Fox News basic math via their graphics

[dank69]

Currently. However, there is no permanent prohibition against collecting that penalty and as a part of the IRS guidelines it could be modified by any budget that passes.

...

I see, so you concede that your point has no relevance to this discussion but you just know it will sometime in the future.

 

[dank69]

Well, i dont know what to tell you. I read the differences and i dont agree with their conclusion.

Regardless, a difference is a difference.

I know. Science says that conservatives when confronted with facts that prove their beliefs wrong will rationalize them away so no real surprise there.

You first. Concede that saying that PPACA is a Republican plan is intellectually dishonest. If you can't play by your own rules, there is no point.

I never said that so why would you ask me to concede? Still don't realize there is a difference between the two following statements?

PPACA is a Republican plan
PPACA is based on a Republican plan

Idiot.

 

[TerryMathews]

It has to be introduced before it can be brought to a vote. Maybe you should stop now before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

It was. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

Maybe you should stop now before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

 

[TerryMathews]

I see, so you concede that your point has no relevance to this discussion but you just know it will sometime in the future.

When they are currently talking about restructuring the rules about Roth IRAs, yes I believe that is a valid concern to have.

 

[TerryMathews]

I know. Science says that conservatives when confronted with facts that prove their beliefs wrong will rationalize them away so no real surprise there.







I never said that so why would you ask me to concede? Still don't realize there is a difference between the two following statements?

PPACA is a Republican plan
PPACA is based on a Republican plan

Idiot.

Love it. You can read as well as I can, and clearly there are differences yet I'm the illogical one because I can't see that they are really the same? "There are four lights" indeed.

When you all say that, your clear implication is that we are hypocrites because we don't support PPACA. Yet you probably don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

 

[dank69]

Love it. You can read as well as I can, and clearly there are differences yet I'm the illogical one because I can't see that they are really the same? "There are four lights" indeed.

When you all say that, your clear implication is that we are hypocrites because we don't support PPACA. Yet you probably don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

I don't give a shit if you support PPACA or not, why do you keep making it about that? Oh, that's right, because you want to distract from the fact that the evidence shows that the Dems are actually center-right.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't give a shit if you support PPACA or not, why do you keep making it about that? Oh, that's right, because you want to distract from the fact that the evidence shows that the Dems are actually center-right.

If you want to get technical Garfield was the derailer.

Why are you getting pissed sweetheart? ;-)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your own link notes differences on 7 of 16 comparison items. I guess 56% is really similar to you?

That "comparison" he linked doesn't even address the fact that the 1993 bill mandated catastrophic coverage only or that there were completely different approaches to Medicaid and Medicare...these are HUGH differences. Instead the table focuses on "similarities" like "Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System" and "Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed". To give equal or any weight to BS items like these is BS imo. The similarities are few.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't give a shit if you support PPACA or not, why do you keep making it about that? Oh, that's right, because you want to distract from the fact that the evidence shows that the Dems are actually center-right.

Why is this so important for you to believe? So that you can rationalize a worldview where Republicans are considered radical extremists?

 

[dank69]

That "comparison" he linked doesn't even address the fact that the 1993 bill mandated catastrophic coverage only or that there were completely different approaches to Medicaid and Medicare...these are HUGH differences. Instead the table focuses on "similarities" like "Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System" and "Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed". To give equal or any weight to BS items like these is BS imo. The similarities are few.

So desperate:

Medicaid Expansion Yes No

Thrown in to make them seem more similar:
Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed No Yes

 

[dank69]

Why is this so important for you to believe? So that you can rationalize a worldview where Republicans are considered radical extremists?

Believe? That is what conservatives like yourself do. I adjust my views based on evidence like a sane person.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

Maybe you should stop now before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

Looks like he's ignoring this inconvenient fact. He must be a conservative!

"I know. Science says that conservatives when confronted with facts that prove their beliefs wrong will rationalize them away so no real surprise there." - dank69

The self-ownage is strong with this one.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It has to be introduced before it can be brought to a vote. Maybe you should stop now before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

Was this bill introduced or not?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...form-bill.aspx

Please prove your sanity and acknowledge the fact that you were not only wrong but a complete ass to boot.

 

[TerryMathews]

Looks like he's ignoring this inconvenient fact. He must be a conservative!



The self-ownage is strong with this one.

Boom. Headshot.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Your own link notes differences on 7 of 16 comparison items. I guess 56% is really similar to you?

So I guess math is hard for you right?

19 categories....2 weren't compared (No CBO estimate). That leaves 17. 12 of the 17 are the same, which is 70.6%.

And of those 12, most of those are the "big names" or the important concepts of the law.

So once again, you fail. Keep trying, anything else you want to try?

And BTW, you are still making my point and proving matt1970 and DSF wrong, since that even by your (wrong) belief, the Democrats still implemented the ACA with a majority of 1993 GOP concepts. Therefore claiming the Democrats have moved to the left is false. But don't worry, cognitive dissonance is strong in them, so they will still believe their own fairy tales.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Why is this so important for you to believe? So that you can rationalize a worldview where Republicans are considered radical extremists?

Hate to break it to you, but it's a fact that the Dem's have moved to the right, and the GOP further to right over the past 20-30 years.

Here is a tip for you too: There is no real "left wing" in mainstream American politics. There is "just to the right of center" democrats and "mid to far right" GOP. You want real left-wing? You need to go to Canada or Europe.

You denying the truth doesn't change anything. And given you refuse to present any evidence for your viewpoint, it is pretty obvious that you have none other then what you want to believe. You can't even refute that the ACA is based on a GOP plan, LOL.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

#3 You can run away with your tail between your legs and probably just insult me once or twice more because you have no facts to add.

I'm betting on #3, since that is your M.O for a long time here. But feel free to post some real facts if you wish. You never have, but there is a first time for everything.

I see matt1970 has stuck true to form, and bailed out of the thread after trolling, and refused to post anything of substance yet again....Quelle surprise!

 

[dank69]

Was this bill introduced or not?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...form-bill.aspx

Please prove your sanity and acknowledge the fact that you were not only wrong but a complete ass to boot.

It was introduced but never discussed again. Politifact said it was never a full-blown bill, whatever that means. I misspoke but the point still stands, how can they vote if it was never even discussed?

Boom. Headshot.

Enjoy your hollow victory. The point is there is no way to ascertain how many people supported/opposed the bill. Pretending that the availability of a "nuclear option" was relevant is ridiculous. Even though I misspoke, you are still wrong.

 

[TerryMathews]

So I guess math is hard for you right?

19 categories....2 weren't compared (No CBO estimate). That leaves 17. 12 of the 17 are the same, which is 70.6%.

And of those 12, most of those are the "big names" or the important concepts of the law.

So once again, you fail. Keep trying, anything else you want to try?

And BTW, you are still making my point and proving matt1970 and DSF wrong, since that even by your (wrong) belief, the Democrats still implemented the ACA with a majority of 1993 GOP concepts. Therefore claiming the Democrats have moved to the left is false. But don't worry, cognitive dissonance is strong in them, so they will still believe their own fairy tales.

I guess reading comprehension is hard for you eh? The bottom three comparisons are cost estimates not attributes of the bill and therefore should be excluded.

Rerun your math and I'm sure you'll get the same result I did.

You seem to be operating under the same mistaken impression other posters are. I don't care if Democrats have moved to the right or not. My only point was that the ACA is different than the Chaffee bill.

Its your plan you obviously like your plan. Please keep your plan, we don't want it. We didn't vote for it, you passed it. It's yours.

 

[TerryMathews]

It was introduced but never discussed again. Politifact said it was never a full-blown bill, whatever that means. I misspoke but the point still stands, how can they vote if it was never even discussed?

Enjoy your hollow victory. The point is there is no way to ascertain how many people supported/opposed the bill. Pretending that the availability of a "nuclear option" was relevant is ridiculous. Even though I misspoke, you are still wrong.

The bill was introduced. That is an undisputed fact. Sense this predates the nuclear option the bill could have been brought to a boat even without leadership support it only needed a majority therefore the fact that it was not brought to a vote clearly indicates that a majority did not support the bill. There is no way to look at the situation and come to any other conclusion. That is how voting for bills works. If a bill needs a majority of support to be voted on and it does not just voted on then therefore it did not have hey majority of support.

 

[dank69]

The bill was introduced. That is an undisputed fact. Sense this predates the nuclear option the bill could have been brought to a boat even without leadership support it only needed a majority therefore the fact that it was not brought to a vote clearly indicates that a majority did not support the bill. There is no way to look at the situation and come to any other conclusion. That is how voting for bills works. If a bill needs a majority of support to be voted on and it does not just voted on then therefore it did not have hey majority of support.

So you are saying that at any time any representative could call a vote on any bill, even if the bill had never even been discussed on the floor? :hmm:

 

[dank69]

I guess reading comprehension is hard for you eh? The bottom three comparisons are cost estimates not attributes of the bill and therefore should be excluded.

Rerun your math and I'm sure you'll get the same result I did.

You seem to be operating under the same mistaken impression other posters are. I don't care if Democrats have moved to the right or not. My only point was that the ACA is different than the Chaffee bill.

Its your plan you obviously like your plan. Please keep your plan, we don't want it. We didn't vote for it, you passed it. It's yours.

Easy, scooter. Just because the bill is based on the GOP version doesn't mean the GOP owns it or that we want them to own it. So you can stop tying yourself in knots trying to avoid admitting that it is indeed based on the GOP version.

 

[TerryMathews]

Easy, scooter. Just because the bill is based on the GOP version doesn't mean the GOP owns it or that we want them to own it. So you can stop tying yourself in knots trying to avoid admitting that it is indeed based on the GOP version.

But its not based on the GOP version. There are substantial differences between the bills.

Its like saying Windows is based on MacOS because they both have a mouse cursor.

 

[TerryMathews]

So you are saying that at any time any representative could call a vote on any bill, even if the bill had never even been discussed on the floor? :hmm:

It was on the calendar and had been read twice. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:23:./temp/~bdzPBG::

I get the feeling you don't actually know much about the bill, this is twice now you've been wrong about it.

 

[dank69]

It was on the calendar and had been read twice. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:23:./temp/~bdzPBG::

I get the feeling you don't actually know much about the bill, this is twice now you've been wrong about it.

Just going by the link you posted:

In fact, after the bill was introduced, the Senate never took it up again.

I'm sure you are some kind of expert on the bill and didn't google that. I guess to you, having something read to you is the same as discussing it.