Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
This law is a compromise by Obama bc he wanted single payer but was only able to pass the GOP healthcare law Romneycare.The only reason this turd is a law.
The Commish
Footballguy
My bad...when one is so focused on the "layout" and "flow" of the application talking in vague terms about the technology I usually assume they are talking about the app itself and not the requirements it was based on. You should be able to see my confusion here. Typically when knocking the application, one's making comments about the application, but when you're making comments about the app you're really talking about the gov't. I have that right?
The Commish
Footballguy
Just wondering.....if you compared what Obama proposed to what was actually passed? I cursory look will show you that what was passed was a shell of what he proposed. And most of the gutting came from appeasing the "blue bloods". I can only imagine the amount of cliff jumping we'd have by the GOP if Obama got exactly what he proposed. What we have today is essentially what the GOP wanted two decades ago....we'll see how it works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Only a truely deranged person could twist this into a GOP plan. Take credit for what your party passed.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Has CGI laid the blame on Bush yet?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Stop with this. There was no compromise with the GOP. The "compromise" to get ACA passed was with other Democrats (mostly, the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats). Make no mistake about it, if every Democrat in both houses of Congress had been willing to vote for single-payer, we'd have single-payer right now.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This is pretty much true. Are you counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat or an independent? He was caucusing with the Dems but wasn't elected as a Dem. Without him, they never had the 60 Senate votes they needed. And I think he was opposed to single-payer.
The Commish
Footballguy
You need to reread what I posted. I didn't say it wasn't the dem plan. It is...they passed it. It just happens to align very closely with what the GOP wanted back in the day. This isn't news....it's not even a question. It's one of the main reasons I can't take either party seriously. It's the definition of bat#### crazy. It's also not news that what Obama wanted was essentially a single payer system and the blue bloods in the Senate weren't having it. Now it is what it is. Don't believe me, go look it up. It's out there in black and white.
This is not what "the GOP wanted back in the day". Not even close. There were a few GOP members and one think tank that floated the idea of an individual mandate associated with a very different overall program. And even that never had broad GOP support.
Edit to add:
Your now deleted link makes my point for me..."it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon"
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
If you're assertion is that it was just a few people, that'd be misguided. Heritage Foundation was a supporter of a mandate. Romney actually implemented it. Gingrich was for it before he was against it (ala Romney). The bill had 21 co-sponsors to it. It was the primary alternative to Clinton's solution which expanded government. There was no other solution presented in opposition to Clinton's plan.
ETA: Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I said the MODERATE members of the GOP wanted it?? I'm quite certain none of the self proclaimed CONSERVATIVE members of the GOP wanted it. That better?
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said, one think tank and a few members supported the individual mandate, but even that was not in the context of the Chafee proposal. The Heritage proposal was otherwise vastly different from Obamacare.The Commish said:
Romney had to work in a deep blue state to fix what the state democrats had previously screwed up. That solution obviously had no national GOP support to speak of.
19 GOP sponsors of a liberal Republicans bill is again a sign of very little support from the party. To imply that any of this means that Obamcare is now what "the GOP" once supported is hilariously wrong.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
You need to start paying attention to the #### you reply to.The Commish said:
You see when you quote someone like you did in the first post in the quote above and you leave out the important parts only to later comment on the important parts that you originally deleted in your response you end up looking like a fool.
The important parts:
HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs
“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)
.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think that getting people to know their subsidies first seems like a good idea, and I wouldn't describe it as "hiding" anything. You don't want people to go on the site, look at the unsubsidized prices for two seconds, decide it is too expensive, and give up. The objective should be to convey information to consumers about what their actual price would be.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
The same argument can be made for someone not wanting to enter all that information and being turned off by the process (i.e. they just wanted to see what plans were available).
It sounds all fine and dandy until you put this complex and expensive (in terms of processing power / time) into the flow of the site, it's the equivalent of having someone fill out their name, billing address, shipping address, and credit card information and then checking their credit before allowing them to shop.
Sand
Footballguy
They could have gone halfway and let people play with numbers with a very simple anonymous questionnaire. The way they've chosen to do it is asinine.
Joe T
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
If you dismiss the "status" of those supporting it and look purely at the numbers as a percentage, I'd agree. But the people on board were folks like the Senate minority leader and ranking repubs on Senate committees. At the time that was significant, but I'd understand why you wouldn't want to take that into account. It should be noted that I wasn't attempting to suggest these were equal (my TGunz qualification i have to put in all my posts now). I understand there were differences, but they were differences in how to accomplish the same goal. A goal now that the GOP thinks is absolutely ridiculous, so much so that a lot of their supporters are now against it after being for it.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Meh, call Leiberman whatever you want. Everyone understands he's a moderate Democrat, regardless of his label.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm just tired of the "ACA was watered down from what Obama really wanted because of compromises made to the GOP" meme. It's not true. Compromises were made to garner votes, but not to garner GOP votes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe T
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I generally don't pay attention to #### period....whether I am replying or not, but I admire the acknowledgment that what you're posting is ####. That's a step in the right direction.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Yep, and the problem is after enough time goes by people will distort the facts to fit a different narrative. Like the GOP moving goal posts when Obama was trying to negotiate with them.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, I'm not saying there wouldn't have been better ways to do it. Just saying that an objective should have been to give consumers a better idea of their subsidized prices.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
You're just wrong about this. Obama had enough Democrat members in both chambers (if you include independents who caucus with Democrats, as fatguy points out) to pass ACA without GOP votes. The fact is, he couldn't get enough votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY without making the "compromises". Those compromises were never about adding GOP votes; they were about adding Democrat votes.
Now, feel free to call the Blue Dogs "GOP-lite" or "DINOs" or whatever you want, but they were the reason for the "compromises", not the actual GOP.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
They didn't need the GOP to compromise. They had the votes to do this without them and essentially did. It's on the dems that this thing has changed significantly from what Obama originally proposed.
Yeah, if that's what Republicans actually wanted you would think they'd have made it some sort of priority when they controlled things. This is how you know Republicans are fake conservatives - they talk a bunch about stuff like SS reform. Bush ran on that platform. When the chips were down he didn't even try and do anything about it. Trying to call a plan that got no Republican votes a Republican plan takes some real brainwashing.jon_mx said:
timschochet
Footballguy
The reason people keep pointing out that the plan was originally created by the Heritage Foundation is because those in your camp (the Tea Party) keep spouting stuff about how this plan is Marxist and will fundamentally change America for the worse. Obamacare is not a good program, IMO, but the vitriol against it is incredibly overblown and based on falsehood.
Some would argue that this has been the plan all along. Drive prices through the roof by adding massive inefficiencies to an already overregulated system, ramp up taxes/fees in the name of propping the system up, then proclaim the entire project a failure and use the new revenue stream as the monetary base for implementing a single-payer system. In the short-term, the tech firms and insurance companies get to line their pockets. What's not to love?Rush Limbaugh said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Also, your statement about Bush is false as well. During the first year of Bush's second term, he tried desperately to reform Social Security, and his efforts got nowhere, thanks to opposition from everyone- not just Democrats, but conservative Republicans as well. To criticize Bush for this failure rather than those who opposed him is the height of hypocrisy.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think you need to go back and look at how it all went down. Obama gets into office preaching a new kind of governing and makes healthcare reform a priority. The Minnesota Senate race was still going through recounts so there were 59 Democratic senators, counting Lieberman. Some of the Dems were squishy. It also seemed at the time like maybe they would be able to get a handful of Republican votes like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.
Obama really wanted to stamp this as a somewhat bipartisan achievement. So there definitely was significant engagement with Republicans in the early stages, both because of the possibility that their votes would be needed (if the Minnesota recount went poorly or if a few Democrats voted against), and for the optics of getting at least some Republicans on board. So the general framework started getting worked out under that premise.
It took a while before Al Franken won the recount, and it also took a while before it became evident that that they weren't going to get any Republican votes at all on this. By that time the health care discussions had been ongoing for months and there were already issues with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy's health. Scrapping everything that had been discussed and starting from scratch wasn't a very viable option. So they cut some shady deals with the few Democrats still holding out and pushed what they had through the Senate while Kennedy and Byrd were still able to vote. It wasn't obvious that version was going to end up being the law, and the House wasn't happy with it, but then Kennedy died and Scott Brown got elected, so passing a new version in the Senate became impossible and they just went with what they had.
timschochet
Footballguy
I see, it has nothing to do with all of you guys being lap dogs for these parties. You're just trying to out crazy someone.
timschochet
Footballguy
If Obamacare fails, this will be the ultimate result.Rush Limbaugh said:
But at this point, how can anyone judge that it's a failure yet? We're years away from such an evaluation. So far, 90% of the complaints seem to be about computer glitches.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I went back to look and got a few details wrong, but the gist of it was right. Kennedy died before the Senate actually passed what would become the ACA. The interim Massachusetts Senator (between Kennedy and Brown)cast the vote.
It may not have been the plan all along, but there are clearly a lot of Dems that will use any Obamacare failures to push for single payer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive me if my manner of speaking/typing doesn't meet with your approval. Perhaps I should start a new thread for each disjointed thought which passes through my mind in order to place them more coherent format for you.
Of course I think this is a possibility. The progressive modus operandi for the past 100 years has been the continuous implementation of one social program after another, each more comprehensive than the ones which preceded them.
This might even be the Republican plan since they're a bunch of big government hypocrites these days.
timschochet
Footballguy
In terms of complaints, that's the other 10%- so far. In the long term, of course, it is these issues, and not computer glitches, that will decide the success or failure of Obamacare.
But I am very skeptical that that the majority of the public will discover that the program is not beneficial for them, as you assume right now that they will. I have trouble believing that the people behind this would design a system that would be so devastating to it's creators. My strong hunch is that once all the glitches are fixed, more people will like Obamacare than dislike it.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
So you're saying they attempted to compromise to get GOP votes because they couldn't get enough Democrat votes. It's not the GOP's fault that 60 out of 60 Democrats didn't want single-payer or whatever other stuff Obama wanted. Like I said before, if 60 Democrats (yes, including Leiberman and Sanders) wanted single-payer, we'd have single-payer. It's not the GOP that prevented it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course. But that's not the same as what's he's claiming.
Personally, I don't think Obamacare will ever be scrapped even if it is a failure. What will happen is a slow sort of metamorphosis to single payer, which nobody will ever acknowledge while it's happening. (Actually, you could say that ever since Medicare was first enacted that's been inevitable anyhow.)
Statorama
gangster
Statorama
gangster
...and if we're going to retrace history, it was Obama's petty "elections have consequences, I won" and "Republicans can help, but they need to get on the back of the bus" didn't help swing any Republican votes his way.
If Obama hadn't have been such a complete ### hat... with his popularity combined with Democratic majorities in both houses and several RINO votes that were very gettable, we could have had a really solid healthcare reform bill.
If Obama hadn't have been such a complete ### hat... with his popularity combined with Democratic majorities in both houses and several RINO votes that were very gettable, we could have had a really solid healthcare reform bill.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yes, this is true, as I said before. If all 60 Senate Dems had been solid votes for single-payer, we would have it. With that said, Republicans did have an influence on the process, both because of imperfect information (not knowing how everyone would vote or who would hold all the Senate seats) and due to an attempt to have it be a bipartisan law.
Similar threads
