Congressional report says that repealing Obamacare would cost $100 billion over the next decade. - Polidicks

"Socialized medicine will destroy society" is not the same ideal as "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=A Noobcake;48005944]Well then let us use health care as an example instead. A lot of people seem to be holding the view that "every individual should be responsible for their own health care, this is better than universal, tax/government funded health care". This also happens to be the model that for the most part is being used, and has been used, in the US for quite some time. Let's do a quick fact check. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Statistics"]'Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States was at or near the top in infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and rates of disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy'.[/URL] To be exact, the current lifetime expectancy of a US citizen is currently at 78.4 years. The same study also states that [URL="http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497&page=109#d25"]'Public health efforts are credited with much of the gains in life expectancy that high-income countries experienced in the 20th century (Cutler and Miller, 2005; Foege, 2004)'[/URL]. From this it should be pretty obvious that privatized healthcare is, in fact, less effective than public healthcare, and is part of the reason why the US is stereotyped as an obese, unhealthy country. In other words, the idea behind the ideal at hand is wrong, and as such the ideal in itself is also fundamentally wrong and should be abandoned in order to further improve the general health of americans.[/QUOTE] No, how it [I]plays out[/I] has [I]different outcomes.[/I] If someone says, "I believe people should pay for their own healthcare," that could just mean all that it means. But you cannot say it is, by itself, [I]factually wrong.[/I]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005912]The republicans say they want small government but they really don't when they do privacy violation and behind bedroom doors legislation. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] You are making this about a nonissue rather than the issue you wanted to talk about[/QUOTE] This news piece is about spending money when you're twisting the discussion into big government vs small government.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005947]"Socialized medicine will destroy society" is not the same ideal as "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] No, how it [I]plays out[/I] has [I]different outcomes.[/I] If someone says, "I believe people should pay for their own healthcare," that could just mean all that it means. But you cannot say it is, by itself, [I]factually wrong.[/I][/QUOTE] I mean sure, but if you are actively holding that as an ideal while knowing that carrying it out is literally detrimental and worse than the alternative, how can it be ideal? Is not holding an ideal that is the sub-ideal one of two alternatives the same as denying people better healthcare? How can it be an ideal when it is literally not ideal?

But some people don't actually know for a fact that one is better than the other. That is just their view.

Legitimate question, can someone explain to me how the horribly crippled Obamacare legislation is somehow saving the government 100 billion dollars? Due to the controversial nature of this bill, it's hard to find any real solid facts about what it is actually doing for people. That and I've heard the bill itself is supposedly over 5000 fucking pages of self-contradicting legislative gibberish that no sane person would be able to decipher. I'm probably missing something, but for now this just sounds like bullshit to me. I mean seriously, when was the last time any of you guys heard of the USA government actually trying to avoid spending ludicrous amounts of money? At this point I think our universe would spontaneously implode if the government actually did anything logical in even the slightest amount.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005941]No, you're literally saying something else.[/QUOTE] No. I'm not. Everything I've seen out of the modern republican party has been that socialized medicine is a bad thing that degrades medical quality, has "death panels" and engages in regularized euthanisia on the old. Those are COMMON republican talking points that were fielded while the ACA was being fought for. You can't fucking deny that. You just can't. That's fact. I can google up a bunch of youtube videos and statements made by republican senators, congressmen, governors, and etc. Those were talking points that were circulated and publicized by media corporations. Those were views that were commonly shared amongst the populace when the ACA was first being initiated(OH, you might only know the ACA by "Obamacare"). So, how do you not see that their view point was more closely related to; "Socialized medicine will destroy our society" rather than "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare."

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006008]But some people don't actually know for a fact that one is better than the other. That is just their view.[/QUOTE] Being dumb and ignoring facts doesn't make the proposition "people should pay for their own health care" ideal. The world will not magically change itself to let that be the ideal alternative just because you don't know that carrying it out will have horrible consequences for the general health. Whether you know the facts or not, it is literally not ideal.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;48006015]Legitimate question, can someone explain to me how the horribly crippled Obamacare legislation is somehow saving the government 100 billion dollars? Due to the controversial nature of this bill, it's hard to find any real solid facts about what it is actually doing for people. That and I've heard the bill itself is supposedly over 5000 fucking pages of self-contradicting legislative gibberish that no sane person would be able to decipher. I'm probably missing something, but for now this just sounds like bullshit to me. I mean seriously, when was the last time any of you guys heard of the USA government actually trying to avoid spending ludicrous amounts of money? At this point I think our universe would spontaneously implode if the government actually did anything logical in even the slightest amount.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf[/url] have fun

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;48006015]Legitimate question, can someone explain to me how the horribly crippled Obamacare legislation is somehow saving the government 100 billion dollars? Due to the controversial nature of this bill, it's hard to find any real solid facts about what it is actually doing for people. That and I've heard the bill itself is supposedly over 5000 fucking pages of self-contradicting legislative gibberish that no sane person would be able to decipher. I'm probably missing something, but for now this just sounds like bullshit to me. I mean seriously, when was the last time any of you guys heard of the USA government actually trying to avoid spending ludicrous amounts of money? At this point I think our universe would spontaneously implode if the government actually did anything logical in even the slightest amount.[/QUOTE] The government is faced by a real spending issue. More real than ever before. They've already cut spending significantly across the board(Outside of the military contracts with weapons developers) so they DO actually need to avoid ridiculous expenditures like a massive cost of repealing something that has no REAL reason to be repealed.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006030]No. I'm not. Everything I've seen out of the modern republican party has been that socialized medicine is a bad thing that degrades medical quality, has "death panels" and engages in regularized euthanisia on the old. Those are COMMON republican talking points that were fielded while the ACA was being fought for. You can't fucking deny that. You just can't. That's fact. I can google up a bunch of youtube videos and statements made by republican senators, congressmen, governors, and etc. Those were talking points that were circulated and publicized by media corporations. Those were views that were commonly shared amongst the populace when the ACA was first being initiated(OH, you might only know the ACA by "Obamacare"). So, how do you not see that their view point was more closely related to; "Socialized medicine will destroy our society" rather than "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare."[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but factually, "Socialized medicine will destroy our society" and "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." are just two different things. Anything outside of those two statements is an addition to the statement. [QUOTE=A Noobcake;48006035]Being [highlight]dumb[/highlight] and ignoring facts doesn't make the proposition "people should pay for their own health care" ideal. The world will not magically change itself to let that be the ideal alternative just because you don't know that carrying it out will have horrible consequences for the general health. Whether you know the facts or not, it is literally not ideal.[/QUOTE] Why do you guys keep saying this? This isn't constructive.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006048]I'm sorry but factually, "Socialized medicine will destroy our society" and "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." are just two different things. Anything outside of those two statements is an addition to the statement. Why do you guys keep saying this? This isn't constructive.[/QUOTE] Yes they're factually different things...? I never said they were the same thing. I said that they held one over the other. I made that very clear. People keep saying that because you keep ignoring anything said to you and insisting we just say nice things rather than anything at all because you've already gone the long haul and ignored our ACTUAL arguments so we repeat them and repeat them but you continue to ignore so what on earth can anyone say at the end of their rope with people who refuse to see that they MIGHT be wrong about something.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006048]Why do you guys keep saying this? This isn't constructive.[/QUOTE] Then ignore that one word and adress the rest of my post, which will now be: Ignoring facts doesn't make the proposition "people should pay for their own health care" ideal. The world will not magically change itself to let that be the ideal alternative just because you don't know that carrying it out will have horrible consequences for the general health. Whether you know the facts or not, it is literally not ideal.

Except that's [I]a different view.[/I] That's not their view. If someone does not know this, [i]educate.[/i] But regardless, people are entitled to their own views. The answer isn't to insult. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006060]Yes they're factually different things...? I never said they were the same thing. I said that they held one over the other. I made that very clear. People keep saying that because you keep ignoring anything said to you and insisting we just say nice things rather than anything at all because you've already gone the long haul and ignored our ACTUAL arguments so we repeat them and repeat them but you continue to ignore so what on earth can anyone say at the end of their rope with people who refuse to see that they MIGHT be wrong about something.[/QUOTE] I can just as easily say you're ignoring what I'm saying. That doesn't make it true.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006073]Except that's [I]a different view.[/I] That's not their view. If someone does not know this, [i]educate.[/i] But regardless, people are entitled to their own views. The answer isn't to insult.[/QUOTE] But people aren't entitled to their views if their views are built on non-facts and realizing those views would literally cause earlier and more deaths than if the opposing view was instated as a system. The right to have an opinion is a thing, yes, but the right to actively work to shorten people's lives really isn't. You can not hold the view "I believe XYZ" without believing XYZ, and if XYZ is literally causing people to die earlier than they should then believing and wanting to instate XYZ is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

You are implying that people know all the details when forming views. People don't. That does not making them less entitled to them. You are saying views are something you conditionally lose entitlement to. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think any reasonable person would change their views when given all the details, if that information conflicted with their views. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] What is not reasonable, however, is to think that everyone is fully educated on all matters. We aren't. We all do the best we can and form views on what we know.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006130]You are implying that people know all the details when forming views. People don't. That does not making them less entitled to them. You are saying views are something you conditionally lose entitlement to. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think any reasonable person would change their views when given all the details, if that information conflicted with their views. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] What is not reasonable, however, is to think that everyone is fully educated on all matters. We aren't. We all do the best we can and form views on what we know.[/QUOTE] You're just poking more holes in your own arguments here. The people in the government who represent the US deny climate change, they deny the benefits of socialized medicine, they deny a whole whack of things, and these people are REGULARLY presented with more and more of the facts and they're not necessarily qualified to make judgement calls about whether those facts are true or not.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006060]I made that very clear.[/QUOTE] Not to me. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006060]People keep saying that because you keep ignoring anything said to you and insisting we just say nice things rather than anything at all because you've already gone the long haul and ignored our ACTUAL arguments so we repeat them and repeat them but you continue to ignore so what on earth can anyone say at the end of their rope with people who refuse to see that they MIGHT be wrong about something.[/QUOTE] So it's okay to not be nice to people and call them dumb and a robot instead?

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006130]You are implying that people know all the details when forming views. People don't. That does not making them less entitled to them. You are saying views are something you conditionally lose entitlement to. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think any reasonable person would change their views when given all the details, if that information conflicted with their views. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] What is not reasonable, however, is to think that everyone is fully educated on all matters. We aren't. We all do the best we can and form views on what we know.[/QUOTE] You would expect the people who are actually in charge of things are fairly educated on the things they are making laws about, no? There are basically two different scenarios for people who think "people should pay for their own health care". a) They are uneducated, and thusly aren't fit for taking the job as "guy who controls the country millions of people live in". They shouldn't be in large-scale politics at all! b) They are uneducated, but they, for one reason or another, choose to act against the facts. This is also known as being straight up evil and obviously isn't something anyone should want to have running a country.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006073]Except that's [I]a different view.[/I] That's not their view. If someone does not know this, [i]educate.[/i] But regardless, people are entitled to their own views. The answer isn't to insult. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I can just as easily say you're ignoring what I'm saying. That doesn't make it true.[/QUOTE] Except I respond to what you say and you go on diatriabes about how we're all insutling, rude, and have nothing else to say but rude and insulting things, even though, in doing that, you're ignoring the vast majority of the statements actually made by myself or others to focus on one particular word or tone or whatever, but you're ignoring the argument presented to focus on tonal details. I am not. I am responding directly to you.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006174]You're just poking more holes in your own arguments here. The people in the government who represent the US deny climate change, they deny the benefits of socialized medicine, they deny a whole whack of things, and these people are REGULARLY presented with more and more of the facts and they're not necessarily qualified to make judgement calls about whether those facts are true or not.[/QUOTE] It sounds more like those people aren't educated on the matter, and that you're saying their views are invalid as a result. These are complicated topics. I don't think it's fair to invalidate people's views based on them not knowing everything about the issues at hand. There's even disagreement about particular topics among professionals.

I'd rather amend Obamacare at the moment so it's not a fucking abortion of a healthcare system.

I wish my Congressman didn't have multiple homes because it makes it hard to shit on the doorstep of all of them

HumanAbyss et al. vs. andrewmcwatters: the thread

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005525]Yes, an entire political party should no longer be in existence because its members have differing opinions than that of another political party. And then what, create a new political party? Stop being politically active? Or assimilate into the group they disagreed with?[/QUOTE] No, the political party shouldn't stop existing because its members have differing opinions than that of another party. The political party should stop existing because it sucks ass. Obviously we need more than one party (shit we probably need more than two in the first place) but the republican party is not the one for it. There are more ideologies than that. Our left as it is isn't even that left in the context of the world. Hell, most people I hear say our left is everyone else's right. And they still debate outside our country so one can presume they found other things to believe than disgusting shit like the Republican party spouts. I also wouldn't be for a fascist party. Why? Because their views (and hence their actions) directly hurt me as a person. You go on about their opinions, well, the Republican party opinion is that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions and I can't marry my girlfriend. So what about all the women and gay people's opinions? I guess fuck 'em? Everyone apparently has the right to their opinion. That does not mean that I have to respect that opinion, accept it, or tolerate it, nor do I have to tolerate them going off about it on the national stage and fucking up laws that help people because they're whiny babies who can't handle not getting what they want every fucking week. And yes, your opinion or ideal or whatever the fuck you wanna call it can be wrong. That's my opinion, which according to you apparently can only be different and not wrong, so I guess it's true. If I were to say that it was my opinion that Plan 9 From Outer Space was the greatest film of all time, I would be demonstrably wrong. "So the next time some asshole says to you 'I have a right to my opinion', you say 'Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion.' Then shoot the fuck and walk away." - George Carlin

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006253]No, the political party shouldn't stop existing because its members have differing opinions than that of another party. The political party should stop existing because it sucks ass. Obviously we need more than one party (shit we probably need more than two in the first place) but the republican party is not the one for it. There are more ideologies than that. Our left as it is isn't even that left in the context of the world. Hell, most people I hear say our left is everyone else's right. And they still debate outside our country so one can presume they found other things to believe than disgusting shit like the Republican party spouts. I also wouldn't be for a fascist party. Why? Because their views (and hence their actions) directly hurt me as a person. You go on about their opinions, well, the Republican party opinion is that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions and I can't marry my girlfriend. So what about all the women and gay people's opinions? I guess fuck 'em? Everyone apparently has the right to their opinion. That does not mean that I have to respect that opinion, accept it, or tolerate it, nor do I have to tolerate them going off about it on the national stage and fucking up laws that help people because they're whiny babies who can't handle not getting what they want every fucking week. And yes, your opinion or ideal or whatever the fuck you wanna call it can be wrong. That's my opinion, which according to you apparently can only be different and not wrong, so I guess it's true. If I were to say that it was my opinion that Plan 9 From Outer Space was the greatest film of all time, I would be demonstrably wrong. "So the next time some asshole says to you 'I have a right to my opinion', you say 'Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion.' Then shoot the fuck and walk away." - George Carlin[/QUOTE] I guess if you're okay with being a bigot then. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] And I mean by definition, literally: big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions This is an absolutely terrible stance to take, and a hypocritical one, too. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Do you even remotely like the idea of bipartisanship? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48006185]Except I respond to what you say and you go on diatriabes about how we're all insutling, rude, and have nothing else to say but rude and insulting things, even though, in doing that, you're ignoring the vast majority of the statements actually made by myself or others to focus on one particular word or tone or whatever, but you're ignoring the argument presented to focus on tonal details. I am not. I am responding directly to you.[/QUOTE] No, you're dismissing being rude to me, which wouldn't be a problem if... you weren't rude to me. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] So what I've gotten so far out of this is that some members of Facepunch are okay with being bigots, saying not all people are entitled to their own views, and that it's even okay to insult and name call people when having discussions about politics. [QUOTE=Rocket;48005629]Change them to ones that are less [highlight]dumb[/highlight]. And this is not bigotry by any reasonable usage. If I thought we should kill all jewish people, it's not bigotry for someone to say "No, that's [highlight]dumb[/highlight] and [highlight]you're a nazi[/highlight]."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rocket;48005681]Oh my god, [highlight]you are a robot.[/highlight] Moral relativism doesn't mean people can't say things are immoral.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48005705]I think that what you think is [highlight]stupid[/highlight][/QUOTE] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Oh and if people don't want to be treated rudely, you can say they're ignoring the issues even after responding to them. And even to the point where it's okay to reference killing people for difference in beliefs and views. [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006253]"So the next time some asshole says to you 'I have a right to my opinion', you say 'Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion.' Then [highlight]shoot the fuck and walk away.[/highlight]" - George Carlin[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48006421]I'm reminded of adnzzzzZ calling everything he doesn't like "racist."[/QUOTE] How? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] It's okay to joke about killing people for having different opinions? Is that the view of the left? Is that being progressive?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006253]No, the political party shouldn't stop existing because its members have differing opinions than that of another party. The political party should stop existing because it sucks ass. Obviously we need more than one party (shit we probably need more than two in the first place) but the republican party is not the one for it. There are more ideologies than that. Our left as it is isn't even that left in the context of the world. Hell, most people I hear say our left is everyone else's right. And they still debate outside our country so one can presume they found other things to believe than disgusting shit like the Republican party spouts.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law[/url] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rocket;48006463]Nobody joked about killing people?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006253]"So the next time some asshole says to you 'I have a right to my opinion', you say 'Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion.' Then shoot the fuck and walk away." - George Carlin[/QUOTE] This is okay? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Really?

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006351]I guess if you're okay with being a bigot then. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] And I mean by definition, literally: big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions This is an absolutely terrible stance to take, and a hypocritical one, too. [/QUOTE] Well, I'm sure you're ok with it. After all, it's my opinion. You gotta respect, accept, and tolerate my opinion, right? [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006351][editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Do you even remotely like the idea of bipartisanship? [/quote] Not exactly, no. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006351]No, you're dismissing being rude to me, which wouldn't be a problem if... you weren't rude to me. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] So what I've gotten so far out of this is that some members of Facepunch are okay with being bigots, saying not all people are entitled to their own views, and that it's even okay to insult and name call people when having discussions about politics.[/quote] No problem with any of that. After all, those are all opinions~! Also I would presume that calling someone a bigot is rude. [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006351] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Oh and if people don't want to be treated rudely, you can say they're ignoring the issues even after responding to them. And even to the point where it's okay to reference killing people for difference in beliefs and views.[/QUOTE] What are jokes

I don't have to misrepresent people or distort what they say, all I have to do is quote them, and they speak for themselves.

[QUOTE=Rocket;48006463]Nobody joked about killing people?[/QUOTE] Carlin did on stage 7 years ago, clearly in reference to Andrewmcwatters