon my worst enemy. over half a year wait to see a doctor for thing like heart issues, poor care, and no medicines.
A free market (properly regulated) is great for a lot of things. For medical care, not so much. When I bought my last car, I spent months doing research, test driving cars, etc. If I fall and break a leg, I'm going to the nearest hospital. Period. I'm not going to ask them how much they charge for things, or try to negotiate for a lower price, or wait months while I go to different hospitals to see which one I like and which gives me a better price... none of that. Health care is not subject to the conditions that allow a free market to work. Free markets only work if people can reasonably know costs and have the freedom to compare options, and are not time-constrained to make purchases. If I'm having a heart attack, there's no option other than going to the nearest hospital. Once there, I cant even chose what they do. They will just do whatever they do, and the cost comes later.
You also cant compare our medical treatment versus Cuba. As was discussed before, Cuba has been embargoed for half a century. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. I have many relatives who live in Cuba right now. I know the history and I personally know what Cuba was like before and after the Soviet Union fell.
Also, the reason why we have great health care in the U.S. is because we pay a lot for it. We pay astronomical amounts of money for health care in the U.S., way more than other industrialized western countries with comparable or better health care.
I'd bet all those countries have at least the same level of care as we do, and many are better. And they do it at a fraction of the cost to us.
Do a search of the countries with the best medical care, and you'll see a list of countries with socialized medicine. The U.S. is not even near the top. So, yeah, the U.S. medical system is great if you can afford it, but not very good if you cant.
@willpayton: You hit the nail on the head. We spend more for less. Our health outcomes compared to other developed nations are almost always worse. We do have some points of strength but these are vastly outweighed by our nation's failings. We have the highest trained professionals in the world, we spend the most, and we are at the bottom of the list or near the bottom of the list for every category measured in health care metrics when compared to other developed nations.
@willpayton: You hit the nail on the head. We spend more for less. Our health outcomes compared to other developed nations are almost always worse. We do have some points of strength but these are vastly outweighed by our nation's failings. We have the highest trained professionals in the world, we spend the most, and we are at the bottom of the list or near the bottom of the list for every category measured in health care metrics when compared to other developed nations.
Yeah, this was my general impression. I know (or at least, heard) that in outcomes for some diseases we're at the top of the list, in others not so much. The big issue is overall quality versus cost. Any nation can have great health care if you pay enough money. But, we're slowly going broke this way.
@willpayton: I find it very hard to believe you have ever set foot anywhere on Cuba. You probably think you can get a "Cuban sandwich" in Cuba.
You do realize that your essential argument for why Cuban socialism has failed is "that damn capitalist country won't send us its money." If socialism can generate wealth then why does it need the wealth of a capitalist country to work? You have never explained that. Nor why Cubans are driving cars from the last time their country was capitalist? Why can't the Cuban government make socialism work in a place that was thriving in the fifties? Does socialism only work when it can suck the wealth out of a capitalist? Can it not create wealth on its own?
Prior to Castro's revolution, Cuba had a huge upper and middle class. That's gone now. It was one of the strongest economies in the Caribbean. That's history. It has oil reserves, sugar, tourism and of course cigars, yet, it has fallen behind other countries it was ahead of before the revolution.
Over 2 million tourists visit Cuba every year, yet, the average salary per person is around $20 -25 a month. Government owns just about everything, but people still pay an income tax up to 50% of what they earn - with various other taxes along the way. It has amazed massive debts to Russia, Venezuela and China and runs behind the African country of Gabon in average income. Are you really trying to say that the US is to blame for the failure of socialism in Cuba? If so then it is definitely best to be a capitalist. Because apparently you can't succeed without either being a capitalist or having access to a capitalist.
*We've talked about health care before. You tell me about costs. I talk about the 10,000's of deaths while waiting to be seen in single payer countries. You tell me how great the health care is suppose to be, I show you charts of doctors fleeing the system and patients coming to America to pay for quicker treatment. I'm happy to do it again. I'll go find the old posts.
@willpayton: I find it very hard to believe you have ever set foot anywhere on Cuba. You probably think you can get a "Cuban sandwich" in Cuba.
You do realize that your essential argument for why Cuban socialism has failed is "that damn capitalist country won't send us its money." If socialism can generate wealth then why does it need the wealth of a capitalist country to work? You have never explained that. Nor why Cubans are driving cars from the last time their country was capitalist? Why can't the Cuban government make socialism work in a place that was thriving in the fifties? Does socialism only work when it can suck the wealth out of a capitalist? Can it not create wealth on its own?
Prior to Castro's revolution, Cuba had a huge upper and middle class. That's gone now. It was one of the strongest economies in the Caribbean. That's history. It has oil reserves, sugar, tourism and of course cigars, yet, it has fallen behind other countries it was ahead of before the revolution.
Over 2 million tourists visit Cuba every year, yet, the average salary per person is around $20 -25 a month. Government owns just about everything, but people still pay an income tax up to 50% of what they earn - with various other taxes along the way. It has amazed massive debts to Russia, Venezuela and China and runs behind the African country of Gabon in average income. Are you really trying to say that the US is to blame for the failure of socialism in Cuba? If so then it is definitely best to be a capitalist. Because apparently you can't succeed without either being a capitalist or having access to a capitalist.
*We've talked about health care before. You tell me about costs. I talk about the 10,000's of deaths while waiting to be seen in single payer countries. You tell me how great the health care is suppose to be, I show you charts of doctors fleeing the system and patients coming to America to pay for quicker treatment. I'm happy to do it again. I'll go find the old posts.
I don't know anything about Cuba but I sure am curious about the claims you are prepared to make on the single-payer system. Everything you listed in your final paragraph was debunked by Dr. Aaron E. Carroll as nothing but myth used to scare people away from the single payer system. He is a physician, health care researcher, professor, and science communicator.
Trump's twitter attack on Mika Brzezinski was inappropriate and stupid. It doesn't matter that she called him "mentally ill", suggested he was a closeted homosexual and had a small penis. Hey, nobody believes anybody at MSNBC is a real journalist anymore anyway. He shouldn't stoop to that level. That said the amount of TV coverage of this topic as compared to the two illegal immigration bills that passed the House yesterday was incredibly lopsided. Kate's law and the sanctuary city bill were barely even acknowledged.
52X more time was spent by ABC, CBS and NBC covering Trump's tweet than the landmark pair of bills combined (24 minutes 17 secs compared to 28 seconds). Only CBS mentioned it during its 7:30 am segment.
I get that Trump's Twitter rant is important and attracts eyes. I just wish the media could have found 1 minute to discuss two important bills.
@erik_soong: I assume Dr. Aaron E. Carroll isn't a Pulitzer prize winning fact checker. I know how you hate fact checkers.
I do hate it when neck-beards try to misuse the words of fact-checkers to drive their own false narrative. I also hate these same neck-beards who dismiss facts presented by experts because they are too small of mind to accept information that doesn't align with his belief system.
As for fact-checkers, I love them. I also recognize that they are still human and thus, prone to error. Unlike some in this thread, I have critical thinking skills and don't just accept something because it comes from someone with an award in an unrelated field. When I am presented with claims from so-called fact-checkers, I investigate it for myself. I don't simply try to confirm my bias.
There used to be conservatives on this site who did the same. Alas, they have gone or stopped posting.
Every single nation on there has socialized medicine, except for the very last one, the U.S.
I think I'd much rather have socialized medicine.
@erik_soong Feel free to tell me if I got anything way wrong here. You know much more about this stuff than I do.
I could say your list only gets the US so high up because it's selective about who is actually on it. If you go by the World Health Organization, the US ends up at 37th place.
You do realize that your essential argument for why Cuban socialism has failed is "that damn capitalist country won't send us its money." If socialism can generate wealth then why does it need the wealth of a capitalist country to work? You have never explained that. Nor why Cubans are driving cars from the last time their country was capitalist? Why can't the Cuban government make socialism work in a place that was thriving in the fifties? Does socialism only work when it can suck the wealth out of a capitalist? Can it not create wealth on its own?
Prior to Castro's revolution, Cuba had a huge upper and middle class. That's gone now. It was one of the strongest economies in the Caribbean. That's history. It has oil reserves, sugar, tourism and of course cigars, yet, it has fallen behind other countries it was ahead of before the revolution.
Over 2 million tourists visit Cuba every year, yet, the average salary per person is around $20 -25 a month. Government owns just about everything, but people still pay an income tax up to 50% of what they earn - with various other taxes along the way. It has amazed massive debts to Russia, Venezuela and China and runs behind the African country of Gabon in average income. Are you really trying to say that the US is to blame for the failure of socialism in Cuba? If so then it is definitely best to be a capitalist. Because apparently you can't succeed without either being a capitalist or having access to a capitalist.
*We've talked about health care before. You tell me about costs. I talk about the 10,000's of deaths while waiting to be seen in single payer countries. You tell me how great the health care is suppose to be, I show you charts of doctors fleeing the system and patients coming to America to pay for quicker treatment. I'm happy to do it again. I'll go find the old posts.
As far as the rest of this, we already went over it and I explained why trying to use Cuba as a model of socialism and socialized medicine wont work. I also notice you havent responded to my evidence that the countries with the best health systems are all socialized medicine. I know that you want to cherry pick a small country that has been embargoed for 60 years to prove your point, but that's easily shot down by all the rest of the evidence.
Pro tip: If you want to compare things like health care systems, economies, etc, you need to compare countries that are alike. In this case, you have to compare the U.S,. to other industrialized nations. You also need to consider context. If one of those nations is at war, for instance, then you cant use it. In this situation you're insisting on comparing the U.S. to Cuba, a nation with 1/30'th the population, less than 1/200'th the GDP, and which has been embargoed by a superpower 90 miles away for 60 years. Dude, you have to be very desperate to support your argument if this is the country you have to use, while all the other industrialized western nations with socialized medicine actually have better systems than the U.S. Just, give up already.
As an aside, even while being extremely poor and under heavy economy pressure from the U.S. for decades, Cuba still managed to provide free medical care to everyone in the country. Not only that, but Cuba has historically had very good medical care and excellent medical education and research, especially compared to the countries size and economy. From the New England Journal of Medicine:
Although Cuba is relatively poor, it has managed to make prevention-oriented primary care, as well as secondary and tertiary care, available to all its citizens. Today, markers of population health in Cuba compare favorably with those in the United States, and there are fewer geographic and urban–rural health disparities. Cut off from pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technology developed in the United States, Cuba has also invested heavily and successfully in biotechnology and related fields, as well as in strategies to address tropical and infectious diseases and chronic conditions common in its aging population.
You lost your argument. Time to cut your losses and move on to something else.
I don't know anything about Cuba but I sure am curious about the claims you are prepared to make on the single-payer system. Everything you listed in your final paragraph was debunked by Dr. Aaron E. Carroll as nothing but myth used to scare people away from the single payer system. He is a physician, health care researcher, professor, and science communicator.
I think that as someone in that field, you'd probably find Cuba's history with medical treatment and research to be very interesting. Aside from jus_saying trying to paint Cuba as an example of failed medical care, the truth is really pretty much the opposite. Here we have a country that has been isolated from Western research and access to American researchers and collaboration, and in many cases they cant even get basic equipment (unless they pay crazy prices due to the embargo), but still they've made substantial contributions. For example, during the recent African Ebola crisis, Cuba was one of the first ones there with hundreds of doctors and resources coming in to help.
Log in to comment