• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

There is no minor shooting event. There is accidental and intentional.

I would say that there are not even accidental shootings. There are unintentional and intentional.

Unintentional shootings are the entirely predictable outcome of our lazy and lax attitudes towards firearms and firearm safety.

In order for a shooting to occur, three things must happen: the firearm has to be functional, it has to be loaded and the trigger has to be pulled. Those don't all occur accidentally and using the term "accident" infers that nobody is at fault. If a 4-year-old finds a loaded handgun in their father's nightside drawer and unintentionally shoots their friend, there is clearly some fault to be levied at the gun owner.
 
It doesn't matter if there are zero regulations on guns or absolute regulation on guns. The problem is with our gun culture.

From the days of the Revolution to the Wild West. From militia types to inner city gangs. It has been ingrained in our culture that the gun is an answer to so many problems. The simply notion that we are "gun loving" country is where are failure lies. There is a big difference between owning a gun, and celebrating the fact that you own a gun.

On that note, Starbucks has issued a request for gun owners to not open carry within their stores. What do people think about those who open carry for the sake of making a political statement. I know I have seen youtube videos of individuals claiming to be harassed while 'exercising' their right in public venues.
 
I would say that there are not even accidental shootings. There are unintentional and intentional.

Unintentional shootings are the entirely predictable outcome of our lazy and lax attitudes towards firearms and firearm safety.

In order for a shooting to occur, three things must happen: the firearm has to be functional, it has to be loaded and the trigger has to be pulled. Those don't all occur accidentally and using the term "accident" infers that nobody is at fault. If a 4-year-old finds a loaded handgun in their father's nightside drawer and unintentionally shoots their friend, there is clearly some fault to be levied at the gun owner.

That term works too. As for the 4 year old finding a loaded handgun, the parents need to learn gun safety and I completely agree that the fault is the parents… not just some but all.

On that note, Starbucks has issued a request for gun owners to not open carry within their stores. What do people think about those who open carry for the sake of making a political statement. I know I have seen youtube videos of individuals claiming to be harassed while 'exercising' their right in public venues.

The open carry situation is an interesting discussion. For me, the only time that i would want to open carry for a political statement is when they are at a political rally or protest. The two biggest reasons that I support open carry is for when there is a situation where concealed carry prevents reasonable quick access to a gun, and to address the grey areas such as accidental exposure of the gun (putting something up on a shelf and the butt of the gun and top of the holster is exposed if IWB or the bottom of the holster is exposed if OWB).

In regards to Starbucks, some people were getting stupid and showing up to the stores with AR-15 on their backs.
 
. What do people think about those who open carry for the sake of making a political statement.

I think its silly and antagonistic. In more rural areas I have no problem with people open carrying and i've lived in and spent some time in areas where it seems both appropriate and a good idea for safety. In urban areas my thought about most people open-carrying, particularly when they are visibly and obnoxiously open-carrying is that they are using it as a replacement for certain manhood issues.
 
I remember way back in the mid 80's, that there were large number of shotguns and high powered rifles in the trunks the cars of fellow students vehicles. None of us thought to get them out and show anybody. Nobody thought to make a political statement. It was just deer hunting season.

Somewhere, idiots have decided its a political issue. Those idiots are the operating heads of the NRA. I think the Gun manufacturers are going to find out they pushed to hard some day. They should have stopped at good enough. I actually think they would like to repeal the laws limiting the sale of machineguns without proper licensing requirements.

Another big political mistake by the GOP. They block everything no matter how sensible. One day, something so horrific is going to happen that it makes Newtown seem like a minor side note. Then the restrictions placed on guns will be way more draconian than needed.

Pendulums always swing.

Here is my problem where the focus is going lately, and that is mental health. This latest shooter at the Navy Yard needed help in a BIG way. He wasn't really there anymore in the head. The discussion about this guy reflects that. Has anybody noticed how muted it is? People KNOW he wasn't right. It's not like many of the shooters we know by name years after. Half of us will experience some type of mental health issue in our lifetime:

1) Which illnesses would put you on a list for mental illness to disallow firearms ownership?
2) For how long?
3) Why not?
4) Is the list national or by state?
5) What does it take to put a person back on a list after removal?
6) What happens if the firearms were owned before the mental disorder?
7) Who keeps the firearms removed from the person, family, extended family, authorities?
8) Doesn't that constitute a taking if not returned to anybody?
9) How can you continue to work on improving the likelihood of seeking treatment for mental issues if there is a perceived/actual harsh penalty for doing so?
10) What would you need to prove to get off of it?
11) Could you get off of it?
12) Who could put you on the list?
13) What conditions/criteria would rise to the level to put you on the list?
 
I remember way back in the mid 80's, that there were large number of shotguns and high powered rifles in the trunks the cars of fellow students vehicles. None of us thought to get them out and show anybody. Nobody thought to make a political statement. It was just deer hunting season.

Somewhere, idiots have decided its a political issue. Those idiots are the operating heads of the NRA. I think the Gun manufacturers are going to find out they pushed to hard some day. They should have stopped at good enough. I actually think they would like to repeal the laws limiting the sale of machineguns without proper licensing requirements.

Another big political mistake by the GOP. They block everything no matter how sensible. One day, something so horrific is going to happen that it makes Newtown seem like a minor side note. Then the restrictions placed on guns will be way more draconian than needed.

Pendulums always swing.
:

?

I disagree. Sandy Hook was pretty darn awful and short of explosives that are outlawed already it's unlikely to have something five or ten times worse than Sandy Hook. The response to Sandy Hook showed that this debate is over, for our lifetime. The gun lobby has successfully fought restrictions to further limit mentally ill from purchasing firearms, even successfully fought restrictions on suspected terrorists. The battle for any more restrictions than we have now, no matter how minimal, is over and the gun lobby has won. Mass shootings are here to stay.
 
I fully agree in the context that mentally ill people should not have access to guns. But I think this discussion goes beyond guns. It is been said that the jails are the new mental institutions. I personally believe that substance abuse, homelessness & extreme poverty, and a wide range of crimes are cause not because someone is evil, but because they have substantial mental issues.

We as a society need something better those who are not mentally stable. I believe that it would address a wide range of issues.
 
I fully agree in the context that mentally ill people should not have access to guns. But I think this discussion goes beyond guns. It is been said that the jails are the new mental institutions. I personally believe that substance abuse, homelessness & extreme poverty, and a wide range of crimes are cause not because someone is evil, but because they have substantial mental issues.

We as a society need something better those who are not mentally stable. I believe that it would address a wide range of issues.

Wow, This may be very well may be the first time I can say that I agree with every word of this post. As I have said, I know way more than I want to about how the mentally ill are treated in this country. The richest most powerful country in the world should do much better and we all should be ashamed.
 
Wow, This may be very well may be the first time I can say that I agree with every word of this post. As I have said, I know way more than I want to about how the mentally ill are treated in this country. The richest most powerful country in the world should do much better and we all should be ashamed.

I am not saying that we should go back to one flew over the cuckoo's nest, but the current system is a total disaster. In some cases, those who are institutionalized are in deplorable conditions which does not help them at all. Living in a very dense urban neighborhood, I see homeless people all the time that need real help to address their issues. There is one that I know should be institutionalized for his own health, but thus far he has not done anything to necessitate it. I fear that I am going to walk up to the local pizza place this winter only to find him frozen to death on the steps of a vacant building along the way.

But yes, I agree that as a nation, we should be ashamed of our mental health programs.
 
House Defunds Obama Care

Today, the House passed a bill to keep the Government open, but it will also refund Obama Care. Given the CNN poll (since CNN does not lie), since October 30th 2009, showing that more than half of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the healthcare policy, I don't understand why the Senate will not also approve this bill.

Does the Senate hate Americans or are they just stupid. (Well, both the House and the Senate are stupid... but that is beyond the point)
 
Today, the House passed a bill to keep the Government open, but it will also refund Obama Care. Given the CNN poll (since CNN does not lie), since October 30th 2009, showing that more than half of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the healthcare policy, I don't understand why the Senate will not also approve this bill.

Does the Senate hate Americans or are they just stupid. (Well, both the House and the Senate are stupid... but that is beyond the point)

I'm pretty sure they just hate Americans. Same with Obama.
 
Today, the House passed a bill to keep the Government open, but it will also refund Obama Care. Given the CNN poll (since CNN does not lie), since October 30th 2009, showing that more than half of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the healthcare policy, I don't understand why the Senate will not also approve this bill.

Does the Senate hate Americans or are they just stupid. (Well, both the House and the Senate are stupid... but that is beyond the point)

From another CNN poll, if the government was shut down.
So who would get the blame?

Only a third would consider the president responsible for a shutdown, with 51% pointing a finger at Republicans in Congress, up from 40% who felt that way in March, the last time both sides were at loggerheads.

Which means that the Democrats, which like Obamacare, have no reason to negotiate with the Republicans who have really no position to fight this battle. They can pretend like it is a fight worth fighting, but the Senate, the President, and the taxpayers are going to blame Republicans when it doesn't workout.

Why would the Senate budge when they know that the Republicans are going to be to blame?

If the Republicans were smart (which they are not), they would propose an alternative to Obamacare and push that. The party of No is going to lose this one, just like the last two battles. The elections in November will again show why the R's need to wise up. We shall see if idiots like Ted Cruz, or more moderate, sane people in the party take it back over.
 
I'm pretty sure they just hate Americans. Same with Obama.

I am so proud of you. Admitting it is the first step! :D

From another CNN poll, if the government was shut down.

Which means, that the Democrats, which like Obamacare, have no reason to negotiate with the Republicans who have really no position to fight this battle. They can pretend like it is a fight worth fighting, but the Senate, the President, and the taxpayers are going to blame Republicans when it doesn't workout.

Why would the Senate budge when they know that the Republicans are going to be to blame?

If the Republicans were smart (which they are not), they would propose an alternative to Obamacare and push that. The party of No is going to lose this one, just like the last two battles. The elections in November will again show why the R's need to wise up. We shall see if idiots like Ted Cruz, or more moderate, sane people in the party take it back over.

I don't care who is to blame regarding political posturing. Sometimes it is about doing the right thing and less about getting reelected. But reelection and power have been the name of the game for over 100 years now.
 
I am so proud of you. Admitting it is the first step! :D



I don't care who is to blame regarding political posturing. Sometimes it is about doing the right thing and less about getting reelected. But reelection and power have been the name of the game for over 100 years now.

Which is the game both parties play. It isn't what is best for the country it is what is best for *name your K street backer*.

Big money is just making that worse.
 
Which is the game both parties play. It isn't what is best for the country it is what is best for *name your K street backer*.

Big money is just making that worse.

Yes it is. Neither party does what is actually best for the country, instead both parties are more interested with power, which comes from reelection. And with power, so comes money from lobbyists. Just think of how many former elected officials now work as lobbyists.

I love the joke that politicians should be required to wear uniforms similar to NASCAR so we know who their sponsors are.
 
Surveys and polls are limited. First the poll shows just over 50% that do not agree with health care handling. That is not a significant spread so not an overwhelming call to take action. Also, it does not directly address Obamacare, just asks for a general opinion on the handling of health care. This could mean they feel the pres should have done more. The bigger issue the survey presents is a concern for the economy with 41% over 16%. Sorry, I don't take a lot of value in surveys unless they are more absolute. It's all lies, damn lies, and statisitics.

My personal problem with the whole debate is the idea that we should shut down the government which will affect millions of people directly because some congressmen think a current law might create a problem at a future date. It's a blackmail situation (and yes dems have done it too) and I just don't think that's good government.
 
My personal problem with the whole debate is the idea that we should shut down the government which will affect millions of people directly because some congressmen think a current law might create a problem at a future date. It's a blackmail situation (and yes dems have done it too) and I just don't think that's good government.

Some congressmen and over half of America.

As for shutting down the Federal Government, I would say that there is a good portion that I feel should be shut down starting with the IRS, who would otherwise be in charge of collecting Obama Care penalties.
 
Some congressmen and over half of America.

As for shutting down the Federal Government, I would say that there is a good portion that I feel should be shut down starting with the IRS, who would otherwise be in charge of collecting Obama Care penalties.

I honestly have no real political view for myself on Obamacare, I'm more disgusted with the overall misinformation from politicians (both sides) and the media, both sides, because let's face it, media is no longer (and maybe never was) fair and balanced. Polls just don't mean enough when they hover at 50%. You're too close to the margin of error, but I know many media outlets like to interpret anything over 50% as a majority and then declare victory or demand action. When you start getting into 60% or better the margin of error is moot.

Although I agree with the idea of shutting down the IRS for a while, a government shut down will shut down everything. My poor aged mother will no longer get her social security check, people get kicked out of national parks, etc. There is so much more we aren't taking into account.
 
How bad is it when uninsured Americans are almost split on a bill that will provide insurance for them.

There is alot (ALOT) of misinformation out there. alot of purposeful misinformation. I was listening to mark levin the other day and he was saying (besides that the democrats hate America) that Obamacare mandates the doctors to ask about your sex life, whether you have ever had gay sex, and then it will all go into a database that the government will have a file on you. It's totally not true, but these guys keep making shit up.

So as far as the uninsured, many of them will be able to get insurance - which will now cover pre-existing conditions and many preventative medicine, for under 100 a month http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/100-dollar-premiums-exchanges/2822979/

Most people don't know that. In fact, in many areas of the country all they are hearing is how Obamacare will make uncle sam actually rape you http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/100-dollar-premiums-exchanges/2822979/

The fact is that Obamacare is actually reducing premiums in the states that are implementing it. My insurance is through my wifes work, and they are talking about getting rid of the employer health plan and contributing a lesser amount to the employees to purchase on the state exchange so yes I may lose my health care BUT it looks like its actually going to be cheaper for us if we do that. Alternatively, I can get my insurance through my employer, and this upcoming year the premium increase is slated to be the smallest increase we have seen in the last 7 or 8 years.
 
How bad is it when uninsured Americans are almost split on a bill that will provide insurance for them.

Well, to be fair, only 25% of all respondents claimed to have a very good understanding of the law and how it will affect them and their families while 34% claimed to have little or no understanding of the law. Understanding among the uninsured is also lower than the overall sample of survey respondents. Also only 50% of the uninsured correctly understanding that low-income uninsured will be eligible for federal subsidies through their state exchanges once the exchanges are set up.
 
Well, to be fair, only 25% of all respondents claimed to have a very good understanding of the law and how it will affect them and their families while 34% claimed to have little or no understanding of the law. Understanding among the uninsured is also lower than the overall sample of survey respondents. Also only 50% of the uninsured correctly understanding that low-income uninsured will be eligible for federal subsidies through their state exchanges once the exchanges are set up.

25%, wow. That is better than Congress and the Senate when they voted on it. Especially given it is between 5,000 pages and 20,000 pages depending on who you ask.
 
Page length is really not an issue with the bill. So much of the bill is filled with crap like internal table of contents and white space for legislative formatting. The bill is actually not any harder to read than anything else congress goes through.
 
Page length is really not an issue with the bill. So much of the bill is filled with crap like internal table of contents and white space for legislative formatting. The bill is actually not any harder to read than anything else congress goes through.

Alot of bills are super long. I always thought that was a silly talking point. "The bill is too long so I don't want to read it and therefore I hate obamacare." If republicans didn't read the bill before voting on it I fail to see how that is the democrats fault. Obamacare is already reducing premiums in most of the states that are implementing it but in the right-wing bubble that skis immerses him in you hear the opposite and all you hear is that obamacare is destroying everything. Truth is that it has problems, doesn't solve everything, and is somewhat complicated. In new york premiums are expected to be cut by nearly a third as a result. Skis isn't hearing any of this in the bubble, only that Obamacare is going to rape you. This study was really good at examing what it will do to premiums.

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

I'm happy at what its doing in california, but thats because we embraced in early on to help it succeed.
 
Using the Affordable Care Act as a tool against the Obama presidency has been a grand political move by the tea party faction of the GOP. For the most part it has worked to keep their base fired up about their anti-government stance.

If you really took a close look at the Affordable Care Act, it really is a bi-partisan effort that took on ideas and concepts from both political parties. It was a compromise of ideas, but the tea partiers refuse to accept this, and have used it to their advantage. Again, a deft political move. If the government is to play a role in health care, the Affordable Care Act is a good starting point. For those who believe the government should play no role in health care, then I get why they oppose the Affordable Care Act. But then those people should also oppose Medicare and Medicaid, programs which certain segments of the tea party base thoroughly support.

It's just a bunch of political grandstanding that again moves us away from what really matters - infrastructure improvements, energy policies, job creation.
 
Using the Affordable Care Act as a tool against the Obama presidency has been a grand political move by the tea party faction of the GOP. For the most part it has worked to keep their base fired up about their anti-government stance.

If you really took a close look at the Affordable Care Act, it really is a bi-partisan effort that took on ideas and concepts from both political parties. It was a compromise of ideas, but the tea partiers refuse to accept this, and have used it to their advantage. Again, a deft political move. If the government is to play a role in health care, the Affordable Care Act is a good starting point. For those who believe the government should play no role in health care, then I get why they oppose the Affordable Care Act. But then those people should also oppose Medicare and Medicaid, programs which certain segments of the tea party base thoroughly support.

It's just a bunch of political grandstanding that again moves us away from what really matters - infrastructure improvements, energy policies, job creation.

That's the amazing thing. It's originally a plan developed by republicans, and a plan Romney even argued we should adopt ( romneycare for the whole nation) in 2009. But it became a fundraising tool and a way to fire up the base to be active and donate money. The party basically lied to and misled their base for political gain and are now dealing with the lies and misleading coming back to haunt them at the moment - hence the infighting in the gop between the party leaders and the base that they misled. In a few years when I fully expect republicans to start taking credit for first coming up with the idea.
 
Page length is really not an issue with the bill. So much of the bill is filled with crap like internal table of contents and white space for legislative formatting. The bill is actually not any harder to read than anything else congress goes through.

You are correct, when I go to print out the bill, it is only 938 pages. I doub't that all the Congressmen or Senitors who voted for the bill actually read it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

That's the amazing thing. It's originally a plan developed by republicans, and a plan Romney even argued we should adopt ( romneycare for the whole nation) in 2009. But it became a fundraising tool and a way to fire up the base to be active and donate money. The party basically lied to and misled their base for political gain and are now dealing with the lies and misleading coming back to haunt them at the moment - hence the infighting in the gop between the party leaders and the base that they misled. In a few years when I fully expect republicans to start taking credit for first coming up with the idea.

Well, then the republicans are a bunch of morons for coming up with the idea. I don't care what letter is behind the name. Government mandated healthcare will hurt America more than help.
 
You are correct, when I go to print out the bill, it is only 938 pages. I doub't that all the Congressmen or Senitors who voted for the bill actually read it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text



Well, then the republicans are a bunch of morons for coming up with the idea. I don't care what letter is behind the name. Government mandated healthcare will hurt America more than help.

I've seen information that health care spending will account for 1/5 of GDP at some point in the next 10 years. If this is the case, then you're damn right I expect government mandated health care - I'm sick of all the freeloaders in this country getting shit for free.
 
Well, then the republicans are a bunch of morons for coming up with the idea. I don't care what letter is behind the name. Government mandated healthcare will hurt America more than help.

Government mandated healthcare would help everyone. The Affordable Care Act isn't government healthcare. It is government insurance.

The ACA is horribly put together. Much of that is due to the compromises that had to be made to get it through both the house and senate.

I am opposed to the ACA in it's current form, but I understand and respect what it is trying to do. I think it is completely flawed in many portions, but the concepts are at least reasonable.

I am willing to give it a chance though. Hopefully, once it is implemented, we can install a healthcare policy that doesn't give all the money to hospital administration, doesn't punish doctors or allow more unqualified nurses and the like to make healthcare decisions, and doesn't ration care beyond what is necessary. I hope that we supplement the insurance side of the equation with necessary reforms to the legal climate, hospital organization, and patient satisfaction scores.

I think the problem is when you do this - http://www.businessinsider.com/defu...quote-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-2013-9

If you want to lie to make a point, then you have crossed the line of being civil. This is about making Obama look bad, not what is best for the country. How everyone can be so up in arms when you haven't even let it be implemented yet is amazing to me.
 
Government mandated healthcare would help everyone. The Affordable Care Act isn't government healthcare. It is government insurance.

The ACA is horribly put together. Much of that is due to the compromises that had to be made to get it through both the house and senate.

I am opposed to the ACA in it's current form, but I understand and respect what it is trying to do. I think it is completely flawed in many portions, but the concepts are at least reasonable.

I am willing to give it a chance though. Hopefully, once it is implemented, we can install a healthcare policy that doesn't give all the money to hospital administration, doesn't punish doctors or allow more unqualified nurses and the like to make healthcare decisions, and doesn't ration care beyond what is necessary. I hope that we supplement the insurance side of the equation with necessary reforms to the legal climate, hospital organization, and patient satisfaction scores.

I think the problem is when you do this - http://www.businessinsider.com/defu...quote-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-2013-9

If you want to lie to make a point, then you have crossed the line of being civil. This is about making Obama look bad, not what is best for the country. How everyone can be so up in arms when you haven't even let it be implemented yet is amazing to me.

What is this you stuff? I don't see my name anywhere on that article? If it is, point it out to me. If you say I am lying, prove it.

You want to talk about civility, you are saying that I am the republican party or I am the tea party while attacking them. If you want to attack republicans,democrats, independents, space aliens, or Catholics have at it. I don't care. But the difference between you and me, is that I will attack a policy or a group, you attack people who don't agree with you.

As for doctors and nurses, my wife is a nurse and from the information that she has received from doctors (some of whom are big Obama fans) they don't think it is a good thing either. They agree the system is broken but they agree that this will not fix the problems but will create new ones.

Based on the information provided to me by doctors, nurses, and health insurance agents, this is a bad thing for America and will not help.

Not to mention the cost of Obama Care. Even the CBO says it is going to be more than double of what Obama said it was going to cost when it was proposed.
CBO report.
 
I've seen information that health care spending will account for 1/5 of GDP at some point in the next 10 years. If this is the case, then you're damn right I expect government mandated health care - I'm sick of all the freeloaders in this country getting shit for free.

Thats why it was a republican idea for the mandate to begin with. Because without the mandate people are getting free health care at the emergency rooms and the ones of us with insurance pay for it. Guess who mandated emergency rooms treat everyone regardless of insurance. It was Reagan. But anyways, now the GOP is telling people to go uninsured and just use emergency rooms to spite obamacare. Its been really sad to see the party lose their focus in personal rssponsibility. Dam right I'm sick of subsidizing the freeloaders who don't pay for insurance. We are of course still doing it through Obamacare but now its more affordable subsidization- which is why the CBO says Obamacare is actually reducing the rate of growth of government spending on health care. But, you know, democrats and obama hate America and stuff. It's funny, Fox News recently did a poll of their viewers and twice as many support the Affordable Care Act then support Obamacare. http://m.nydailynews.com/1.145906

The individual elements of obamacare also poll very well.
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/
 
The Affordable Care Act

What is this you stuff? I don't see my name anywhere on that article? If it is, point it out to me. If you say I am lying, prove it.

You want to talk about civility, you are saying that I am the republican party or I am the tea party while attacking them. If you want to attack republicans,democrats, independents, space aliens, or Catholics have at it. I don't care. But the difference between you and me, is that I will attack a policy or a group, you attack people who don't agree with you.

As for doctors and nurses, my wife is a nurse and from the information that she has received from doctors (some of whom are big Obama fans) they don't think it is a good thing either. They agree the system is broken but they agree that this will not fix the problems but will create new ones.

Based on the information provided to me by doctors, nurses, and health insurance agents, this is a bad thing for America and will not help.

Based on the information provided to me by doctors, nurses and health insurance agents, this is a good thing for America and will help.
 
What is this you stuff? I don't see my name anywhere on that article? If it is, point it out to me. If you say I am lying, prove it.

You want to talk about civility, you are saying that I am the republican party or I am the tea party while attacking them. If you want to attack republicans,democrats, independents, space aliens, or Catholics have at it. I don't care. But the difference between you and me, is that I will attack a policy or a group, you attack people who don't agree with you.

As for doctors and nurses, my wife is a nurse and from the information that she has received from doctors (some of whom are big Obama fans) they don't think it is a good thing either. They agree the system is broken but they agree that this will not fix the problems but will create new ones.

Based on the information provided to me by doctors, nurses, and health insurance agents, this is a bad thing for America and will not help.

Whoa there nelly, I was saying Republicans. Geez. I didn't name you, because I wasn't talking about you, per se. I am pretty sure I was speaking against the ACA, but yes, it is the republicans who are fighting it, so it would be difficult to talk about how we got where we are today without talking about the poor decision making by the right.

I know many doctors :r:, I don't think they love it either. I am pretty sure my comments above are supported by a good portion of doctors.

It isn't a bad thing for America...yet. You have no idea how it is going to play out. Depending on specialty, doctors either love it or hate it. In general most doctors hate the concept of the government regulating the pay structure, when they are ignoring the real health care cost factors of hospital administration costs.

You are not the only one married to someone in the medical field or has medical friends.
 
I know. :)

That's what makes statements like that completely hollow.

No, it just goes to show that some people on here will argue with my beliefs because they don't agree with them. My beliefs are based on information that I find credible, although it is also scary when un-credible sources say the same thing... like Jimmy Hoffa Jr. Hell has frozen over when a Union Boss and I agree on something... :-{

Fact, the CNN poll (posted elsewhere in this thread today) says that the American Population is against it... and has been for quite a while now.
Fact, the CBO office says it will cost twice as much as originally predicted... (link posted above)
Fact, several companies have cut hours to push employees into part time status because of ObamaCare (it is all over the news... even CNN)
Fact, few years ago when I was working for another firm, the Insurance agent explained that our rates were all going up and the only thing that had changed was the passing of Obamacare. (personal experience)
Fact, this is the first time in history that the Federal Government is requiring the US population to purchase something or be taxed. (Check the history books)
Fact, healthy people who have a low cost, high deductible plan will not have the same options that they had before. (Health Insurance provider/ personal experience)
Fact, doctors will now be required to ask questions that have no reliance to what you are there to see them about. (Doctor who works with my wife)
Fact, all health records will be stored at a centralized database. Given the Edward Snowden situation, is the government the best place for those? (common sense)
Fact, there will be situations where you will not be able to pay cash if medicare or medicaid deies your request. (according to an HR coworker of my wife)
Fact, right now you have an option of paying cash for some procedures and the hospital will actually charge less... this will go away (according to a doctor my wife works with)
Fact, several sources show that this will result in higher taxes. (CBO)

I don't see how any of that is good for America.
 
Whoa there nelly, I was saying Republicans. Geez. I didn't name you, because I wasn't talking about you, per se. I am pretty sure I was speaking against the ACA, but yes, it is the republicans who are fighting it, so it would be difficult to talk about how we got where we are today without talking about the poor decision making by the right.

I know many doctors :r:, I don't think they love it either. I am pretty sure my comments above are supported by a good portion of doctors.

It isn't a bad thing for America...yet. You have no idea how it is going to play out. Depending on specialty, doctors either love it or hate it. In general most doctors hate the concept of the government regulating the pay structure, when they are ignoring the real health care cost factors of hospital administration costs.

You are not the only one married to someone in the medical field or has medical friends.

I've had some doctors who absolutely hate it and make some very good points. My wife works in health care for lower income and uninsured and all of the doctors and nurses and administrators she works with absolutely love it even though they have issues with some things. Nothing is perfect.

But it is pretty amazing how successful the misinformation campaign has been. Obama ran on the public option in 2008. Republicans presented ideas like the individual mandate and tax subsidies. Obama folded on the public option and did alot of what republicans wanted. Then they all voted against it and made it into the end of America. The reality is that it's not perfect but will help so many people while also bringing down individual costs and decreasing our deficit health spending. That is is doing those things are already well documented unless you rely on the republican bubble messaging.
 
No, it just goes to show that some people on here will argue with my beliefs because they don't agree with them.

Isn't that what they're supposed to do? If I don't believe with your beliefs, you're damn right I am going to argue that my belief is better.
 
Isn't that what they're supposed to do? If I don't believe with your beliefs, you're damn right I am going to argue that my belief is better.

Now that I think about, you make a great point and I should have phased that differently. I should have said that there are people in here who attack my character because they don't agree with my beliefs. It personally does not bother me that they do. I don't allow someone else to change the way I feel or my emotions regarding a topic. (most of the time)
 
I don't see how any of that is good for America.

Because a good portion of those "facts" are nothing near fact. The "fact" that you believe them doesn't make them true.

I think my frustration is that you like to push that you know what you are talking about, and when someone who might (just maybe) be more knowledgeable on this topic throws in some concepts, you walk away with the "my beliefs are true to me" line.

Until 2015 no one, not the CBO, not the friend of your wifes co-workers best man, can tell you facts about how this is going to work itself out.

I will state again, I am not for the ACA. I am on your side (kind of). But the idea that you are unwilling to even consider that it might help those without insurance is unfair. You can't try and have a reasonable discussion on a topic if you are unwilling to accept that your thought process might be flawed. I can tell you that the ACA is in no way a simple (note the 1,000 pages) or even clear process, but what it does it try and get more people on the insurance rolls. In concept this is good. Personally, I don't think it is the right way to go, and in the end I think we are going to find that we should have either gone all the way (Single Payer) or privatized it with tax breaks and subsidies for those at or below poverty. But we are current in this cluster and pretending like repealing it or defunding it would solve this mess is shortsighted.

The ACA didn't create the mess in healthcare. It was already there. All it has done is... wait nothing is implemented yet. Give it a year, then complain. I promise you I will if it fails over the next 15 months.

I enjoy disagreeing with you, but you have to give and take or it becomes a because I am right argument which is no longer fun.

ps. I am not attacking your character. I enjoy our disagreements. I apologize if it is coming off as an attack on you. It is not meant to be.
 
Because a good portion of those "facts" are nothing near fact. The "fact" that you believe them doesn't make them true.

I think my frustration is that you like to push that you know what you are talking about, and when someone who might (just maybe) be more knowledgeable on this topic throws in some concepts, you walk away with the "my beliefs are true to me" line.

Until 2015 no one, not the CBO, not the friend of your wifes co-workers best man, can tell you facts about how this is going to work itself out.

I will state again, I am not for the ACA. I am on your side (kind of). But the idea that you are unwilling to even consider that it might help those without insurance is unfair. You can't try and have a reasonable discussion on a topic if you are unwilling to accept that your thought process might be flawed. I can tell you that the ACA is in no way a simple (note the 1,000 pages) or even clear process, but what it does it try and get more people on the insurance rolls. In concept this is good. Personally, I don't think it is the right way to go, and in the end I think we are going to find that we should have either gone all the way (Single Payer) or privatized it with tax breaks and subsidies for those at or below poverty. But we are current in this cluster and pretending like repealing it or defunding it would solve this mess is shortsighted.

The ACA didn't create the mess in healthcare. It was already there. All it has done is... wait nothing is implemented yet. Give it a year, then complain. I promise you I will if it fails over the next 15 months.

I enjoy disagreeing with you, but you have to give and take or it becomes a because I am right argument which is no longer fun.

For me, if it is implemented and it fails, it becomes personal. Because of my youngest (soon to be middle) son's situation the health care coverage that we get for him for the value that it is will be gone. He needs physical therapy and speech therapy. Three different pediatricians and a developmental specialist have told us so. But because of a host of factors those services will not be available to him where we are at right now. We know he will never play hockey... we know he may have speech issues for the rest of his life. But based on what our doctors and therapist tell us, we need to go someplace else for help and that is likely going to cost more than a middle income family can afford.

You believe what you want. I will protest this bill until the day I die.
 
I've seen information that health care spending will account for 1/5 of GDP at some point in the next 10 years. If this is the case, then you're damn right I expect government mandated health care - I'm sick of all the freeloaders in this country getting shit for free.

Under-discussed fact in our country: 5% of individuals use ~50% of health care spending in this country. That is an enormous dollar figure. In the $trillions.
 
Now that I think about, you make a great point and I should have phased that differently. I should have said that there are people in here who attack my character because they don't agree with my beliefs. It personally does not bother me that they do. I don't allow someone else to change the way I feel or my emotions regarding a topic. (most of the time)

My two cents on this, particularly because I really do appreciate your input on political issues even when it irritates me. Some things aren't really things that should be subject to beliefs. For instance, lead poisoning. Lead poisoning from lead hunting ammo does kill birds of prey. If you don't believe that it really does speak to your character. Just because mark levin or dave ramsey or some dude your wife works with says obamacare will require the government to ask questions unrelated to medical issues and then store them in a national database doesn't make that a fact. That you assert that this makes something a fact does speak to character. That you may have some character issues just like all of us do doesn't make you not a good person though, and I think some of the frustration cones from knowing you are a good person and wanting you to break through some of that cognitive dissassociation on political topics. Like the lead ammo- I think its fine that you continue to use it but it's frustrating when you won't acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons why others might want it banned.

]
Fact, the CBO office says it will cost twice as much as originally predicted... (link posted above) not a fact at all. The initial budget was for a ten year period with only 7 years under obamacare, the ten full year cost is more and always was expected to be more because of course a full ten years is more. The cbo generally has to do ten year windows. Do you not understand this?
Fact, several companies have cut hours to push employees into part time status because of ObamaCare (it is all over the news... even CNN) yay. This is a fact.
Fact, few years ago when I was working for another firm, the Insurance agent explained that our rates were all going up and the only thing that had changed was the passing of Obamacare. (personal experience) also not a fact. Rates went up just like the were going up every year but by law the rates cant go up based on a law that is not in effect. This upcoming year is the first year that premiums will reflect the obamacare mandates
Fact, this is the first time in history that the Federal Government is requiring the US population to purchase something or be taxed. (Check the history books) also not a fact. Our very first president and congress passed a law requiring all men of militia age to buy tuns and ammo. .
Fact, healthy people who have a low cost, high deductible plan will not have the same options that they had before. (Health Insurance provider/ personal experience) they can not have the insurance that doesnt cover most things which is true. No more freeloaders
Fact, doctors will now be required to ask questions that have no reliance to what you are there to see them about. (Doctor who works with my wife) also not a fact. At all.
Fact, all health records will be stored at a centralized database. Given the Edward Snowden situation, is the government the best place for those? (common sense) this is a requirement of something else- oddly enough i believe actually the stimulus, but is nit a requirement of obamacare
Fact, there will be situations where you will not be able to pay cash if medicare or medicaid deies your request. (according to an HR coworker of my wife)
Fact, right now you have an option of paying cash for some procedures and the hospital will actually charge less... this will go away (according to a doctor my wife works with) i havent heard this. Given your track record on "facts" I'm doubtful
Fact, several sources show that this will result in higher taxes. (CBO) probably true

I don't see how any of that is good for America.

Much of this information is easily found. There are problems with obamacare for sure, but your understanding of obamacare is seriously flawed and my gut tells me you have no interest in accurately understanding it.
 
Skis, generally when someone ( you) makes outlandish and erroneous claims as fact the burden lies with that someone making the claims to prove them true. Some of your claims, for instance that premiums rising in years when obamacare was not effect are the result of obamacare, are so preposterous and contrary to the way insurance works that its probably going to be hard to prove a negative. The burden should be on you to prove the cause and effect here- because since there is no cause and effect how can i disprove it?

Any ways, as to doubling of obamacare cost. This explains it pretty well how its an apples and oranges comparison.http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan

As to the electronic medical records, that was a mandate of the stimulus, not obamacare. http://www.usfhealthonline.com/resources/healthcare/electronic-medical-records-mandate-january-2014/

Regarding your claim that obamacare makes doctors ask about unrelated stuff, I first heard that on Mark levins show and wondered about it (although ive found nearly everything he ever says is false) well here is something about that. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mccaughey-says-obamacare-will-question-your-/

These sources aren't some guy that works with your wife though, so maybe they don't count as a fact.
 
...... Give it a year, then complain. ......

Better give it 3 years. Because then we will have a clear picture of how it shakes out. I bet we find that states that worked to implement it, have thriving competitive systems with lowering costs. Those states, like WI, with a governor who actively opposes access at every opportunity will be working badly. The net rule? Republicans hate their constituents.

If it is not working well, better give it more years to look for a fix, because if the GOP won't help fix it, the system we have is what we will have.

The GOP could be helping to fix the issues that have been identified. The DEM would work with them. The problem is that the GOP does not want a functioning health system. They just don't give a crap. It could be the second coming of JC, and they would reject it. So your timeline is a bit off.

For me, if it is implemented and it fails, it becomes personal. Because of my youngest (soon to be middle) son's situation the health care coverage that we get for him for the value that it is will be gone. He needs physical therapy and speech therapy. Three different pediatricians and a developmental specialist have told us so. But because of a host of factors those services will not be available to him where we are at right now. We know he will never play hockey... we know he may have speech issues for the rest of his life. But based on what our doctors and therapist tell us, we need to go someplace else for help and that is likely going to cost more than a middle income family can afford.

You believe what you want. I will protest this bill until the day I die.

If you have to move. If you do not get care through work... and you make less than $95,000 a year, you are likely to receive the government subsidy that lowers your health care costs.

How is it that the availability of services is an issue? If they are not available now, how does somebody else getting care make your situation different?

Presumably, your family has access to health care through where both of you work. If it fails, you would still have access to double coverage. Whereas those who can't normally afford or would be denied coverage would not be in such a situation. I fail to understand how it affects you in any real way. You presume a benefit to someone else will remove a coverage to yourself? It sucks your son will never play hockey. Explain how somebody else getting access to diabetic treatment would harm access to treatment for speech issues? I assume there is more than you are saying and I can empathize with you on that. I know someone who had a stroke while in the middle of their PHD program. There is no chance for health coverage, but can't function without meds. I can't say that they are in a better position than yourself. Both of you along with everybody else that can't get coverage should have access to health care. Because it should be a RITE!

Costs for everyone will drop as there are more people in the pool.

Fact, the CBO office says it will cost twice as much as originally predicted... (link posted above) not a fact at all. The initial budget was for a ten year period with only 7 years under obamacare, the ten full year cost is more and always was expected to be more because of course a full ten years is more. The cbo generally has to do ten year windows. Actually, latest estimates from the CBO have over estimated the costs of implementing the law, as rates of increase in a majority of the states implementing the exchanges are coming in way lower than expected.

Fact, several companies have cut hours to push employees into part time status because of ObamaCare (it is all over the news... even CNN) yay. This is a fact. BUT, it is a rediculous attempt at obfuscation and may in fact benifit the effort to make insurance more portable. It will also create jobs, because Home Depot is not ALSO going to cut store hours. Somebody will have to work for them. Its a silly shell game that ultimately is meaningless. Once you have healthcare, what does it matter if you work for 1 place or 2?

Fact, few years ago when I was working for another firm, the Insurance agent explained that our rates were all going up and the only thing that had changed was the passing of Obamacare. (personal experience) also not a fact. Rates went up just like the were going up every year but by law the rates cant go up based on a law that is not in effect. This upcoming year is the first year that premiums will reflect the obamacare mandates FACT: Rates of increase are much less since Obamacare was passed than previous to its passage. Why? Obamacare has caused restructuring of the healthcare industry in very positive ways.


Fact, this is the first time in history that the Federal Government is requiring the US population to purchase something or be taxed. ... So? This isn't 1776.

Fact, healthy people who have a low cost, high deductible plan will not have the same options that they had before. (Health Insurance provider/ personal experience) they can not have the insurance that doesnt cover most things which is true. No more freeloaders. Fact: Healthy people with low cost, high deductible plans didn't have good options in the first place. Now, insurance will require certain things to be covered. This is a good thing.

Fact, doctors will now be required to ask questions that have no reliance to what you are there to see them about. So, don't answer them.

Fact, all health records will be stored at a centralized database. Given the Edward Snowden situation, is the government the best place for those? (common sense) this is a requirement of something else- oddly enough i believe actually the stimulus, but is nit a requirement of obamacare FACT: Have you been wathcing the news? The NSA can crack any database and look at anybody they want to. When people supported the Patriot Act like sheep, this is what they got. What are you planning that you should be worried about anyway?

Fact, there will be situations where you will not be able to pay cash if medicare or medicaid denies your request. (according to an HR coworker of my wife) FACT: So wrong it makes my eyes want to bleed. People with money will always get the procedures they want.

Fact, right now you have an option of paying cash for some procedures and the hospital will actually charge less... this will go away (according to a doctor my wife works with) Fact: see above. Hospitals will be able to set their own rates. Traditionally, people paying cash without an insurance company were always charged full price.

Fact, several sources show that this will result in higher taxes. (CBO) probably true ACTUAL FACT: No source knows what is really going to happen. The 30 some states opting out of the system are actively trying to sabotage the system and it seems to be failing.

I don't see how any of that is good for America. Fact: Because you don't want to.
 
If you have to move. If you do not get care through work... and you make less than $95,000 a year, you are likely to receive the government subsidy that lowers your health care costs.

How is it that the availability of services is an issue? If they are not available now, how does somebody else getting care make your situation different?

Presumably, your family has access to health care through where both of you work. If it fails, you would still have access to double coverage. Whereas those who can't normally afford or would be denied coverage would not be in such a situation. I fail to understand how it affects you in any real way. You presume a benefit to someone else will remove a coverage to yourself? It sucks your son will never play hockey. Explain how somebody else getting access to diabetic treatment would harm access to treatment for speech issues? I assume there is more than you are saying and I can empathize with you on that. I know someone who had a stroke while in the middle of their PHD program. There is no chance for health coverage, but can't function without meds. I can't say that they are in a better position than yourself. Both of you along with everybody else that can't get coverage should have access to health care. Because it should be a RITE!

Costs for everyone will drop as there are more people in the pool.

My understanding is that many elements of speech and physical therapy is not mandated by the obamacare as a requirement of insurance and is instead left to the states to decide whether the mandate it - one of the many capitulations made to the republicans who wanted as much state control as possible in the conference committee that drafted the bill. I also understand that most of the states that have been fully implementing obamacare will mandate this as a requirement, whereas many of the states putting up hurdles are not. Skis may be correct about the coverage of the therapy not being mandated in his states regulations. He needs to direct his outrage at his state government though. They are the ones that have the authority to change that. In 2016 the law requires the feds to reexamine whether those therapies need to be mandated for all states however.

On the plus side, once skis son is an adult, he wont risk having lifetime coverage limits and being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. That was a very serious problem for people in his sons condition before the implementation of obamacare. Personally, going through cancer treatment for my wife we were already 3/4 of the way to our maximum limit when she was age 31 and she was going to have a hell of a time getting any other insurance due to the pre-existing condition. How anyone can support that as a suitable status quo is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
......
On the plus side, once skis son is an adult, he wont risk having lifetime coverage limits and being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. That was a very serious problem for people in his sons condition before the implementation of obamacare. Personally, going through cancer treatment for my wife we were already 3/4 of the way to our maximum limit when she was age 31 and she was going to have a hell of a time getting any other insurance due to the pre-existing condition. How anyone can support that as a suitable status quo is beyond me.

Agreed on your whole post. I can believe those kinds of restrictions/considerations/requirements taking place. Between the 3 of us, we know a boatload of people that will benefit.

I keep trying to get people to realize that the system is stacked against them as workers. The FED maintains an unemployment rate of 5%. It panics if it falls to 4.5% because it causes inflation due to workers being capable of demanding higher wages and benefits. It causes them to put the breaks on the economy by increasing the cost and availability of money to the business system. ERGO, the deck is stacked against workers. This may actually be healthy, but everybody from the incredibly poor to the rich should be guaranteed, even if the burden of costs is shouldered by the rich. It should be part of the "cost" of doing business in exchange for limiting the natural right for workers to advocate for better wages and benefits.

Morally and ethically, it should be an industry that also is not for profit. At least, no more so than the profit earned by other industries providing a public good such as power companies. The health care industry should be happy they get to keep up to 20% of the collected premiums for themselves. It should be more like a 7% profit maximum with bonuses and CEO pay controlled or limited. Health care is a public good like roads and power production.

One of the things starting to come through the news stories, is that health insurers are starting to run commercials similar to other insurance industries to attract customers. That simple fact argues that the ACA is working as intended and will bring costs down rapidly. Additionally, questions are going to start being asked about the fact that medical devices and raw materials such as blood and other consumables have markups in the thousands of %.. I quit giving blood long ago on purpose when I learned that even if I give blood, if I ever needed it, I would still get sacked the outrageous prices. They pay you for plasma, they can pay you for blood. I am boycotting until that changes. Other things like buy 1 aspirin get charged more than a whole bottle.

Hospitals are lying about their costs and its time for the gravy train to end. If they are not, they should have to be transparent about costs so the real costs by procedures can be known. X amount for a broken arm, X amount for an appendicitis. Of course there can be complications that may modify the base price but over time, even those will have a lagitimate price attached to them. You will know that in a percent of time between X & Y it will cost this much extra. That does not happen now.

Here in WI, governor Pig Eyes has been more virulent than most about fighting the ACA's implementation. Still, there is nothing to say that riders for medical care or step ups in insurance couldn't be purchased. Watch for such 3rd party insurances start to pop up in the next 12 to 18 months. Such commercials have already been running for medicare and medicaid for years (AARP as an example)

Other methods to bring costs down could include changes in how doctors are trained and how they get through school. Lower their pay but the hospitals pick up their entire malpractice insurance and cost of schooling. That also puts the onus on the hospitals to spot and get rid of bad medical staff as soon as possible. Doctors that don't want to change to new methods of record keeping and care checklists are probably to dangerous to allow to stay in business anyway. Many hospitals have instituted electronic record keeping and health checklists for improved health protocols. All of them in WI seem to have done so already.

I bet the insurance industry is going to undergo positive and very radical methods of operating and saving money over the next 5 years. Much of it without mandates from the government.
 
Interesting take on health care spending, taxes, etc. by the non-partisan CBO.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/cbo-we-have-a-tax-problem-not-a-spending-problem.html/?ref=YF

Skimming over yesterday's news reports on the 2013 Outlook, it seems that most of the coverage missed the good news about health care spending, as well as CBO's important point that higher future debt is mostly due to lower taxes, not out-of-control spending. That's a shame, as the public and policymakers need accurate information in order to make good decisions about our economy, now and in the future.
 
Back
Top