StrangeSox

I'd agree with your Tarantino list, maybe switching 2 and 3 depending on mood. For anderson: Royal Tennenbaums Rushmore Bottle rocket TLA TDL

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes. Why not? And isn't that part of your plan?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:29 PM) They wouldn't last long with a mass exodus of companies and private citizens jumping to the public option... Hell, most insurance companies already laid off people because of the downturn in the economy and they were the most resilient part of it. Your problem here seems to be that the government option will be so bad ass everyone will leave the private plans and they won't even have a chance to react. If its really going to be that good, what on earth is the problem?

Also, "they'll lose their jobs" is a pretty s***ty argument against progression. Buggy makers lost their jobs when cars came around. Steam boat builders lost their jobs when diesel engines were put into ships. Etc. etc.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) So that would happen overnight?! And everyone that lost their jobs would be guaranteed new ones...or do you think that these jobs would go to friends of friends who happen to have government connections? And isn't this what we were trying to reform in the first place, taking the administrtive work out of it to make it cheaper? Sounds like the government just took over insurance and made it the latest government works project for employing people who do almost nothing. Would private plans evaporate over night?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) You won't find deficit neutrality. Yeah, I've said several times I have no idea how they're going to pay for this thing. I'm happy with my current plan. I don't really care one way or the other about a public option. I would probably oppose an NHS-style system. I'm just sick of the criticisms of the bill largely being completely inaccurate demagoguery.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) But the government doesn't suxors at this! They promised the quality of care will be the same or even higher for less money! Now I know that's not how the really real world works, but they're still saying it... Great, so the public plan won't be that good and people won't all switch to it. You'll still have your private coverage as long as the government option isn't a clear-cut better option.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:20 PM) Ya know, I honestly think that there is less volume of anger and frustration now than there was during W's Presidency. Reality is simply that more people were upset with the direction of the country then, than there are now, as shown in the polls. That said, I do think that the vocal minority on the right is more hate-filled anger-ridden than their lefty alter ego. That could very well be the case, and its important not to paint all conservative criticisms of Obama with the rabid right-winger brush.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) So then stop saying/repeating that people can keep their private insurance, because there is no way that's reality if everyone ditches it for something "free", which will NOT be free by any stretch, especially if you toss 320+Million people on that free plan. Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers. But government suxors at everything, so it won't be as good and people will stick with private plans. And, for the millionth time, it won't be free. Its not advertised as free. Its not legislated as free. If enough people want their private insurance, it'll stick around. It sticks around in Canada. And France. And the UK. And Germany. and just about every other place that has a much larger public system than what's being proposed.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:17 PM) I won't pretend to say I read a 1300 page bill, but I have read some of it -- I'm college educated, and I can barely understand it. It is impossible to decipher, it's so long, any page can contradict another page and I probably wouldn't have the memory necessary to remember if it did or not...and may not even contract it on purpose, it may just happen with so much stuff in there and bunches of people creating it. Your evidence that it can mean whatever we want it to mean relies on not actually reading and understanding the bill. I can't understand all legal writings, but the sections of this bill are somewhat straight-forward. You won't find guaranteed coverage for illegals. You won't find death panels. You won't find most of the ridiculous s*** being said about it. No amount of subjective interpretation can actually put those provisions into the bill.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) Aye aye aye. Ok. I mean, there weren't MOVIES made about killing GWB, or anything like that. No unruly protests whatsoever. And the whole "stolen election" crap and that "people need to take back this country" language using arms in 2000. No, none of that. Everthing's just so peaceful, until "right wing kooks" say stuff. I see. We're just "clinging to our guns and religion" out here. I get it. Peace, love, and no war. Leftists are generally disorganized, pacifists and unarmed. What movies were made about killing GWB? The WTO protests in Seattle were far more unruly than any of the Iraq protests. I didn't say there weren't strong feelings, just not calls for armed revolution. There's plenty of stupidity (GWB will suspend elections in 2008!) to go around.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) You have now. And I answered. If the public option offers the exact same coverage for a lower cost, most people will choose the public option. What is wrong with that? Does freedom rely on paying more for inferior services?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement. WTF does that even mean?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) For this bill, yes, there is...because it's filled with double talk and impossible to decipher lawyer speak. It's not impossible to decipher it if you read it. Many of the things claimed to be in there simply are not no matter how much you want them to be.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) The question that I've repeatedly asked people, over and over, and has never been answered is simple -- and I still await my answer. Why in the f*** would I want to pay for/purchase/buy private health insurance if this public option will afford and deliver the SAME or HIGHER quality care as I'm receiving now, only at a fraction of the cost (and this is what they've touted it as). Let's forget that we will probably all get taxed to provide this public option...and even if we aren't and the rich foot the bill all by their little lonesome selves... Please, tell me you aren't saying that I can choose to pay for something that provides absolutely no premium service over what is free? Why the holy f*** would I do that? You probably wouldn't. FWIW, I haven't seen you post this question.

Conservative discourse has devolved into "data is meaningless! anecdotes are great!" and now "words mean whatever we want them to mean!" in a single thread.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) The bill/bills/multiple bills being 'crafted', 'drafted', or otherwise 'created' is/are/will be riddled with double talk and extremely vague language (such as in the examples above), with words such as, otherwise, explicit, except, related, without regard, extraneous, etc., which translates to the following: It can mean whatever they/we/us/them want it to mean. That's why it's longer than War and Peace. That's why for every fact check there is a counter fact check because the language contradicts itself with meaningless babble, for example, affordability credits, whatever the f*** they are. Suck on that straw man. When did conservatives become such post-modern literary critics? No, there's not a "counter fact check" for every retarded claim out there.

The bill does not forbid them from buying health insurance. It does not guarantee them coverage, provide them coverage at a reduced cost, or give them an unfair advantage in any way.

There were threats of leaving to Canada/ Europe, but not threats of armed revolution.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) No, there is a good chance that the Democrats will try to get non US citizens covered by some US public plan. It's is a legitimate point to bring up as they are still 'crafting' this bill. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? Because its not in any proposal, any bill, or being advocated by anyone in a position of power or influence?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that what they pay into this system will only cover a fraction of the costs associated with covering them? If they want insurance, they can buy it from a private company. It is not the role of the US government to provide health insurance to the globe. You guys are out of your f***ing minds. I'd imagine they'd pay the same rates as anyone else purchasing insurance through the HCE, either a public or private plan. They're not providing it to them for free or at a reduced cost. Keep tilting at windmills. edit: the entire point of insurance is that you only pay a portion of the costs of some major medical problems. It's collectivized risk.

Hey kap:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I have been to 4 townhall meetings, and have yet to be 'funded' by anyone. Also haven't seen anyone bussed in to any of the 4, although there were about 30 people at the last one all dressed in the same plain color shirts (red), who sat quietly thru the whole thing, never clapping, booing, anything. Was kinda odd. How are these people 'funded'? They carry homemade signs, they get there themselves, they don't get a paycheck. The people aren't funded. The message and the motivation are, along with a lot of the organizational efforts. That's what "astroturfing" means; its not necessarily actually paying people to go to rallies/ protests/ whatever.

Obama was heavily funded by corporate interests.

"Grassroots" efforts funded by corporate interests are astroturfing, even if the people at the rallies are genuine.