YAHCT: Remember when obama promised us we could keep our own insurance?

[nick1985]

Something tells me you aren't really going to freeze bashing Obama-care for 5 years. Maybe just being Nostradamus myself.

He said freeze discussion on this topic as its been beat to death. You being retarded, took that as him saying he wont say anything negative about this administration for 5 years.

Its funny to see how your mind works.

 

[BladeVenom]

Obama, making Bush look good.

 

[Acanthus]

This clause was in the bill from the start.

Only current plans are grandfathered in, any changes to current plans would have to then meet minimum govt standards (which arent all that stringent)

To meet the bronze (minimum) coverage it barely is enough to prevent you from being bankrupt if you fall and break your leg.

Oh woe is me, those poor small businesses will get strangled to death.

 

[child of wonder]

I think objectivity is what caused him to abandon this thread. My "knee-jerk reaction" was actually a hypothesis which was objectively testable. I tested it by asking him whether or not he had read the bill. He responded by falling off the face of the earth. Thus, my "knee-jerk reaction" appears to have been an objectively true statement. The real problem is the conflation of fact and opinion: his opinion was that the facts aren't in on the bill, so it was impossible to conclude anything about its "goodness." However, the facts are in on the bill.

Where did I fall off the face of the earth? I answered your question.

My opinion is that the repercussions of the bill have not been ascertained because the bill has not been implemented yet. You contend to have indisputable knowledge that the repercussions of the bill are and will be negative and that your assertion cannot be questioned else one is misinformed or stupid.

If you've read the entire bill, I applaud that. It's a long read. There are certainly indicators that the bill will have negative consequences. I hope, for all our sakes, that it does not cause the financial devastation many claim it will.

 

[CycloWizard]

Where did I fall off the face of the earth? I answered your question.

My opinion is that the repercussions of the bill have not been ascertained because the bill has not been implemented yet. You contend to have indisputable knowledge that the repercussions of the bill are and will be negative and that your assertion cannot be questioned else one is misinformed or stupid.

If you've read the entire bill, I applaud that. It's a long read. There are certainly indicators that the bill will have negative consequences. I hope, for all our sakes, that it does not cause the financial devastation many claim it will.

Do you believe that effects have causes? If so, those things you think may have negative effects will have negative effects. The only thing necessary to make this huge leap of faith is a rational mind: if the premise is true (i.e. effects have causes), then effects will be negative. Regardless of what school of economic thought you might subscribe to, I am fairly certain that all will agree on this.

 

[child of wonder]

Do you believe that effects have causes? If so, those things you think may have negative effects will have negative effects. The only thing necessary to make this huge leap of faith is a rational mind: if the premise is true (i.e. effects have causes), then effects will be negative. Regardless of what school of economic thought you might subscribe to, I am fairly certain that all will agree on this.

Naturally, I cannot believe you're telling me that if I believe something will have negative consequences then it will. I believed when my wife (then girlfriend) told me she was pregnant that my life would be irreversably and negatively impacted. 8 years later, I could not have been more wrong.

Again, you're simply asserting "do you believe in causality? If so, then because I assert something it naturally follows that I am correct."

For every expert you can find that says the health bill will be a disastrous failure, I can find someone who says it won't. You'll forgive me if I don't find your stern assertions and demeaning comments entirely persuasive.

The difference between you and I is that although we both feel there are aspects of the bill that point towards negative consequences and there likely will be negative consequences, you claim to know with absolute certainty that the bill is a failure and will ultimately fail while I maintain that we have yet to see the affects of the bill in action so we cannot say with absolute certainty how successful or unsuccessful the bill will be.

In my case, I am skeptical but awaiting more data.

In your case, you claim to be psychic.

 

[CycloWizard]

Naturally, I cannot believe you're telling me that if I believe something will have negative consequences then it will. I believed when my wife (then girlfriend) told me she was pregnant that my life would be irreversably and negatively impacted. 8 years later, I could not have been more wrong.

Again, you're simply asserting "do you believe in causality? If so, then because I assert something it naturally follows that I am correct."

For every expert you can find that says the health bill will be a disastrous failure, I can find someone who says it won't. You'll forgive me if I don't find your stern assertions and demeaning comments entirely persuasive.

The difference between you and I is that although we both feel there are aspects of the bill that point towards negative consequences and there likely will be negative consequences, you claim to know with absolute certainty that the bill is a failure and will ultimately fail while I maintain that we have yet to see the affects of the bill in action so we cannot say with absolute certainty how successful or unsuccessful the bill will be.

In my case, I am skeptical but awaiting more data.

In your case, you claim to be psychic.

Please find me someone with a PhD in economics who claims that this bill will be good for the economy or that it makes good economic sense. In addition, I will need an MD who claims that this bill will somehow improve the quality of healthcare delivery. Both of these people should be unaffiliated with the Democratic party. Both of these things are necessary (but not sufficient) for the bill to be successful on any level.

 

[Pens1566]

Deflect, semantics, demand very narrowly defined specific proof that you're sure can't be produced, then when it isn't declare supreme victory of the interwebs. Yep, cyclo strikes again ...

 

[CycloWizard]

Deflect, semantics, demand very narrowly defined specific proof that you're sure can't be produced, then when it isn't declare supreme victory of the interwebs. Yep, cyclo strikes again ...

He said he could produce plenty of experts that would say the bill will not be a failure. Any reasonable definition of success for such a bill must improve both healthcare delivery and the economic side of healthcare delivery (though feel free to tell me how else you might define success in this case if you think I'm wrong). Therefore, I'm asking for the bare minimum support for his claim. I'm not sure how that is a deflection or involve semantics in any way. Nice personal attack fail though. Ass.

 

[child of wonder]

He said he could produce plenty of experts that would say the bill will not be a failure. Any reasonable definition of success for such a bill must improve both healthcare delivery and the economic side of healthcare delivery (though feel free to tell me how else you might define success in this case if you think I'm wrong). Therefore, I'm asking for the bare minimum support for his claim. I'm not sure how that is a deflection or involve semantics in any way. Nice personal attack fail though. Ass.

I said I could provide experts in support of the bill. You placed the limitations that those experts must have PhD's in Economics and cannot have any Democratic ties. Clearly that would be a very time consuming task since the bill is so polarizing.

However, your "if you're not with me, you're against me" approach to my insistence that the full consequenes of this bill cannot yet be realized exemplifies the "us vs. them" attitude I mentioned earlier.

It's sad that despite my doubts about the bill and that I, too, do not view it in a favorable light you are unable to accept this position and demand I fall in line with yours.

So close, yet so far apart.

 

[CycloWizard]

I said I could provide experts in support of the bill. You placed the limitations that those experts must have PhD's in Economics and cannot have any Democratic ties. Clearly that would be a very time consuming task since the bill is so polarizing.

However, your "if you're not with me, you're against me" approach to my insistence that the full consequenes of this bill cannot yet be realized exemplifies the "us vs. them" attitude I mentioned earlier.

It's sad that despite my doubts about the bill and that I, too, do not view it in a favorable light you are unable to accept this position and demand I fall in line with yours.

So close, yet so far apart.

To be an expert on the economic side of things requires a PhD in economics. There are hundreds (if not thousands) PhDs in economics who are not on the Democrat payroll. Surely one of them would say that the bill has a chance at economic success, else your claim is a lie. I can find plenty that support it because it's the right thing to do or because they support this political agenda, but none who support it because it has any economic merit. I was able to find some who supported previous versions of the bill, but not any in favor of the final POS that has become law. As I have said previously, you are free to hold whatever position you want. However, if your opinion contradicts the facts of the situation, you're still wrong.

 

[Pens1566]

He said he could produce plenty of experts that would say the bill will not be a failure. Any reasonable definition of success for such a bill must improve both healthcare delivery and the economic side of healthcare delivery (though feel free to tell me how else you might define success in this case if you think I'm wrong). Therefore, I'm asking for the bare minimum support for his claim. I'm not sure how that is a deflection or involve semantics in any way. Nice personal attack fail though. Ass.

Ha ha

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The Phd's in economics who forecast doom and gloom wrt healthcare reform are probably the same guys who waxed ecstatic over trickledown economics, self regulated banking and synthetic derivatives, too...

Whores to the ideology of failure...