Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Scary post. The end of World War II, the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the Iraq War... all bad for the economy. All good for the country. Convinced? Ok, but the point of the ACA wasn't to create jobs or to improve the economy. It was to make healthcare more accessible and more affordable. If it has a net negative on the economy (which isn't even accurate to date), then that does not deem it a failure. This thread is getting frightening. You're comparing obamacare to Vietnam and ww2? Frightening indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You're comparing obamacare to Vietnam and ww2? Frightening indeed. Wow. The deflection is getting pathetic. Is it your stance that something bad for the economy cannot be good for the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You're comparing obamacare to Vietnam and ww2? Frightening indeed. Uh, no, he did nothing of the kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I don't get it. You think ongoing war is good for the country? Here's one a righty can probably get behind. Husband and wife both work so that they can afford health insurance, leaving their child home alone after school. Now, wife doesn't have to work, can choose to stay home and take care of her family. Bad for economy? Good for family? See kilmers post Comparing Obamacare to war. Wow. The deflection is getting pathetic. Is it your stance that something bad for the economy cannot be good for the country? The comparison is nauseating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 See kilmers post Comparing Obamacare to war. The comparison is nauseating. So, you are pleading the fifth on my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 So, you are pleading the fifth on my question? Well I don't know if Obamacare will lead to parents staying home to take care of kids. I suspect if anything it will lead to people retiring earlier than they had planned. Is that good for the economy? Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Well I don't know if Obamacare will lead to parents staying home to take care of kids. I suspect if anything it will lead to people retiring earlier than they had planned. Is that good for the economy? Dunno. Not the question, at all. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Not the question, at all. Try again. If your question is if Obamacare has a negative impact on the economy does that mean Obamacare is bad the answer is no. It doesn't mean it's good either though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Here's one a righty can probably get behind. Husband and wife both work so that they can afford health insurance, leaving their child home alone after school. Now, wife doesn't have to work, can choose to stay home and take care of her family. Bad for economy? Good for family? I like the idea of staying home and irritating/educating ya'll full time. Bad for economy? Good for family? my wife is grateful for your sacrifice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Scary post. The end of World War II, the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the Iraq War... all bad for the economy. All good for the country. Convinced? Ok, but the point of the ACA wasn't to create jobs or to improve the economy. It was to make healthcare more accessible and more affordable. If it has a net negative on the economy (which isn't even accurate to date), then that does not deem it a failure. This thread is getting frightening. Not at all. The point of the ACA was not to make Healthcare more affordable. It was to insure that everybody had to actually have healthcare by some form of insurance. Now, I realize we too probably do not agree on this point or see eye to eye but that's expected. This country can not be healthy unless it has a healthy economy. Obamacare can not succeed unless it can be paid for and that looks less and less possible without incurring major deficits. Rainbows and puppies are nice but you have to be able to afford it. Shrinking labor pool does not support the idea of allowing all people to simply retire early if they so choose. I have yet to understand the concept of how this all get paid for. That does not seem clear to me. I don't get it. You think ongoing war is good for the country? Here's one a righty can probably get behind. Husband and wife both work so that they can afford health insurance, leaving their child home alone after school. Now, wife doesn't have to work, can choose to stay home and take care of her family. Bad for economy? Good for family? I guess it would depend on the Wife. I am not convinced that a large majority of Wives want to simply stay home and take care of children. Edited February 7, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Wow. The deflection is getting pathetic. Is it your stance that something bad for the economy cannot be good for the country? Yes it is. Thats why I called you out on it a few posts ago. I figured you'd realize the homage in the last post. But again, you're claiming I said something I havent said. And then arguing against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yes it is. Thats why I called you out on it a few posts ago. I figured you'd realize the homage in the last post. But again, you're claiming I said something I havent said. And then arguing against it. So, your argument is something bad for the economy cannot be good for the country. You said before that you did not agree with it, but now you do? You know, I don't get it. I just think some of you are trying to be vague and confusing now, and I have better things to do. Let me know when Obamacare blows up the world. Not at all. The point of the ACA was not to make Healthcare more affordable. It was to insure that everybody had to actually have healthcare by some form of insurance. Now, I realize we too probably do not agree on this point or see eye to eye but that's expected. This country can not be healthy unless it has a healthy economy. Obamacare can not succeed unless it can be paid for and that does not looks less and less possible without incurring major deficits. Rainbows and puppies are nice but you have to be able to afford it. Shrinking labor pool does not support the idea of allowing all people to simply retire early if they so choose. I have yet to understand the concept of how this all get paid for. That does not seem clear to me. I think you have a fundamental misconception of what Obamacare is, and what its intended purpose was. It absolutely was to get make healthcare more affordable, in addition to more accessible. If you are going to deny that as even an intended purpose, we can't have a conversation anymore because we are talking two different languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You dont get it because you continue to make claims that I've made a statement when I have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) The point of the ACA was not to make Healthcare more affordable. If the original purpose of "Obamacare" wasn't to reign in (or slow down) the exponential increases in health care costs that faced us, then why is it called the "Affordable Care Act"? Purposeful misnomer? Edited February 7, 2014 by The Evil Genius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think you have a fundamental misconception of what Obamacare is, and what its intended purpose was. It absolutely was to get make healthcare more affordable, in addition to more accessible. If you are going to deny that as even an intended purpose, we can't have a conversation anymore because we are talking two different languages. And see, I think that it is you who have misconceptions about Obamacare. That's kind of the problem right? I see what's going on and I do not believe that it can be financially responsible for us to continue with this as a nation. You, on the other hand, believe that this will actually be cheaper. I understand we believe in different things. As I said, that's the problem. I would say this, if it were truly the goal to make Obamacare more affordable, then there would have been no need to create a penalty for not having it. Market forces would have naturally lent themselves towards Americans participating in it. Cost associated with Obamacare would not have driven policy prices up, which they have, and this entire program would be much further down the road. As to the accessability, if that were true, this plan would have considered the shortfalls in actual facilities and/or qualified healthcare personnel available for the proposed increases in customers. That was never done and as a result, we face some very serious issues on those fronts moving forward. I believe that you believe what you are proposing. I just don't agree that what the actual bill was about represents your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I believe that you believe what you are proposing. I just don't agree that what the actual bill was about represents your beliefs. This. Therein lies the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) You dont get it because you continue to make claims that I've made a statement when I have not. No, I'm asking you what you believe and you are giving me evasive answers. I'm not putting any words in your mouth. I can't understand if you think its a per se "bad thing" for the country if the economy is weakened. Or, do you believe that the economy is one of several competing goods, some of which will come before the economy in some situations? I believe that you believe what you are proposing. I just don't agree that what the actual bill was about represents your beliefs. I'm talking about the intent of the bill. Not whether it will work. You seem to be arguing with me about the intended goal of the Affordable Care Act. It sounds like you don't believe Obamacare was INTENDED to make healthcare more affordable and more accessible. If you are going to argue that the intent of Obamacare was not to make healthcare more affordable, then you, not me, have a fundamental misconception about its intended purpose. Let me ask you guys this one. If - notice the first word of this sentence - you believe that anything bad for the economy is the wrong thing for this country, then you agree that the government shut down was bad for the country? And you believe that refusing to increase the debt limit is bad for the country? Right? Edited February 7, 2014 by Tulane Skins Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It looks like Jon Stewart said it better than I could: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/the-cbo-report 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 For the 3rd time now, I haven't made any comment about the economy good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I'm talking about the intent of the bill. Not whether it will work. You seem to be arguing with me about the intended goal of the Affordable Care Act. It sounds like you don't believe Obamacare was INTENDED to make healthcare more affordable and more accessible. If you are going to argue that the intent of Obamacare was not to make healthcare more affordable, then you, not me, have a fundamental misconception about its intended purpose. Let me ask you guys this one. If - notice the first word of this sentence - you believe that anything bad for the economy is the wrong thing for this country, then you agree that the government shut down was bad for the country? And you believe that refusing to increase the debt limit is bad for the country? Right? I too am talking about the intent of the Bill. If the intent was to lower Healthcare costs, why would you need a penalty for not signing up written into the Bill? As for the question of Government Shut Down and Increase of debt limit, yes on the Government Shut Down but no on the increase of debt limit. In the case of Government shut down, it was bad for the country, obviously, but not as bad as increasing the debt limits with no checks and an ever increasing deficit. That is a question of choosing the lessor of two evils IMO. Edited February 7, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It looks like Jon Stewart said it better than I could: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-6-2014/the-cbo-report I admit, I do like Jon Stewart. He's a pretty funny guy. However, that clip really didn't say a whole lot. Basically, it said that workers are choosing to not work as many hours. Well, I don't think anybody is disagreeing with that. However, it still doesn't solve the question of how do you pay for this. I mean, that's the real question right? How do you pay for this going forward. Even if your answer is to tax those who work even more, you still don't solve the problem. You have a smaller pool from which to tax and it's shrinking still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) The GOP Thinks Obamacare Is Making You Lazy "The best face you can probably put on that is that people who don't wanna work don't have to work," Blunt continued. "Surely that's not what we wanna encourage." Excuse me? WTF do you think we are? Slave labor? The greatness of capitalism as I understood growing up was the motivation to achieve something better for yourself, NOT to be forced to work as long as possible to afford a basic need such as health care. Edited February 10, 2014 by Mad Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I love when the lefties link the huffington post as their source. It's cute in that Fox News sort of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I love when the lefties link the huffington post as their source. It's cute in that Fox News sort of way. Does the source of the story change the quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Does the source of the story change the quote? Well, now, there have been times when one source or another actually have changed quotes. I've frequently linked to a write-up on how Michael Moore, in I think it was Fahrenheit, took several speeches by Charlton Heston, pulled a sentence from here and a sentence from there, and even two partial sentences to create a sentence Heston never said, and presented it as though it were one speech. And in another case, fabricated a "Bush campaign commercial" that wasn't. So, yes, it HAS happened. And there are vastly more examples of quotes being cherry picked out of context to try to claim something was said when it wasn't. (And numerous cases of people claiming that their statement was "taken out of context", when what's really going on is "please pretend that I made that comment in this context, over here, even though that wasn't the context I was talking in, at the time".) Now, has HuffPo been caught actually doing that? I confess I'm not sure they've been caught at it. But I wouldn't be shocked, either. I don't think anybody would consider them "neutral". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now