5 ms·

The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. If you'd like to rebut, which seems fairly unlikely, please provide both evidence of sloganhood (

by crygin 13y ago

The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. If you'd like to rebut, which seems fairly unlikely, please provide both evidence of sloganhood (slogan, of course, means something specific: in part, that the aforementioned phrase has been used verbatim as a form of promotion. Cite the promotion) and additionally an actual rebuttal to the GP. That would actually be what this is an appropriate venue for, not your contentless dismissal.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
Poor Americans receive a wide range of subsidies, which have broad popular support. Obamacare is being fought because it is a byzantine bureaucratic tar pit written in secrecy by industries lobbyists and passed by the worst sort of political manipulations. If someone could manage to put forward a sensible national health system, including the necessary constitutional amendment, it would get a landslide victory.
- CrankyPants 13y ago
  Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare. There will be, of course, (truly) great stories about people who were suffering because of the evil practice of dropping customers from coverage when they get sick, and their finally getting the treatment their agreement with the insurance company should have entitled them to, but the total costs, and the costs for nearly everyone, will increase considerably, and some nice examples aside, it's unlikely to improve the quality of care, either. It's a bad bill. We didn't have a good bill on the table, either–the whole system is fundamentally flawed–but it's a bad bill, functionally speaking. Whether it's really Romneycare, Obamacare, Heritagecare, etc., is irrelevant–it's a horrible system, and people who spend a good amount of their day trying to optimize things really surprise me when they don't acknowledge its numerous and deep flaws.
  - Steko 13y ago
    "Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare." Thankfully the cost controls are existant, at least, which is by inspection better than the status quo. This existence also renders your conclusion on costs a complete non sequitur. Trivia: as much as conservatives hate Obamacare (spoilers: a lot), they can't resist using the cost savings it generates in their stunt budgets because the numbers don't work without the Obamacare savings.
    - CrankyPants 13y ago
      The existence of controls doesn't necessarily equate to effectiveness. Pair ineffective cost controls with a massive, complex, bloated, ineffective framework, and it doesn't seem to follow that the result is by inspection necessarily better than the status quo. Nor was my conclusion on costs, therefore, a complete non-squitur. And since when is marginally bettering a fairly lousy status quo somehow laudable? That's a remarkably disappointing outlook. Many Republicans hate it because their team lost, which is a poor reason to hate a bill, but just as poor–and perhaps more insidious–is that many Democrats cheer its passage, while knowing very little about it. Because their team won. We've seen that story played out time and time again, in both parties, on myriad issues. We really, really can do better than that, on all sides.
    - bally999 13y ago
      Wrong. Young people are paying quite higher premiums for care under Obamacare. http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-for-young-invincibles-under-the-aca-and-the-impending http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-fo...
      - Steko 13y ago
        You're worse than wrong -- you're not even wrong. We're talking about costs as a whole.
- Steko 13y ago
  Wow that is must be some good Kool Aid. Obamacare is basically HeritageCare, the 90's conservative response to "a sensible national health system" (single payer) that died without even getting a vote much less a landslide victory. If there was a chance to pass a less byzantine bill, someone should have told the democrats and Obama because I'm sure they would have been all for it.
- comicjk 13y ago
  A sensible national health system would be as simple as changing the Medicare minimum age to zero and abolishing Medicaid. Do you think this requires a constitutional ammendment? And do you think there's the slightest chance today's conservatives would vote for it?
  - refurb 13y ago
    That wouldn't really work. Most providers subsidize their Medicare patients with commercial patients.
CrankyPants 13y ago
It's a post heavily implying that motives for opposing the PPACA–also known as Obamacare–have to do with wanting to harm poor people. That's highly political, quite partisan, and well-beneath the standard to which we should hold each other, regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree with his stated politics.
cabalamat 13y ago
> The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.
- ksrm 13y ago
  They are if you're saying political slogans are not appropriate here. Facts are always appropriate.

by crygin 13y ago

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

Poor Americans receive a wide range of subsidies, which have broad popular support. Obamacare is being fought because it is a byzantine bureaucratic tar pit written in secrecy by industries lobbyists and passed by the worst sort of political manipulations. If someone could manage to put forward a sensible national health system, including the necessary constitutional amendment, it would get a landslide victory.

CrankyPants 13y ago
Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare. There will be, of course, (truly) great stories about people who were suffering because of the evil practice of dropping customers from coverage when they get sick, and their finally getting the treatment their agreement with the insurance company should have entitled them to, but the total costs, and the costs for nearly everyone, will increase considerably, and some nice examples aside, it's unlikely to improve the quality of care, either. It's a bad bill. We didn't have a good bill on the table, either–the whole system is fundamentally flawed–but it's a bad bill, functionally speaking. Whether it's really Romneycare, Obamacare, Heritagecare, etc., is irrelevant–it's a horrible system, and people who spend a good amount of their day trying to optimize things really surprise me when they don't acknowledge its numerous and deep flaws.
- Steko 13y ago
  "Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare." Thankfully the cost controls are existant, at least, which is by inspection better than the status quo. This existence also renders your conclusion on costs a complete non sequitur. Trivia: as much as conservatives hate Obamacare (spoilers: a lot), they can't resist using the cost savings it generates in their stunt budgets because the numbers don't work without the Obamacare savings.
  - CrankyPants 13y ago
    The existence of controls doesn't necessarily equate to effectiveness. Pair ineffective cost controls with a massive, complex, bloated, ineffective framework, and it doesn't seem to follow that the result is by inspection necessarily better than the status quo. Nor was my conclusion on costs, therefore, a complete non-squitur. And since when is marginally bettering a fairly lousy status quo somehow laudable? That's a remarkably disappointing outlook. Many Republicans hate it because their team lost, which is a poor reason to hate a bill, but just as poor–and perhaps more insidious–is that many Democrats cheer its passage, while knowing very little about it. Because their team won. We've seen that story played out time and time again, in both parties, on myriad issues. We really, really can do better than that, on all sides.
  - bally999 13y ago
    Wrong. Young people are paying quite higher premiums for care under Obamacare. http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-for-young-invincibles-under-the-aca-and-the-impending http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-fo...
    - Steko 13y ago
      You're worse than wrong -- you're not even wrong. We're talking about costs as a whole.
Steko 13y ago
Wow that is must be some good Kool Aid. Obamacare is basically HeritageCare, the 90's conservative response to "a sensible national health system" (single payer) that died without even getting a vote much less a landslide victory. If there was a chance to pass a less byzantine bill, someone should have told the democrats and Obama because I'm sure they would have been all for it.
comicjk 13y ago
A sensible national health system would be as simple as changing the Medicare minimum age to zero and abolishing Medicaid. Do you think this requires a constitutional ammendment? And do you think there's the slightest chance today's conservatives would vote for it?
- refurb 13y ago
  That wouldn't really work. Most providers subsidize their Medicare patients with commercial patients.

CrankyPants 13y ago

It's a post heavily implying that motives for opposing the PPACA–also known as Obamacare–have to do with wanting to harm poor people. That's highly political, quite partisan, and well-beneath the standard to which we should hold each other, regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree with his stated politics.

cabalamat 13y ago

> The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.

ksrm 13y ago
They are if you're saying political slogans are not appropriate here. Facts are always appropriate.