02-16-2014 07:38 AM
308 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The government is inefficient, expensive and bureaucratic. Anytime they get involved in the private sector, it damages the economy.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-02-2014 05:19 PM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    The government is inefficient, expensive and bureaucratic. Anytime they get involved in the private sector, it damages the economy.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Yep, just look at what happened to us here in Atlanta last week.



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    02-02-2014 05:50 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Actually, considering he ran for President on the platform of universal...
    I thought he ran on hope and change. Yet nothing really changed in how politics are handled, and his speeches have turned pretty negative and depressing.

    Btw, Obamacare was voted mostly against by the people. I think the highest was 70% against it at one point?
    02-02-2014 06:21 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    I thought he ran on hope and change. Yet nothing really changed in how politics are handled, and his speeches have turned pretty negative and depressing.

    Btw, Obamacare was voted mostly against by the people. I think the highest was 70% against it at one point?
    But, if you polled people about whether or not insurance companies should be able to drop your coverage, or if pre-existing conditions could exclude you from buying insurance, or if college students should be dropped from their parents' insurance, major components of Obamacare btw, people said they were in favor of those policies.

    02-02-2014 07:28 PM
  5. palandri's Avatar
    The government is inefficient, expensive and bureaucratic. Anytime they get involved in the private sector, it damages the economy.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    As Obama said to Bill O'Reilly today, that's because you and your network keep saying that.
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    02-02-2014 07:47 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But, if you polled people about whether or not insurance companies should be able to drop your coverage, or if pre-existing conditions could exclude you from buying insurance, or if college students should be dropped from their parents' insurance, major components of Obamacare btw, people said they were in favor of those policies.
    You're really going to cite a comedian with edited and filtered results for a medical debate? Whatever, but I digress.

    A lot depends on how you ask the question. I'm familiar enough with how research surveys are done to know much of the results depend on how you ask the questions. If you break things down to that simplistic of terms, it's no wonder they would agree to those things. But ask them a couple of follow up questions. One, do they expect costs to go up to cover those extra expenses? Two, how do they expect the insurance companies to recoup those costs if not covered by normal premiums? I'll bet you get much different answers, and that's before even factoring in the forced purchase of plans people may not want and loss plans they had and liked.

    Or what amounts to a Ponzie Scheme of relying on many younger insured to cover the older and sicker population. Where have we seen this before? Social Security. How's that working out lately?
    02-02-2014 08:14 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    As Obama said to Bill O'Reilly today, that's because you and your network keep saying that.
    Government by its very nature is inefficient. It doesn't matter how it's structured, what political views are involved, or what projects it takes on. There are some things that only government can do, but those from a financial standpoint are still not as efficient simply because there's usually no open market competition. They don't even have to worry much about budget over runs because they can always raise taxes. Especially in tax structures like the U.S. where the hikes are easily hidden and people generally only pay attention once a year.
    02-02-2014 08:28 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    Government by its very nature is inefficient. It doesn't matter how it's structured, what political views are involved, or what projects it takes on. There are some things that only government can do, but those from a financial standpoint are still not as efficient simply because there's usually no open market competition. They don't even have to worry much about budget over runs because they can always raise taxes. Especially in tax structures like the U.S. where the hikes are easily hidden and people generally only pay attention once a year.
    That's what you believe. It's not what I believe. Any group private or public can be ran effectively.
    02-02-2014 09:05 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    That's what you believe. It's not what I believe. Any group private or public can be ran effectively.
    Without competition? You may think so, but until someone can come along and challenge you, you'll never know just how inefficient you really are.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    02-02-2014 09:30 PM
  10. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    That's what you believe. It's not what I believe. Any group private or public can be ran effectively.
    No , its actually a fact. The only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we continually raise the debt ceiling and print money we have no backing for. And china owns our debt. Sounds really efficient and fiscally responsible.
    02-02-2014 09:36 PM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    Without competition? You may think so, but until someone can come along and challenge you, you'll never know just how inefficient you really are.
    No , its actually a fact. The only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we continually raise the debt ceiling and print money we have no backing for. And china owns our debt. Sounds really efficient and fiscally responsible.
    You have to think outside the box.
    02-02-2014 10:49 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You have to think outside the box.
    Yeah, government doesn't like that very much. That's why you don't see many innovations from them, other than creative lying.
    02-02-2014 11:00 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    You're really going to cite a comedian with edited and filtered results for a medical debate? Whatever, but I digress.

    A lot depends on how you ask the question. I'm familiar enough with how research surveys are done to know much of the results depend on how you ask the questions. If you break things down to that simplistic of terms, it's no wonder they would agree to those things. But ask them a couple of follow up questions. One, do they expect costs to go up to cover those extra expenses? Two, how do they expect the insurance companies to recoup those costs if not covered by normal premiums? I'll bet you get much different answers, and that's before even factoring in the forced purchase of plans people may not want and loss plans they had and liked.

    Or what amounts to a Ponzie Scheme of relying on many younger insured to cover the older and sicker population. Where have we seen this before? Social Security. How's that working out lately?
    As opposed to citing Faux news?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    02-02-2014 11:04 PM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    No , its actually a fact. The only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we continually raise the debt ceiling and print money we have no backing for. And china owns our debt. Sounds really efficient and fiscally responsible.
    If I'm not mistaken, GWB took over office with a surplus. Or did we forget that fact?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    palandri and nolittdroid like this.
    02-02-2014 11:08 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    Without competition? You may think so, but until someone can come along and challenge you, you'll never know just how inefficient you really are.
    Because competition is the reason we pay some of the highest rates for health care with some of the worst mortality rates.....right..... /sarcasm

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    palandri likes this.
    02-02-2014 11:12 PM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    If I'm not mistaken, GWB took over office with a surplus. Or did we forget that fact?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    They say surplus, but if we're at that time $10 trillion in debt, there is no surplus

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-02-2014 11:27 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    And assuming any criticism of Obama is race related is the most racist statement of all.
    When pundits from the right say he's 'shucking and jiving' and call him the food stamp president, to me it's pretty obvious what's being implied. Maybe you don't see it because you're ok with it? Just like people used to be ok with slavery, poll taxes, and Jim Crow laws.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    palandri likes this.
    02-02-2014 11:27 PM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    When pundits from the right say he's 'shucking and jiving' and call him the food stamp president, to me it's pretty obvious what's being implied. Maybe you don't see it because you're ok with it? Just like people used to be ok with slavery, poll taxes, and Jim Crow laws.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    These statements are racist? Car salesmen shuck and jive and food stamps can be had by any race last I heard.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-02-2014 11:31 PM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    That's strange.... the Tea Party must be comprised of old wrinkly rich white men.



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    No, those are the guys pulling the strings.....

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    02-02-2014 11:36 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    Do you have a link to back that up? It's my understanding, and I maybe wrong, but it was the individual plans that were cancelled due to them not meeting the ACA standards. I am sure I read that was only about 5% of the population. Has that increased to like 50% now?
    Maybe the same faux news calculator that Karl Rove used for predicting the 2012 elections was used?!?!

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    palandri likes this.
    02-02-2014 11:39 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Because competition is the reason we pay some of the highest rates for health care with some of the worst mortality rates.....right..... /sarcasm

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    Over regulation, "defensive testing" when not needed, lawsuit happy people, and lack of competition with insurance companies. Mortality rates have been called into question due to how the WHO calculates them.

    As opposed to citing Faux news?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    I never cited FOX News. In that particular post, my info about surveys came from talking with a professor doing a research study on a group I'm involved in. I took issue with how some things were worded (thus not turning in my responses), but had quite an in depth discussion with her afterwords on that sort of thing and how proper surveys are done from a scientific perspective. Not one meant for comedic value.

    And since you seem to think it's ok to mock the names of groups you don't like, on top of posting that vid, you've lost your credibility as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't matter what side you're on, doing stuff like that just makes you look a fool in an otherwise civil and serious discussion.
    02-03-2014 12:23 AM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    Over regulation, "defensive testing" when not needed, lawsuit happy people, and lack of competition with insurance companies. Mortality rates have been called into question due to how the WHO calculates them.


    I never cited FOX News. In that particular post, my info about surveys came from talking with a professor doing a research study on a group I'm involved in. I took issue with how some things were worded (thus not turning in my responses), but had quite an in depth discussion with her afterwords on that sort of thing and how proper surveys are done from a scientific perspective. Not one meant for comedic value.

    And since you seem to think it's ok to mock the names of groups you don't like, on top of posting that vid, you've lost your credibility as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't matter what side you're on, doing stuff like that just makes you look a fool in an otherwise civil and serious discussion.
    You didn't cite fox news in THAT post, but you've used their talking points elsewhere.

    The video is a demonstration that proves my point about the earlier statistic that the public is against Obamacare. They are against it, until you ask them about specific parts. It only shows you how easily the public is manipulated into thinking something is bad for them via the talking heads of the right.

    As long as we're talking about losing credibility, you lost yours when you thought you had separation from low paid burger flippers because you think you believe your trade of driving a truck for a living requires some sort of special skill. I had a cousin that drove a truck for a living and he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. It reminded me of the yokels that think NASCAR is an athletic sport. If that's the case then I must be the Cal Ripken of the 'sport' because I've driven for over 20 years without an incident.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    02-03-2014 01:03 AM
  23. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Keystone pipeline shoved down our throats. Obamacare was shoved down our throats.
    Obama was elected not only one time on a campaign of ACA health changes, he was even RE-ELECTED after the thing was passed and started to go into effect. So clearly the majority of people had no problem with it. I'll gladly take the thing that helps people's health over the thing that potentially harms it....each and every time I have that choice. Ever ask yourself why the GOP is so obsessed over this ONE project? Why not other projects? Why only oil? Why just this one pipeline that helps another country sell to us? And while we on on the subject of oil, why do rich oil companies need financial subsidies? You should ask yourself those questions before discussing further.

    I don't think anyone thinks the old system was without several flaws. But fixing the system didn't have to include hurting the ones already covered. There were other things that could have been done.
    I do agree it could have been better handled, however we had MANY decades to do something previously, and no one ever could pass anything. Kind of like how gun control is now. The Republicans sure weren't suggesting anything. In fact, they never seemed to care at all that people didn't have insurance. Even the Presidential candidates last election seemed to think it was just fine to have the Emergency room be the first (and only) line of defense. So with that mindset, clearly nothing was going to happen on the GOP side.

    And since you STILL haven't said how many choices you were provided with for insurance in your state, it's difficult to say what exactly is the problem in your situation. But, whatever it is, it's not unfixable. And while that is being done, people that would have either lost their house, or their lives will now start having healthcare. Surely you can't see that as a bad thing, can you? Or is someone else being shut out of the market so you can have a lower rate okay with you? Should someone else die so you can have a lower rate? Or is there another way where your rates can be fixed while still allowing other people to actually be able to see a doctor once in awhile. I think there is.

    Yep, just look at what happened to us here in Atlanta last week.
    What would you propose instead? That each person take a 100 square foot section of highway and de-ice it themselves? That each person man the street light and signal in front of their house (and figure out how to pay for said maintenance on those things)?
    02-03-2014 01:55 AM
  24. llamabreath's Avatar
    What would you propose instead? That each person take a 100 square foot section of highway and de-ice it themselves? That each person man the street light and signal in front of their house (and figure out how to pay for said maintenance on those things)?
    The discussion was on the ineptness of government. All it needs is less scarecrows and more (or at least some) brains.



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    02-03-2014 04:23 AM
  25. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Quick question for anyone that feels the need to answer:

    If you support the president in him bypassing congress to enact policy, would you also support another president if everything were opposite? If the president were Republican and the control of congress were the opposite but with the same gridlock, would you still support the president if he were attempting to pass policies that you did not agree with by executive order?
    02-03-2014 06:42 AM
308 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 04:15 PM
  3. Google Now in place of S Voice
    By roguetrader in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 11:24 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 09:36 AM
  5. The Nexus 4 Question !
    By Mateusz Gmyz in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 07:38 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD