Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Obamacare

Poll ended at Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:07 pm

Obamacare is just fine; let's fund it and let it run already
1
9%
Obamacare is a step in the right direction; fund it and fix it later
6
55%
Obamacare is a disaster; fund it and watch it implode
0
No votes
Obamacare is a disaster: defund it and fight it with everything possible
1
9%
Obamacare has a couple of good ideas. Scrap the program, take those ideas and start over
3
27%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

Post #1

Post by dianaiad »

Some of you know that I have a problem; I haven't been all that shy. Frankly, it makes me mad as all get out.

Oh, not because I HAVE this condition, though frankly, I feel like I would have had better chances of winning the lottery.

I have Multiple Myeloma, stage II, 'high risk.'
It's an odd duck; cancer of the bone marrow. What makes it 'high risk,' is a chromosomal abnormality that doesn't mean good news for survival.

Now I'm actually blessed with great insurance, paid by my husband's retirement; Kaiser Permanente. Because of that, I had a doctor who saw that I was slightly anemic and sent me for some 'further tests.' Those 'further tests' ended up being a LOT of tests (including a bone marrow biopsy, which I recommend to the Spanish Inquisition, or the CIA...perhaps especially the CIA, since nobody could object to the government 'taking care of the prisoner's health') The verdict was, yup, I got this thing; 75% of my bone marrow was cancerous plasma cells.

The REALLY odd thing is that most people who have this don't find out until they have broken bones, kidney failure, dementia, liver failure....it's a nasty disease. Me? My bones are fine and so are my kidneys and liver.

No cracks about my mental capacity, please. ;)

I'm in GREAT health...except for the dying of cancer part.

This Friday I'm going in for a bone marrow transplant. I'll be in the City of Hope for two to three weeks, while they destroy my immune system and then 'reset' it, in hopes that this will put me into a good, long term remission. There's a really good chance that it will work, despite the 'high risk' thing, because they caught it before it did any damage to my bones and organs. It has been borne upon me that this is EXTREMELY rare, that someone with as an aggressive form of this condition as mine is gets caught this early. OK, I'll take that.

After all, this disease mostly affects African American men over 65. I am about as lily white a redheaded blue eyed female as you can find. Why in the world would they even LOOK for something like this?

Now, why this longwinded introduction, she asks?
I'll tell you.

In the normal course of events (pre-Obamacare) I would get the transplant, have the rest of the stem cells (that were collected from me last week) frozen and kept in reserve for another one...which I'm almost guaranteed to need, and if that doesn't work, I'd do a third, using donor cells from one of my sisters. I hope. Neither my age nor my life condition would affect this, because, well, I have Kaiser and I would transfer that to a 'Senior Advantage' Kaiser membership next August. All done. Good thing, because I'm going to be taking extremely expensive medication (as in, $2000 per pill) for the rest of my life.

If I had NOT had good insurance, the City of Hope and the pharmaceutical companies that make the novel drugs for this have all sorts of programs: once you have Multiple Myeloma, you get the care. All you have to do is get to a facility that specializes in it.


I have been told, however, and I have since confirmed this, that if Obamacare gets through as written, this will no longer be true. For one thing, there will be no possibility of a donor transplant, (which is the only hope for an outright cure) the most effective medication won't be available , and it's highly possible that I won't be offered even the second transplant using my OWN stem cells. My prognosis, thanks to Obamacare, will go from a possible ten to fifteen years down to two or three....because the decisions for my health care won't be mine or my doctor's. They will be made by committees according to guidelines, which will include the idea that no matter what, people over 70 won't get that sort of treatment.

It doesn't matter what my doctor says, or what my insurance company now pays for; the government will regulate this.

I'm OK now. Things are getting paid for.

But what about next year, when Obamacare takes me over?

Now me, I'm an example, and of course this is hitting home hard for me....but I'm hardly unique. I have been talking to a great many MM patients from all over the world, and the ones from 'universal health care' nations, like Canada, Australia and Great Britain do not do well. They are sicker and die sooner, and many of them don't even know that there are novel agents that can treat them; because THEIR healthcare won't provide them.

Those of you who know me know that I don't LIKE Obamacare. Now you know why.

So.....here's the topic for debate (and I'll participate for the next three days...). If you wanted to fix health care in this nation, how would YOU do it? Obviously Obamacare isn't going to work.

Remember: the object is to make certain that:
1. Those who need health care GET it...the best available, not just the least expensive.
2. The decisions regarding health care should be made by the patient and the doctor, not by some faceless bureaucrat looking at cost/benefit charts.
3. Nobody has to go bankrupt because of health care expenses.
4. Healthcare is delivered efficiently, with no long waiting times.
5. Health professionals get paid enough to justify the student loans, and have autonomy.
6. So do patients, in their ability to choose who provides them health care.


Obamacare does NONE of the above, btw.

Go.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #171

Post by johnmarc »

help3434 wrote: [Replying to post 169 by johnmarc]

Why are you omitting the first if in Winepusher's statement? Can't you just admit you misread what he wrote?
Thanks.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

WinePusher

Post #172

Post by WinePusher »

help3434 wrote: [Replying to post 169 by johnmarc]

Why are you omitting the first if in Winepusher's statement? Can't you just admit you misread what he wrote?
I appreciate the support help3434 :) here's some tokens for you! And judging by johnmarc's responses so far I think he knows he's wrong but just won't admit it for personal reasons. I think it'd be best to just ignore him to avoid derailing the thread.

WinePusher

Post #173

Post by WinePusher »

Nickman wrote:1. ACA keeps health insurance companies from denying people with preexisting conditions.
I've already addressed this issue many times in this thread. As I've previously said it is not possible to force insurance companies to take on unlimited liabilities. I'm sorry to break it to you, but an individual with a preexisting condition is considered a liability. That does not mean they should not get treatment for their medical conditions, but it does mean that they should pay for their medical costs using other means than traditional insurance. Republicans have proposed creating state run high risk insurance pools that I support, and this program would be much more effective than the failure that is Obamacare.

Fire insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting fires. Car insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting crashes. What makes you think that health insurance companies are financially capable of covering people with preexisting medical problems?
Nickman wrote:2. ACA makes "freeloaders" have to buy insurance. At an affordable rate.
You keep saying that Obamacare provides affordable healthcare rates. Well, you can keep repeating it all you want but unfortunately for you it is and always will be wrong. I've already explained why Obamacare will not lower costs and why it will instead increase costs, but you just keep ignoring it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... rance-fare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... for-women/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/

And, I've also explained why Obamacare does nothing to limit freeloading. Obamacare would increase the prevalence of freeloading because it provides insurance to people who don't have it at the expense of people who earn income. Under Obamacare, taxpayers will be paying for other peoples healthcare. That is freeloading. Also, it is NOT freeloading if you don't have health insurance and you don't use any medical services. If you use medical services at the expense of other people then yes, you're a freeloader. But, what I support if allowing people to make financial decisions for themselves and determine FOR THEMSELVES whether or not buying a health insurance plan would be beneficial for them and their families. The government should not force people to buy anything.
Nickman wrote:3. ACA gives subsidies to RECIPIENTS.


What you wrote doesn't make sense.
Nickman wrote:4. Stops healthcare from feeding off of only the healthy which never use it.
What you wrote doesn't make sense.
Nickman wrote:5. Brings the market back down to an affordable level.
Nope. Nobody, other than the Young Turks, believes this.
Nickman wrote:You see, healthcare, just like any business gets to a point where they can charge whatever they want. And they do.
Businesses are only able to gain market power (the ability to jack up prices) if there are few sellers in the market. The healthcare market can essentially be seen as a government sponsored oligopoly because the federal government limits health insurance competition in between state lines. This limits competition in the healthcare market and allows firms to raise prices above marginal costs. If there was no government intervention, then the health insurance market would be in a state of perfect competition where no single firm is able to raise prices above its marginal costs and where every single firm is a price taker as opposed to a price maker.

In simpler terms, if you want health insurance companies to lower prices then you must severely reduce the amount of government intervention in the healthcare market.
Nickman wrote:Please refute this post.
I feel like I've refuted your points a million times, and all you do is continue posting them despite the fact that they've been refuted. Honestly, half the stuff you write is just factually incorrect and the other half are just illogical statements that don't make any sense. I mean, what does 'The ACA stops healthcare from feeding off of only the healthy which never use it.' even supposed to mean? The purpose of Obamacare is to bring people with money into the market in order to pay for the insurance of people without money, so you statement makes no sense.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20796
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 361 times
Contact:

Post #174

Post by otseng »

johnmarc wrote: If this goes any further, it might be best to get a moderator to weigh in on this.
WinePusher wrote:
I'm still waiting for the quote where I publicly admitted that I don't have and don't want health insurance.
Here it is:
WinePusher wrote: If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.
Moderator Clarification

Full quote from WinePusher is here:

WinePusher wrote:
Of course I would do it, it wouldn't make financial sense not to do it. If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy. However, if I am forced to purchase health insurance despite the fact that I don't want it and don't need it, I'm going to utilize the benefits of that insurance policy.


Reading that, WinePusher is speaking hypothetically. He is not claiming "I don't have and don't want health insurance."


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #175

Post by johnmarc »

[Replying to post 174 by otseng]

This is the post in question and by now folks should be know the context that surrounds it.
WinePusher wrote: If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.
A summary:

(first reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(second reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(third reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(fourth reply by johnmarc) text in question diluted with irrelevant context

One can only imagine why Winepusher was so unwilling to confront the text directly?

Enter Osteng: (The text is hypothethical and not proof.) I knew that the first moment that I looked at it. It is theoritical and not actual---I understand that. But I don't remember offering a proof---just evidence and prima facie evidence at that.

Let's assume that Winepusher had dinner at Charlie's Chicken and Ribs. I might say, "Winepusher, I hear that Charlie's makes great chicken. Did you have the chicken?" And Winepusher might respond, "If I don't like chicken, I am probably not going to waste my money on chicken."

In this case, Winepusher never directly says that he didn't have the chicken but it is implied obliquely. The average, usual, and normal person would conclude that he didn't have chicken. That is prima facie evidence and it is far greater than, 'nothing'

This is wonderful because it highlights the degree to which Winepusher will go to ask others to support their assertions. But that same energy and enthusiasm is missing when he, in turn, is asked to support his assertions. Case in point:

Winepusher's assertions in italics:

Post 92

Like all governmental regulations, Obamacare is a net negative on the economy.

All government regulations? Completely unsupported

Post 106

It's UNBELIEVIABLE that in the United States of America, we are all being forced to sign up for healthcare at a government website.

Incorrect. Teachers have not been directed to any government website. Completely unsupported

Post 116

This violates every single principle this country was founded upon.

Every principle? hyperbole. Completely unsupported

Post 134

Whenever the government intervenes prices will inevitably rise.

Whenever? Always? You need to stop posting in absolutes. Completely unsupported

Any 'solution' to our healthcare problems that requires government intervention will only make the problem worse.

Unsupported

post 141

Public schools in general are failing because they are government run.

Unsupported

post 145


Should we force all people to purchase life insurance, especially households where only one person is the breadwinner? If that person dies their family will slowly drift into poverty and they will be a burden upon society.

I am aware of many spouses who have managed on a perfectly adequate life insurance policy. I know others who trained for work and are working. Completely unsupported

This is not all, but certainly a good sampling. Go ahead Winepusher---put some of this energy and enthusiasm into your support of your assertions

Thanks.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

WinePusher

Post #176

Post by WinePusher »

johnmarc wrote: [Replying to post 174 by otseng]

This is the post in question and by now folks should be know the context that surrounds it.
WinePusher wrote: If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.
A summary:

(first reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(second reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(third reply by johnmarc) text in question ignored by Winepusher

(fourth reply by johnmarc) text in question diluted with irrelevant context

One can only imagine why Winepusher was so unwilling to confront the text directly?

Enter Osteng: (The text is hypothethical and not proof.) I knew that the first moment that I looked at it. It is theoritical and not actual---I understand that. But I don't remember offering a proof---just evidence and prima facie evidence at that.

Let's assume that Winepusher had dinner at Charlie's Chicken and Ribs. I might say, "Winepusher, I hear that Charlie's makes great chicken. Did you have the chicken?" And Winepusher might respond, "If I don't like chicken, I am probably not going to waste my money on chicken."

In this case, Winepusher never directly says that he didn't have the chicken but it is implied obliquely. The average, usual, and normal person would conclude that he didn't have chicken. That is prima facie evidence and it is far greater than, 'nothing'

This is wonderful because it highlights the degree to which Winepusher will go to ask others to support their assertions. But that same energy and enthusiasm is missing when he, in turn, is asked to support his assertions. Case in point:

Winepusher's assertions in italics:

Post 92

Like all governmental regulations, Obamacare is a net negative on the economy.

All government regulations? Completely unsupported

Post 106

It's UNBELIEVIABLE that in the United States of America, we are all being forced to sign up for healthcare at a government website.

Incorrect. Teachers have not been directed to any government website. Completely unsupported

Post 116

This violates every single principle this country was founded upon.

Every principle? hyperbole. Completely unsupported

Post 134

Whenever the government intervenes prices will inevitably rise.

Whenever? Always? You need to stop posting in absolutes. Completely unsupported

Any 'solution' to our healthcare problems that requires government intervention will only make the problem worse.

Unsupported

post 141

Public schools in general are failing because they are government run.

Unsupported

post 145


Should we force all people to purchase life insurance, especially households where only one person is the breadwinner? If that person dies their family will slowly drift into poverty and they will be a burden upon society.

I am aware of many spouses who have managed on a perfectly adequate life insurance policy. I know others who trained for work and are working. Completely unsupported

This is not all, but certainly a good sampling. Go ahead Winepusher---put some of this energy and enthusiasm into your support of your assertions

Thanks.
HAHAHA johnmarc, it seems like everybody who is reading this thread knows that you posted a lie. You personally attacked me by saying that I'm a freeloader because I don't have health insurance and then you asserted that I actually said in one of our previous debates that I don't have or want health insurance.

The administrator of this forum has PROVEN YOU WRONG, multiple readers of this thread have PROVEN YOU WRONG and you still won't admit your mistake. I have no interest engaging 'debaters' that don't own up to their mistakes. #Ignored.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #177

Post by micatala »

WinePusher wrote:
Nickman wrote:1. ACA keeps health insurance companies from denying people with preexisting conditions.
As I've previously said it is not possible to force insurance companies to take on unlimited liabilities.
I would agree with this, but this is somewhat of a red herring. No one is saying insurance companies have to accept "unlimited" liabilities.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but an individual with a preexisting condition is considered a liability. That does not mean they should not get treatment for their medical conditions, but it does mean that they should pay for their medical costs using other means than traditional insurance. Republicans have proposed creating state run high risk insurance pools that I support, and this program would be much more effective than the failure that is Obamacare.
well, this might be worth discussing. This would shift the costs of high risk people, people, with pre-existing conditions, whatever, to the tax payer. If you are willing to do this, why not just go all the way and cover everybody with a single-payer system?


Fire insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting fires. Car insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting crashes. What makes you think that health insurance companies are financially capable of covering people with preexisting medical problems?
You realize this is an argument for the ACA, right?

We require everyone to buy car insurance partly for this precise reason. The ACA includes the individual mandate partly for this very reason. Leaving aside the problem that health insurance is not really like car or fire insurance for a number of reasons, even granting your analogy, the implication is we should require people to have insurance, or have the government cover everybody. The alternative would be to simply accept that some people will have to live with catastrophic losses. I will point out that the catastrophic losses from health issues will often be significantly more than people would suffer from a car accident or a house fire.



Nickman wrote:2. ACA makes "freeloaders" have to buy insurance. At an affordable rate.
You keep saying that Obamacare provides affordable healthcare rates. Well, you can keep repeating it all you want but unfortunately for you it is and always will be wrong. I've already explained why Obamacare will not lower costs and why it will instead increase costs, but you just keep ignoring it.


Does your explanation really hold water? I will agree this is an area with a lot of uncertainty.

What we DO know is that countries with single-payer systems all have much lower costs than we do.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #178

Post by micatala »

Earlier in the thread, there was discussion, based on comments by Winepusher, that everyone gets served even if they don't have insurance.


Here is an example showing that claim does not stand up.

http://www.texasobserver.org/a-galvesto ... ety-net/?7
There’s a popular myth that the uninsured—in Texas, that’s 25 percent of us—can always get medical care through emergency rooms. Ted Cruz has argued that it is “much cheaper to provide emergency care than it is to expand Medicaid,� and Rick Perry has claimed that Texans prefer the ER system. The myth is based on a 1986 federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which states that hospitals with emergency rooms have to accept and stabilize patients who are in labor or who have an acute medical condition that threatens life or limb. That word “stabilize� is key: Hospital ERs don’t have to treat you. They just have to patch you up to the point where you’re not actively dying. Also, hospitals charge for ER care, and usually send patients to collections when they cannot pay.

My patient went to the ER, but didn’t get treatment. Although he was obviously sick, it wasn’t an emergency that threatened life or limb. He came back to St. Vincent’s, where I went through my routine: conversation, vital signs, physical exam. We laughed a lot, even though we both knew it was a bad situation.


The patient ended up dying a few months later. Now, I am not saying I know he would have lived if he had had insurance, but clearly, this is the type of situation that is much less likely to occur under the ACA.



It is ironic to me that this is from Texas. Winepusher had also alluded to Texas in a link claiming their experience provided overwhelming evidence that tort reform reduces costs.


[Replying to post 75 by WinePusher]


Again, I think we should look at tort reform, although I don't think this one states' experience settles the issue, and data countering this claim was provided later in the thread. However, tort reform would not have kept this gentleman alive.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #179

Post by bluethread »

micatala wrote:
WinePusher wrote: Fire insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting fires. Car insurance companies don't cover people who have preexisting crashes. What makes you think that health insurance companies are financially capable of covering people with preexisting medical problems?
You realize this is an argument for the ACA, right?

We require everyone to buy car insurance partly for this precise reason. The ACA includes the individual mandate partly for this very reason. Leaving aside the problem that health insurance is not really like car or fire insurance for a number of reasons, even granting your analogy, the implication is we should require people to have insurance, or have the government cover everybody. The alternative would be to simply accept that some people will have to live with catastrophic losses. I will point out that the catastrophic losses from health issues will often be significantly more than people would suffer from a car accident or a house fire.
No, the law does no require comprehensive insurance, but liability insurance. That means I am required to carry a certain amount of insurance to cover the damage my car might do to you or your belongings. I can lose my car and have no way of buying another one. So, the analogy requires me to have insurance to cover the cost of medical expenses for things I do to you, but I need not have insurance against me losing my health and having no way of getting it back.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #180

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote:
HAHAHA johnmarc, it seems like everybody who is reading this thread knows that you posted a lie. You personally attacked me by saying that I'm a freeloader because I don't have health insurance and then you asserted that I actually said in one of our previous debates that I don't have or want health insurance.

The administrator of this forum has PROVEN YOU WRONG, multiple readers of this thread have PROVEN YOU WRONG and you still won't admit your mistake. I have no interest engaging 'debaters' that don't own up to their mistakes. #Ignored.

A little case of Déjà Vu, I guess. The last time that Winepusher and I were engaged in a little 'conversation' he abandoned several unsupported claims and 'disappeared' over some 'technicality' that didn't really exist. Now it looks like he is getting a little more creative (and permanent) in his unwillingness to support his claims.

The word, 'lie' used here is used a little too casually for my taste, but as long as the precedent stands, I will use it as well. (I searched, 'Winepusher' and 'lie' and got 1517 hits. I don't know what that means exactly, but I think that the word should be used with the utmost discretion and I am sensing that Winepusher and I might have some disagreement over that.

On this forum, a lie is almost impossible to discern. A lie is intentional and intention is difficult to determine when one is dealing with casual relationships.

So...Winepusher is not willing to engage 'debaters' that don't own up to their mistakes. Let's take a look at the mess that Winepusher left and see if we can make any sense of it. For the sake of clarity, lets choose only three examples: (I could easily find twenty)

(1) Post 106
WinePusher wrote:
It's UNBELIEVIABLE that in the United States of America, we are all being forced to sign up for healthcare at a government website.
Well, I guess that that is unbelievable. Because it is not true. It is not only false, but it would surprise me to find one single individual in the country who believed to be true, because the ACA was never designed, "for us all." I live here in Washington State and I am not aware of teachers, Boeing employees, Pac Car employees, Microsoft employees, or Costco employees "being forced to sign up for healthcare at a government website." As I understand it, the administration would be thrilled to get ten million enrollees in the next year. That is substantially less than our present population. Winepusher presents himself as more intelligent and better prepared (especially in politics and economics) than his adversaries. That would mean that he knew when he made the statement that it was false. That would make it a lie.

Is there a single member of this forum that will take over for Winepusher and develop some rational strategy for this assertion that would make it anything other than what it is---a poorly considered and completely unfounded falsehood.

(2) Post 134
WinePusher wrote:
Whenever the government intervenes prices will inevitably rise.

Any 'solution' to our healthcare problems that requires government intervention will only make the problem worse.
Let's take these assertions together because they are related. The simple answer to this is 'Medicare'. It is hard to believe with Winepusher's focus on healthcare and government (and self proclaimed superiority) that he is unaware of Medicare. Essentially, with Medicare the most expensive period of one's life (medically speaking) is the time when your insurance premiums go down. In our particular case (not unusual by any means) our insurance premiums for my wife and I were pushing $1200 a month. The day we qualified for Medicare, our premiums (including a suitable supplemental plan) dropped to $600 a month. We pocketed an extra $600 a month (each month) because:

Winepusher: Whenever the government intervenes prices will inevitably rise.

I don't think so---and our experience is not unique. More than that, our private insurance was taking more and more out of our pockets in co-pays and uncovered (or not completely covered) procedures. Since we have been on Medicare---zero out of pocket costs.

Winepusher: Any 'solution' to our healthcare problems that requires government intervention will only make the problem worse. [/quote]

I don't think so. If this was our own personal story, it would be expected that Winepusher might not be aware. But it is not. The vast majority of Medicare recipients have a similar story to share. Medicare is an embarrassment to the conservative party. They know it exists and they know it works and they know it is socialized. This should be nothing new to a member as astute and involved in this discussion as Winepusher. That would mean that he knew when he made the statement that it was false. That would make it a lie.

Is there a single member of this forum that will take over for Winepusher and develop some rational strategy for this assertion that would make it anything other than what it is---a poorly considered and completely unfounded falsehood.


(3) Post 92
WinePusher wrote:
Like all governmental regulations, Obamacare is a net negative on the economy.
Unlike Winepusher, I am not an expert on Obamacare. But the statement extends far beyond Obamacare and includes, "all government regulations" I just can't imagine a government without any regulations---isn't that what government is: regulations? Are airbags a net negative on the economy? Are stop signs? Are U.S. FDA regulations a net negative on the economy---are ALL U.S. FDA regulations a net negative on the economy? Are better bumpers and crumple zones which protect passenger safety a net negative on the economy? Are Regulations for tire manufacturers and stainless steel commercial kitchens are a net negative on the economy? Seatbelts surely have saved more than they cost. Airline safety regulations? But more to the point, will the removal of regulations promote a stronger and healthier economy? We just did that, didn't we and the economy fell into the worst tailspin since the Great Depression. Winepusher does not make a single exception. All government regulations result in a net negative on the economy.

Just spent a week in Canada with friends and they spent the week poking fun at us. According to them, there was little economic downturn to their housing market because (as they laughed at us) they have (government) regulations forbidding those kinds of banking procedures. (and I wish that we did as well)

Is there a single member of this forum that will take over for Winepusher and develop some rational strategy for this assertion that would make it anything other than what it is---a poorly considered and completely unfounded falsehood---in Winepushers' vernacular, a lie.

Winepusher reminds me of my brother-in-law, Jim. Jim is as far left as Winepusher is right. He is convinced that the 'Green Revolution' will save the planet. He detests 'Big Business' the way that Winepusher detests 'Big Government" I am more moderate than that seeing both good and bad (and necessity) in both.

At any rate, Left Wing Jim, bought for himself a small array of photovoltaic panels for the south side of his home and now he claims that Puget Power is sending him a check for the excess electricity that he generates each month. Never mind that Puget Power doesn't send checks to customers. Never mind that Jim's small array would scarcely light up a travel trailer. Never mind that this is the rainy and cold and dark Pacific Northwest (he claims his checks are smaller in the winter) and never mind that we have never seen any of these checks---no one with any relationship to him believes in any kind of Puget Sound Energy remuneration, but Jim is not one to let the facts get in the way---looking forward to another pile of exaggerations this Holiday Season when we all get together.

You would think that he would be embarrassed to be so far removed from a factual foundation, but there simply is no accounting for extremism---on either side of the political or religious spectrum.

HAHAHA Winepusher, it seems like everybody who is reading this thread knows that you posted a lie.

Now that kinda just comes off as childish, doesn't it?
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

Post Reply