• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ObamaCare: Gentlemen, Do You Like Subsidizing Women's HC costs?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Just another example of the misandrist direction the country is headed. And you wonder why women scream they don't need men - that's because Daddy Government will force men to pay for the women at gunpoint. Equality my a$$.
 
shadow9d9 said:
Even "Obamacare" is a lie. No such thing. Call it what it is, the healthcare reform bill. By calling "obamacare" it shows you are closed off to real life discussion by your posting of partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

Oh bullsh!t.

The actual name of the bill is too long to be used conveniently. Most people wouldn't know it if they saw it, and "Obamacare" accurately and readily identifies it for all people.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Oh bullsh!t.

The actual name of the bill is too long to be used conveniently. Most people wouldn't know it if they saw it, and "Obamacare" accurately and readily identifies it for all people.

Fern
Click to expand...

Affordable care act is just as easy as obamacare. One was written by congress the other was written by Frank Lunz.

One is designed to illicit a negative response. I will let you guess which one that is.
 
manimal said:
Affordable care act is just as easy as obamacare. One was written by congress the other was written by Frank Lunz.

One is designed to illicit a negative response. I will let you guess which one that is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, one was designed to illicit a negative response and one was designed to raise costs but named to illicit belief that it will lower costs. That's politics, bucko.
 
ACA is easier to say than Obamacare, and that's just fact. "Obamacare" is a well-known, made-up conservative canard that has gone somewhat mainstream. And yeah, it illicits a negative response.

Bottom-line; Americans have been subsidizing each other since our founding. Men subsidizing women's HC is a natural, logical progression. Get used to it old conservative white men.
 
manimal said:
Affordable care act is just as easy as obamacare. One was written by congress the other was written by Frank Lunz.

One is designed to illicit a negative response. I will let you guess which one that is.
Click to expand...

Here's the nactual name of the law(s) we're discussing with ObamaCare:

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act,
Click to expand...

It's ridiculously long.

Fern
 
piasabird said:
]Next will be Free Viagra.[/B]
I wanna have a sex change!
In reallity the left is trying to use health care to allow tyrany by the federal government for laws they can not pass in Congress. It is just Tyrany by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Psst dumbass come here....Viagra is already covered under most health insurance and guess what...It isn't free.
 
I'm getting the impression that Progressives/Liberals/Dems want to back away from the HC bill, and so object to Obama's being linked to it.

Fern
 
Fern said:
And nobody knows WTF it is.

Google it: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output...f.,cf.osb&fp=2e60629afd354599&biw=987&bih=586

Nothing on the front page.

(American Cornhole Association? WTH?)

Fern
Click to expand...

People who know and study the basics of HC in the U.S. who write on forums on the Internet know exactly what the abbreviation means. And I imagine the majority of those on the Internet who don't know what ACA refers to shouldn't be taken very seriously in the first place if they don't know the title of the legislation they're spouting off about and, worse yet, continue to use Obamacare as if the term has ANY credibility among those that study healthcare law.

You'd admit this if you weren't becoming such a partisan hack, though.
 
Fern said:
I'm getting the impression that Progressives/Liberals/Dems want to back away from the HC bill, and so object to Obama's being linked to it.

Fern
Click to expand...

lol. Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. The fact that you really, truly believe in your heart the HC weakens him shows a predictable lack of forward-thinking. Romney is the best thing that can happen to Barack Obama when it comes to HC. Completely neutralizes the issue.
 
First said:
People who know and study the basics of HC in the U.S. who write on forums on the Internet know exactly what the abbreviation means. And I imagine the majority of those on the Internet who don't know what ACA refers to shouldn't be taken very seriously in the first place if they don't know the title of the legislation they're spouting off about and, worse yet, continue to use Obamacare as if the term has ANY credibility among those that study healthcare law.

You'd admit this if you weren't becoming such a partisan hack, though.
Click to expand...

If ACA were widely used on the internet in discussions it would readily show up in a google search. But it's not and so it doesn't.

Fern
 
Fern said:
If ACA were widely used on the internet in discussions it would readily show up in a google search. But it's not and so it doesn't.

Fern
Click to expand...

It does show up in Google, you just have to be capable of non-partisan nuanced searching.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aca+bills
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aca+health
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aca+healthcare

The first result in every one of those 3 Google searches is entitled "The Health Care Law & You" via HealthCare.gov.

Come on, how hard was that?
 
Last edited:
Hahaha.

I googled "ACA"

If you see ACA and don't know what it is, that's what (ACA) you google.

Fern
 
come on Fern - if you can't even admit that the term "Obamacare' is intended to cause a negative reaction, then what is the point of even posting anymore? You are venturing dangerously close to sounding like Spidey here.
 
Fern said:
Oh bullsh!t.

The actual name of the bill is too long to be used conveniently. Most people wouldn't know it if they saw it, and "Obamacare" accurately and readily identifies it for all people.

Fern
Click to expand...

The healthcare reform bill is too hard to type conveniently?

Obama did not design it. The heritage foundation came up with the individual mandate 20 years ago. As a way to compromise, the democrats went with that republican idea.

It is a term the opponents have used to mischaracterize the bill and you feed into it by mentioning it by that name.
 
Fern said:
I'm getting the impression that Progressives/Liberals/Dems want to back away from the HC bill, and so object to Obama's being linked to it.

Fern
Click to expand...

Your "impression" is just your projection.

It just doesn't make any sense because Obama did not design it, and it is a republican idea.

We are talking about a bill that a majority of people love when they are shown what is in the bill, but dislike the bill as a whole due to negative and false campaigning.. the same type of nonsense you are trying to engage in right now.
 
NeoV said:
come on Fern - if you can't even admit that the term "Obamacare' is intended to cause a negative reaction, then what is the point of even posting anymore? You are venturing dangerously close to sounding like Spidey here.
Click to expand...

I don't see the negative cannotation.

How is linking the HC law to Obama negative? That's basically all it does beside providing a handy and widely understood name for it.

And when did the left decide that this was a negative term? Not that long ago I heard those like Chris Matthews handily refer to it as Obamacare in the normal course of discussion. And Chris Matthews certainly intended no slight, he a fierce supporter of Obama and loves the HC bill.

I can see people objecting to terms like Replirats or Dumbocrats etc (or had I called it Obamacrap). But damned if I'm going to be coerced into using only language approved by Libs or considered appropriately PC by certain factions. You control the language, you control the debate.

Fern
 
werepossum said:
Yeah, one was designed to illicit a negative response and one was designed to raise costs but named to illicit belief that it will lower costs. That's politics, bucko.
Click to expand...

Umm, no.. the bill is not "designed to raise costs." If the people who aren't insured and use the ER as their primary care actually covered by insurance, costs will go down. 40 million more people in the pool will reduce costs.

Insurance companies will use any excuse to raise rates, because profits are their only concern... but that isn't the fault of the bill.. They have doubled costs in the last 10 years with no bill to use as an excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top