kapkomet Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:55 PM) Their guaranteed health care was the only premise of your link between the two. So, yeah, if that premise goes to s***, so does that whole argument. eta: will you admit that there's no such guarantee? As you said: there's no guarantee for ANYONE. So, there that goes. The whole thing is a waste of time, then, I guess. ETA: Illegals will still get health care under this bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) 2) The article you linked to says that the bill allows illegals to participate in the Health Care Exchange, meaning they can buy health insurance, including the public option. It does not indicate any sort of mandate or guaranteed coverage. See, that is the backdoor in this. Obviously this health care plan will have to be heavily subsidized by the US government. There is no way that taking on high risk patients is going to be reconciled financially without either high rates being paid in by participants of the system or massive amounts of government help. I would suspect the former is what the public option would be. So basically, yes, they are guaranteeing government provided health care for non US citizens. People are wary of this plan because basically they know they aren't getting the entire story. The Democrats wanted to 'get it passed fast' so people wouldn't know some of the expensive or unsavory details. Edited August 31, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:57 AM) As you said: there's no guarantee for ANYONE. So, there that goes. The whole thing is a waste of time, then, I guess. ETA: Illegals will still get health care under this bill. we all believe what we want to believe... seems silly to even discuss facts anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 If they aren't going to include illegals in their plans, Democrats need to quit lying to America and including them in the counts of the "uninsured". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) It allows them to purchase insurance in the HCE. edit: AFAIK Edited August 31, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Please indicate for me where in that article it supports your contention that they're guaranteed health care insurance. eta: but, yeah, out of typical character, you've been falling for the GOP BS talking points hook-line-and-sinker on this one. You've made a lot of dubious or flat-out wrong statements. Kind of like our President, huh? Sorry, Kap didn't mean to compare you to our Savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) See, that is the backdoor in this. Obviously this health care plan will have to be heavily subsidized by the US government. There is no way that taking on high risk patients is going to be reconciled financially without either high rates being paid in by participants of the system or massive amounts of government help. I would suspect the former is what the public option would be. So basically, yes, they are guaranteeing government provided health care for non US citizens. People are wary of this plan because basically they know they aren't getting the entire story. The Democrats wanted to 'get it passed fast' so people wouldn't know some of the expensive or unsavory details. Actually, I'd argue that the 'get it passed fast' goal was really just to get the astroturfed opposition to burn brightly for a second and get weary and fade out. It's a smart move to shoot for August, wait for the protests and then shift the goalposts til December and bet that the protests will dissipate before October... so far its proven to be a pretty sound bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 09:51 AM) Actually, I'd argue that the 'get it passed fast' goal was really just to get the astroturfed opposition to burn brightly for a second and get weary and fade out. It's a smart move to shoot for August, wait for the protests and then shift the goalposts til December and bet that the protests will dissipate before October... so far its proven to be a pretty sound bet. Grassroots movements by people who are not paid or bussed in is not 'astroturfing'. The SEIU and ACORN bussing in of proponents is. Get your term straight. Look at the different sides at the town hall meetings. The people opposed are real people with real concerns, not paid plants, not bussed in, have homemade signs. The proponents always seem to have the most professional sigage, all alike, and are often bussed in from outside whatever district the meetings are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 "Grassroots" efforts funded by corporate interests are astroturfing, even if the people at the rallies are genuine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) "Grassroots" efforts funded by corporate interests are astroturfing, even if the people at the rallies are genuine. Hmm, I guess that means that is astroturf for the grounds around the White House, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Grassroots movements by people who are not paid or bussed in is not 'astroturfing'. The SEIU and ACORN bussing in of proponents is. Get your term straight. Look at the different sides at the town hall meetings. The people opposed are real people with real concerns, not paid plants, not bussed in, have homemade signs. The proponents always seem to have the most professional sigage, all alike, and are often bussed in from outside whatever district the meetings are in. Most grassroots stuff is astroturf. This is no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Obama was heavily funded by corporate interests. Edited August 31, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) "Grassroots" efforts funded by corporate interests are astroturfing, even if the people at the rallies are genuine. I have been to 4 townhall meetings, and have yet to be 'funded' by anyone. Also haven't seen anyone bussed in to any of the 4, although there were about 30 people at the last one all dressed in the same plain color shirts (red), who sat quietly thru the whole thing, never clapping, booing, anything. Was kinda odd. How are these people 'funded'? They carry homemade signs, they get there themselves, they don't get a paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I have been to 4 townhall meetings, and have yet to be 'funded' by anyone. Also haven't seen anyone bussed in to any of the 4, although there were about 30 people at the last one all dressed in the same plain color shirts (red), who sat quietly thru the whole thing, never clapping, booing, anything. Was kinda odd. How are these people 'funded'? They carry homemade signs, they get there themselves, they don't get a paycheck. The people aren't funded. The message and the motivation are, along with a lot of the organizational efforts. That's what "astroturfing" means; its not necessarily actually paying people to go to rallies/ protests/ whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009082902758 This is front page news. And already it has been running in a loop on MSNBC....Republican candidate is ahead,,,let's dig up something to try to embarass him.. Black Dem running for President.....no need to see his transcripts, schools records, law review articles.... What media bias?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Those views are pretty embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Those views are pretty embarrassing. Only "right wingers" have "embarassing" points of view. Other points of view are totally rational and well thought out, and therefore, must be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) Only "right wingers" have "embarassing" points of view. Other points of view are totally rational and well thought out, and therefore, must be right. So then the idea that working women being detrimental to society isn't embarrassing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Only "right wingers" have "embarassing" points of view. Other points of view are totally rational and well thought out, and therefore, must be right. Misogynistic views about women are pretty embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Misogynistic views about women are pretty embarrassing. OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's what you meant. Yes... I would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's what you meant. Yes... I would agree. Yeah, I was talking specifically about what's supposedly in his thesis. Women = kitchen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Those views are pretty embarrassing. My point is not his views, it is about a liberal press running a story that is 20 years old to try to propel a Democrat to victory. This guy has been in office for 18 years, and this has never come up, but now it is a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) My point is not his views, it is about a liberal press running a story that is 20 years old to try to propel a Democrat to victory. This guy has been in office for 18 years, and this has never come up, but now it is a story. Funny how the more important the elected job gets, the more scrutiny you face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) My point is not his views, it is about a liberal press running a story that is 20 years old to try to propel a Democrat to victory. This guy has been in office for 18 years, and this has never come up, but now it is a story. How is this any different than the scrutiny we see of every candidate, usually more so as they move up in importance? Seems to me it happens all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) How is this any different than the scrutiny we see of every candidate, usually more so as they move up in importance? Seems to me it happens all over. Except if you are the current president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts