In order for ACA to work, uninsured should get no treatment.

[dank69]

You mean how rich people can get when the government forces people to buy their product?

Aren't you one of the people that rails against local telco franchise monopolies? What's the difference here?

Oh, right. You're just a fucking hypocrite.

I am unaware of the government mandate to purchase cable TV.

 

[werepossum]

Boehnercare is on the way. We need a government telling your doctor what to do run by the same people who gave us the shutdown.

LOL If it makes you feel any better, when you die he'll cry.

No, many of us are covered under our parents. I'm 23, which means I have like another year before I have to get out on my own for insurance.

Stay in school and you're covered until you are twenty-six. Growing up is now optional.

Choose your major wisely and if your parents can afford to carry you and you can stand being carried, your earning potential can be greatly increased. Assuming you can stand going to school that long.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reason that the ACA was passed was so that the uninsured could get treatment?

Whatever happened to "healthcare is a right"? I'm so confused.

Yeah, me too. Seems to me that among other things Obamacare is designed to force people who can afford health insurance but prefer to spend their earnings on more fun things have to subsidize the system - thereby lowering the effective cost of health insurance to true cost less penalty cost. (And of course, less subsidy if you're low income.) That would imply that not treating the uninsured would be more of an imperative pre-Obamacare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I still don't understand how the ACA makes things worse.

I used a pothole on the bridge analogy. In itself the idea of increasing the number of insured is a good thing. You'll not find a post of mine anywhere stating I want access curtailed.

That said, when one is arguing about the surface while the foundation is crumbling means collapse.

The ACA is more than just making more people able to get insurance, it is a foundational regulatory cornerstone. It is the Golden Rule. It passes out the gold so it makes the rules. So you cut back on payments. What's the worse that could happen? How about a promising study finding valuable insights about traumatic brain injury being shut down? Huh? Yeah that happened. Someone I know worked on that in a large teaching hospital which does research. Some of the money that comes in goes for those kinds of projects. Income is going to go down and as always happens research is one of the first things to go. Casualty of war. "The Club" isn't always the most rational way to have people work better. But the bureaucracy is now being established and you will not be able to fix that. It is it's own thing.

So the aging population will cost a few trillion dollars over and above what we have. Health care workers will have strong disincentives to go elsewhere, because what you will have is "productivity", that is more patients per unit time. You will have staff reductions. You will not have the right people in the right places doing the right things when needed, but you'll have the ACA.

It was not well thought out and in the minds of most it's a synonym for health care. It is not harmful in the sense that many think of. It's not going to make dogs and cats live together in sin, to quote a movie. It is no worse than putting a dirty band aid on a cancerous lesion and working around the real problem and pronouncing it a solution. That's the problem with it.

We as a people do not plan well. We kick the can down the road, but there have been moments of opportunity where we did move. Sometimes it was for good and sometimes not, but there was the Manhattan Project and Apollo in the last century. Both came from a perceived need. Insurmountable obstacles were removed. The best and brightest were allowed to do work for a common purpose. A failed project was the Maginot Line and there was nothing wrong with that either. Yes, perhaps the ACA is just that.

Nevertheless, we had moments of missed opportunity. We had the Oil Embargo, a wakeup call for energy independence. The reviled by some Carter recognized this and tried to do something, but other politicians crushed the initiative.

Then there was 9/11. It was a rare moment when we had the sympathy of most of the world. Even Iran had student protests supporting us, the only positive encouragement in that part of the world. Wisdom would have prescribed action to reach out to others, some of whom we did not see eye to eye with to work with common purpose for mutual security and perhaps, finally, find a way to a sane world. We got the Axis speech, which resulted in our current predicaments in the ME region, and an even more hostile situation. What was wrong with calling out people for doing wrong? Nothing, of course, provided that you ignore the consequences of the act.

Likewise, we had a moment where health care reform proper might have been had. The nation was looking to improve our system and address things they didn't understand, but realized at some level had to be resolved.

Obama and the Democrats rose to the occasion with their Axis wisdom, their Maginot solution. Recall that in themselves and in limited context nothing was "wrong" with them.

That is the real tragedy, a wasted moment. A few wanted to examine the system and determine without political or profit driven skulduggery where we were, determine possibilities, get a realistic assessment of costs and what each would and would not do. Find ways to implement solutions that would enhance the patient/provider relationship, which is the foundation of health care. Give tools to help. Provide a system for rational treatment. Implementing with a key goal being to minimize the laws of unintended consequences. To have legislation and regulation facilitate the process, not rule by politics. To have quality care without excessive and redundant testing. So much more. We need so much more. The costs of Alzheimers is projected to be 1.2 trillion dollars. Other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and so forth will add to that at least as much. The "solution"? Cut payments?

Where will the next generation of providers come from when the sentiment here seems to be that they need to work harder and longer for less because like teachers they should be doing it on principle. IF you can get enough qualified (note that word) people, which goes far beyond book learning, how will they be trained? How to allocate resources? What solutions do we have now?

This is what I hear.

"Well it's better than nothing."
"But the republicans (insert insult here)
" The free market..."
"Oh that's too hard"
"We already know what to do..."

Well...
Better than nothing sometimes isn't. Wasting opportunities to address only a part of something inadequately isn't better. It's tragic.

"But the Republicans..." When did Obama and the Democrats give a crap about them? When it wanted the mandate it shoved it down nicely, but not the same people are afraid to foster rational foresight put into action which can stand on it's merits? Shame on them.

"The free market". The free market will eat you and spit you out. It will take your retirement for buyouts. It will outsource your job or replace you for one more black line on the ledger, if the red ink it incurs is made from your blood. Only a fool begs a dollar sign.

"We already know". No we don't. We may have sufficient data and means to gather more, but no one has proposed a unified plan of reform from beginning to end with regulatory and Constitutional issues taken into considerations. Yet people who do not have the time to begin to understand the issues much less become sufficiently informed to deal with them are seen as the fount of all wisdom, qualified to lead. No, they are not. They are legally tasked to pass legislation, but they do not have to be in charge of how we get from point A to B. They can delegate that to others THEN act on enlightened proposals.

Government in the proper context CAN do good things, but some they cannot. They can create opportunities for others to do expert work. They can be enablers, facilitators. They suck as doctors. They can create the means by which others lead us to the Moon, but they aren't qualified to tell others how to get there. They can fund wonderful institutions like the CDC or the NIH. They can do the same for academia with research into the sciences. Health care? No let the politicians do it because we can't trust the best people? What kind of sane policy is that? Doing so would take too long, but the debate over what we were told we could has consumed too much time and effort instead. How does that help? And when people finally (too late no doubt) get it, they will have to work around the ACA to get where we need to be, because there are those who would see the nation burn before admitting it needs to go and the world would need to burn to remove it's entrenched roots.


The ACA and indeed the call for socialized medicine or UHC is irrelevant if it is all to produce garbage. Sweden? We can't do much better politically than some African governments and yes that includes the "we know everything" Democrats as much as the "Huh, did you say something?" Republicans.

So the answer is that the ACA "isn't harmful" directly. It's the wrong bandage to treat a fatal illness that will only get marketer mentality to treat.
What could go wrong?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, they don't have access when they need it. Real people die because they can't get care.

Many diseases require continuing treatment, and early detection, neither of which happens when the only option is the emergency room.

And getting care in the emergency room is about the most expensive, least efficient means to deliver healthcare. And the costs aren't paid for by the person who should pay for it, they're paid for by everybody else.

Which is unfair and expensive.

The ACA does change all of that, maybe not as much as it should, but it could go a long way.

Yet when people need to be seen you argue that they shouldn't in order to save money. Pick a side and don't say anything more.

 

[werepossum]

What this is about is who wins. There are a whole host of potential solutions, but only two ideas are possible. One is the Republican one and the other is the Democratic "cure" and I use that word rather contemptuously. What must happen at all costs is that one side defeat the other. So one side comes up with a "fix" which isn't about health care (although I do believe that health care access is important) and all other ideas are to be ignored. The Republicans response is to oppose whatever the Democrats propose. It's not about more people getting quality care, it's about who dictates. It's not about making more people better it's about establishing something, anything, and circling the wagons.

If you don't know me, I've been in health care for a very long time and I see what has and hasn't worked, and how things with good intentions went wrong and at best give mediocre benefit because some entity doesn't get it. That could be business or government.

Heh, I'm not a liberal, I'm a health care radical. I want things done with intelligence and foresight by those who's interests aren't in how a stock performs or how their party is positioned for the next election.

Careful examination, careful consideration, passionate AND intelligent reform and implementation.

No one wants that. No one.

Well said. Although I wouldn't say no one wants that, just no one in power.

Personally I wish we had gone with a mandate that every state reach stepped goals of coverage, quality and access. Then we'd have fifty-odd potential examples of what works and what does not (although granted, D.C. probably couldn't muster anything usable, Puerto Rico's best system probably wouldn't work for anyone else, and protectorates like Guam are probably too small and too poor to be useful to states.) States could then examine each system and its results to adopt the best system for their population. But as you say, neither side wants the best solution, each side wants it's solution.

It limits profits for insurance companies, requires everyone to use insurance companies (seriously, you don't see a problem here?) and forces people to do something that should be a choice.

ACA has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the availability of HEALTHCARE. ACA's only purpose is to allow politicians to say "look, we tried."

The point is that ACA is hugely expensive for the government and the tax payer and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

It doesn't actually force people to use health insurance. If for instance one is Rush Limbaugh, one is still free to pay for services out of pocket, just while paying an extra tax. As most people are not Rush Limbaugh, the tax is akin to forcing them to pay premiums to the state against such time as they may need services they cannot afford. Philosophically I'm against such mandates, but one has to be practical; unless we're to be the kind of nation that allows poor people to go without health care except under emergency and life saving conditions, we need some sort of enforcement mechanism that keeps the system funded.

And yes, the ACA is hugely expensive for the government and the tax payer, but it's not fair to say that it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It provides health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions which preclude their insurance under previously existing rules, which will cost more but allows better access to health care, and it will allow people who are too poor to afford life insurance to get it at our expense. We can certainly argue about whether the ACA is the best way or an efficient way to do those things, but they ARE good things.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

< snip >

Thanks for spending the time to post that...I enjoyed reading every word and couldn't agree more.

BTW, grats on post 35,000!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks for spending the time to post that...I enjoyed reading every word and couldn't agree more.

BTW, grats on post 35,000!

Whoo! I almost missed it. Thanks!

 

[dank69]

...

"But the Republicans..." When did Obama and the Democrats give a crap about them? When it wanted the mandate it shoved it down nicely, but not the same people are afraid to foster rational foresight put into action which can stand on it's merits? Shame on them.

I agree with a lot of your post but I want to call attention to this part specifically.

When Obama and the Dems set out to "reform" healthcare the Republicans were already entrenched in an all out "Fuck you Obama" war. Every single thing Obama did was met with gnashing of teeth. All of our economic ills immediately became his fault from the moment he was elected. Not even inaugurated, elected.

I wasn't even intested in politics until I saw this phenomenon unfolding. There was no way Republicans were going to do a single productive thing to reform healthcare. Their single solitary objective was to make Obama a single term President even if it meant burning down the country. If Obama proposed cutting corporate tax, Republicans would have found every way possible to attack him for it. You can call me a political hack for saying this but you were there. You know what I say here is true.

However, nobody back then could have known just how far Republicans would go to meet these ends. Obama was still in the mindset of trying to compromise with Republicans. So, as an olive branch to the Republicans, he started with their own fucking plan to reform healthcare. UHC and SP weren't even put on the table because he was already a socialist before he swore his oath to office. He wasn't even a fucking American. He put the Republican plan on the table and SURPRISE it was socialism in the eyes of Republicans. They added 149(?) poison pill ammendments to it during negotiations and even then still rejected it. Not because the plan was bad but because fuck Obama.

With time running out Obama was forced to do what he had to do to get something done. Now, you can say that something won't accomplish anything and maybe it won't but to say Obama didn't care about the Republicans is pure revisionist history.

...

So the answer is that the ACA "isn't harmful" directly. It's the wrong bandage to treat a fatal illness that will only get marketer mentality to treat.
What could go wrong?

That is the answer I was looking for.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is the answer I was looking for.

Was it? Is that what you take away?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree with a lot of your post but I want to call attention to this part specifically.

When Obama and the Dems set out to "reform" healthcare the Republicans were already entrenched in an all out "Fuck you Obama" war. Every single thing Obama did was met with gnashing of teeth. All of our economic ills immediately became his fault from the moment he was elected. Not even inaugurated, elected.

I wasn't even intested in politics until I saw this phenomenon unfolding. There was no way Republicans were going to do a single productive thing to reform healthcare. Their single solitary objective was to make Obama a single term President even if it meant burning down the country. If Obama proposed cutting corporate tax, Republicans would have found every way possible to attack him for it. You can call me a political hack for saying this but you were there. You know what I say here is true.

However, nobody back then could have known just how far Republicans would go to meet these ends. Obama was still in the mindset of trying to compromise with Republicans. So, as an olive branch to the Republicans, he started with their own fucking plan to reform healthcare. UHC and SP weren't even put on the table because he was already a socialist before he swore his oath to office. He wasn't even a fucking American. He put the Republican plan on the table and SURPRISE it was socialism in the eyes of Republicans. They added 149(?) poison pill ammendments to it during negotiations and even then still rejected it. Not because the plan was bad but because fuck Obama.

With time running out Obama was forced to do what he had to do to get something done. Now, you can say that something won't accomplish anything and maybe it won't but to say Obama didn't care about the Republicans is pure revisionist history.

So you are about the Obama and the Republicans then. Of course the Republicans were to going to object to OBAMAs plan. They were going to sabotoge their POLITICAL OPPONENTS plans. Obama was looking to compromise on a POLITICAL creature with POLITICIANS to be POLITICALLY acceptable to both sides.

What does this have to do with the inherent nature and qualities of the health care system. When you sit down with your doc, what has or had Obama proposed to give better care? What enables providers to gain insight? To do more good things for you as a patient?

What medically insightful proposals did the Democrats come up with? Who among them knows how things really work? Who there has the basic knowledge of a resident? The perception of a nurse with decades in the system? Which of them had significant input? Which of them did Obama or Pelosi show up with their mastery of the subject?

What real difference to the overall health of Americans in the long term was proposed? What wisdom was there? Why do you think them qualified to offer it to begin with?

 

[Tom]

Yet when people need to be seen you argue that they shouldn't in order to save money. Pick a side and don't say anything more.

No I don't. If you're talking about rationing, there's nothing in the ACA that rations care anymore than private insurance already does.

Maybe you should look into what the ACA actually is.

btw, i read you post about the Maginot line and the oil embargo.

The ACA is dealing with reality, where there isn't a way to achieve perfection as every individual perceives it.

We've wasted at least 60 years since Truman discussed uniform healthcare, it
s time to try something before healthcare devours everything the defense dept doesn't.

 

[dank69]

Was it? Is that what you take away?

Yes. As I suspected, ACA doesn't make things worse, it just doesn't so what you wanted it to do.

I am going to ask for clarification on how the ACA will stifle research though

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes. As I suspected, ACA doesn't make things worse, it just doesn't so what you wanted it to do.

I am going to ask for clarification on how the ACA will stifle research though

Well no it doesn't do what I want it to do, much like that band aid didn't cure the melanoma. I've already told you that cutting monies kill research, a long long known thing. And yes, filling that pothole will make the road smoother. That's what you want, and the nation is going to have the smoothest and deadliest "roadway" that can be had and it looks like we deserve it.

I had hoped to at least establish an understanding, if not agreement, but that's not possible and so I'll drop this fruitless effort.

All I ask in return is when bad things happen don't blame anyone but yourself and the republicans which from my perspective as a provider are just as "enlightened" as their opposition.

This isn't about what is best. It isn't about what's needed. It's about getting your plan into place even if it causes harm, a point I made but you passed on. So be it.

 

[Tom]

So you are about the Obama and the Republicans then. Of course the Republicans were to going to object to OBAMAs plan. They were going to sabotoge their POLITICAL OPPONENTS plans. Obama was looking to compromise on a POLITICAL creature with POLITICIANS to be POLITICALLY acceptable to both sides.

What does this have to do with the inherent nature and qualities of the health care system. When you sit down with your doc, what has or had Obama proposed to give better care? What enables providers to gain insight? To do more good things for you as a patient?

What medically insightful proposals did the Democrats come up with? Who among them knows how things really work? Who there has the basic knowledge of a resident? The perception of a nurse with decades in the system? Which of them had significant input? Which of them did Obama or Pelosi show up with their mastery of the subject?

What real difference to the overall health of Americans in the long term was proposed? What wisdom was there? Why do you think them qualified to offer it to begin with?

Doctors and nurses had lots of input in the design of the ACA.

The ACA helps EVERYTHING in much the same way public education does.

If more people get proper healthcare and a good education, the more likely we are to have a successful society.

It's so obvious its hard to understand what people are arguing about sometimes.

I mean arguing HOW to educate people and improve healthcare for more people is one thing, arguing its better not to try makes no sense at all.

 

[raildogg]

Doctors and nurses had lots of input in the design of the ACA.

The ACA helps EVERYTHING in much the same way public education does.

If more people get proper healthcare and a good education, the more likely we are to have a successful society.

It's so obvious its hard to understand what people are arguing about sometimes.

I mean arguing HOW to educate people and improve healthcare for more people is one thing, arguing its better not to try makes no sense at all.

Sorry to turn this off topic but the theories don't often work out. Successful society? Sorry, but we not nowhere close to that DESPITE increasing education, especially college education. On the contrary, people are still very ignorant despite memorizing textbooks, they are still lazy, still violent. There is probably more animosity in this country and this world even with much greater levels of education. This is not to say education is the problem.

So you really believe that ACA will lead to people getting better healthcare? What about the families, at least initially, who see their premiums jump considerably? What about the young people who see 200% and more increases on their premiums? This may not be a direct result of ACA but this is what is actually happening.

It may lead to some getting better healthcare but it may come at the cost of others. Once again, we're back to the old system again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Doctors and nurses had lots of input in the design of the ACA.

The ACA helps EVERYTHING in much the same way public education does.

If more people get proper healthcare and a good education, the more likely we are to have a successful society.

It's so obvious its hard to understand what people are arguing about sometimes.

I mean arguing HOW to educate people and improve healthcare for more people is one thing, arguing its better not to try makes no sense at all.

I have advocated far more innovative change than the entire House, Senate and White House have. It is precisely my point that it is imperative that we attempt to make substantial prudent changes that go beyond. Me, one person. Those health care experts- did they create the solution? How much did they set the agenda? Did they prop up the corners or were they the source of knowledge and wisdom? What it more their plan or Pelosi's?

Why don't you want better?

Now suppose someone proposed a way to encourage drug research which would be sustainable for the long haul, but free of the motivation for corporate gain and unencumbered by patenting for profit? Suppose the model depended on providing quality medicines to the world at minimal costs. Do you think Obama and Pelosi would support it? That's not a rhetorical question BTW.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well no it doesn't do what I want it to do, much like that band aid didn't cure the melanoma. I've already told you that cutting monies kill research, a long long known thing. And yes, filling that pothole will make the road smoother. That's what you want, and the nation is going to have the smoothest and deadliest "roadway" that can be had and it looks like we deserve it.

I had hoped to at least establish an understanding, if not agreement, but that's not possible and so I'll drop this fruitless effort.

All I ask in return is when bad things happen don't blame anyone but yourself and the republicans which from my perspective as a provider are just as "enlightened" as their opposition.

This isn't about what is best. It isn't about what's needed. It's about getting your plan into place even if it causes harm, a point I made but you passed on. So be it.

This is a perfect example of what extreme partisanship does to the human mind. I admire you for your restraint as this is an area I struggle with.

 

[dank69]

Well no it doesn't do what I want it to do, much like that band aid didn't cure the melanoma. I've already told you that cutting monies kill research, a long long known thing. And yes, filling that pothole will make the road smoother. That's what you want, and the nation is going to have the smoothest and deadliest "roadway" that can be had and it looks like we deserve it.

I had hoped to at least establish an understanding, if not agreement, but that's not possible and so I'll drop this fruitless effort.

All I ask in return is when bad things happen don't blame anyone but yourself and the republicans which from my perspective as a provider are just as "enlightened" as their opposition.

This isn't about what is best. It isn't about what's needed. It's about getting your plan into place even if it causes harm, a point I made but you passed on. So be it.

That isn't what I want. That is the best we get until we fix the Republican party and the conservative mind. Democrats want to fix healthcare. Democrats want Single Payer or UHC. Democrats can't accomplish this currently. Do you want Democrats to ignore the constitution in order to do what you say must be done? That is the only way they will be able to accomplish what you want. I don't want healthcare fixed via destruction of the democratic process.

Your problem is that you see the ACA and blame Democrats or blame both D and R. No. Democrats did the best they could with what time they had. Public backlash was instantaneous, not because the law will make things worse as you have admitted, but because they were told it will make things worse by everyone. I have seen you yourself say it will make things worse many times even though you know it will not. Lies will not make things better, they will make things worse. If Dems had managed to implement SP or UHC, backlash would have been much worse. It would have been overturned and GOP would have control of all three branches of government right now, and our healthcare system wouldn't have changed one bit.

Now, the one point I want to understand. What monies does the ACA cut? I don't know shit about our healthcare system so I need you to explain it to me. You mentioned a traumatic brain injury study that was cut. How is that linked to the ACA?

 

[Tom]

I have advocated far more innovative change than the entire House, Senate and White House have. It is precisely my point that it is imperative that we attempt to make substantial prudent changes that go beyond. Me, one person. Those health care experts- did they create the solution? How much did they set the agenda? Did they prop up the corners or were they the source of knowledge and wisdom? What it more their plan or Pelosi's?

Why don't you want better?

Now suppose someone proposed a way to encourage drug research which would be sustainable for the long haul, but free of the motivation for corporate gain and unencumbered by patenting for profit? Suppose the model depended on providing quality medicines to the world at minimal costs. Do you think Obama and Pelosi would support it? That's not a rhetorical question BTW.

I do want it better. And of course I'd support such a plan, it already exists. I'd be happy to fund NIH and build one less nuclear sub any day.

But, just because the ACA could be better doesn't negate the historic nature of the success of President Obama getting it passed and implemented, against withering attacks.

One clear measure that the attacks that claim the public is against are false is, Obama was reelected, easily.

 

[dank69]

This is a perfect example of what extreme partisanship does to the human mind. I admire you for your restraint as this is an area I struggle with.

Oh what a surprise. Doc fucking Savage thinks I'm a partisan. Don't hold back Doc. I'm happy to hand you your ass on a silver platter any time you are feeling punchy.

 

[Tom]

Sorry to turn this off topic but the theories don't often work out. Successful society? Sorry, but we not nowhere close to that DESPITE increasing education, especially college education. On the contrary, people are still very ignorant despite memorizing textbooks, they are still lazy, still violent. There is probably more animosity in this country and this world even with much greater levels of education. This is not to say education is the problem.

So you really believe that ACA will lead to people getting better healthcare? What about the families, at least initially, who see their premiums jump considerably? What about the young people who see 200% and more increases on their premiums? This may not be a direct result of ACA but this is what is actually happening.

It may lead to some getting better healthcare but it may come at the cost of others. Once again, we're back to the old system again.

You don't think the United States is a successful society ?

Compared to what ?

You need to put numbers with your %. If a typical young person's premium goes from $10 a month to $20 a month, but they get a $15 subsidy, which is a more honest reflection of reality than saying young people are all paying 200% more.

Many families will be paying less than they were. Many families that had no insurance will now have it.

 

[boomerang]

You don't think the United States is a successful society ?

Compared to what ?

You need to put numbers with your %. If a typical young person's premium goes from $10 a month to $20 a month, but they get a $15 subsidy, which is a more honest reflection of reality than saying young people are all paying 200% more.

Many families will be paying less than they were. Many families that had no insurance will now have it.

Rose colored glasses.

 

[Tom]

Rose colored glasses.

What is the point of making a post like this ?

I swear, my 3 year old granddaughter can have a more interesting conversation..

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh what a surprise. Doc fucking Savage thinks I'm a partisan. Don't hold back Doc. I'm happy to hand you your ass on a silver platter any time you are feeling punchy.

You see what you want to see and disregard everything else. You just don't seem to get what you missed and give every indication that you're intellectually incapable of getting it. Your response to Hayabusa Rider just happened to showcase this "characteristic" in you. Just saying.

 

[dank69]

You see what you want to see and disregard everything else. You just don't seem to get what you missed and give every indication that you're intellectually incapable of getting it. Your response to Hayabusa Rider just happened to showcase this "characteristic" in you. Just saying.

You are projecting. My post had one point, that Republicans had no interest in helping Democrats craft meaningful healthcare reform. Tell me why you think this is wrong.