Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Nobunaga on Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:33 pm

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, strike that "republican led".. it was led by folks in both parties who cater to big business, aka basically everyone except the general public.


=D> there's still hope for you, player...


The one thing that can shake her from her anti-Republican outlook is her anti-business outlook. <smile>


Puns aside, I am only anti-business if you consider requiring businesses to be responsible to be "anti" business.


Well...considering that I tend to fall healthily on the "businesses need regulation" side of things and I think you're incredibly anti-business, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.


Wasn't there a thread someplace about agreeing to disagree?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Nobunaga on Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:37 pm

jj3044 wrote:It's not all bad news, people...
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/07/20130718a.html

New report finds competition lowers premiums by nearly 20 percent in the Health Insurance Marketplace

Affordable Care Act gives consumers access to better coverage at a greater value in 2014

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released a new report that finds premiums in the Health Insurance Marketplace will be nearly 20 percent lower in 2014 than previously expected.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers in every state to publicly justify any premium rate increases of 10 percent or more. Health insurance companies now generally have to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care or improvements to care, or provide a rebate to their policy holders. In addition, when the Health Insurance Marketplace opens for enrollment on October 1, 2013 consumers will be able to make apples to apples comparisons of quality health insurance plans.

ā€œToday’s report shows that the Affordable Care Act is working to increase transparency and competition among health insurance plans and drive premiums down,ā€ said Secretary Sebelius. ā€œThe reforms in the health care law ensure consumers will have access to better coverage at a lower cost in 2014.ā€

Specifically the report finds that:

In the 11 states (including the District of Columbia) that have made information available for the individual market, proposed premiums for 2014 are on average 18 percent lower than HHS’ estimate of 2014 individual market premiums derived from CBO publications.

In the six states that have made information available in the small group market, proposed premiums are estimated to be on average 18 percent lower than the premium a small employer would pay for similar coverage without the Affordable Care Act.

Both estimates are based on premium proposals for the lowest cost silver plan in the individual and small group markets. Actual premiums in 2014 may be even lower when health plans are offered in the Marketplace this fall. Already, in a number of states (DC, OR, RI, VT), the rate review process and competition are resulting in final rates that are significantly below what was proposed earlier this spring.

Preliminary premiums appear to be affordable even for young men. For example, in Los Angeles - the county with the largest number of uninsured Americans in the nation - the lowest cost silver plan in 2014 for a 25-year-old individual costs $174 per month without a tax credit, $34 per month for an individual whose income is $17,235, and a catastrophic plan can be purchased for $117 per month for an individual.

Further, data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance Component shows that the average premiums for employer sponsored insurance increased by only 3 percent from 2011 to 2012, the lowest rate of increase observed since the data series started in 1996.

Already the 80/20 rule, or medical loss ratio, has saved 77.8 million consumers $3.4 billion up front on their premiums as insurance companies operated more efficiently and spent more on health care than administrative expenses, and 8.5 million consumers can expect an average rebate of approximately $100 per family. Since the health law’s rate review provisions were implemented, the number of requests for insurance premium increases of 10 percent or more has dropped dramatically, from 75 percent to 14 percent. To date, the rate review program has helped save Americans an estimated $1 billion.

The report is available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013 ... emiums.pdf

Visit HealthCare.gov to learn more about the Health Insurance Marketplace. Open enrollment begins on October 1, 2013 for coverage starting as early as January 2014.


After this sentence, "HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released a new report that finds ..." there's really no point in continuing.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:46 pm

lol..um... what exactly are you implying here... that she is lying about public facts that can be easily checked? lol ok...
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:06 pm

Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:23 pm

Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:50 pm

jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...


There's no benefit to the government having the authority to force you to make a purchase, so it's ALL about the costs.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:59 pm

Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...


There's no benefit to the government having the authority to force you to make a purchase pay for services you will use in your lifetime, so it's ALL about the costs.
Fixed.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:25 pm

jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...


There's no benefit to the government having the authority to force you to make a purchase pay for services you will use in your lifetime, so it's ALL about the costs.
Fixed.


If this was about paying for services, the government would enable those businesses to more effectively go after people for payment after services are rendered. Instead, this forces everyone to buy a different product even if they don't need it or want it simply because they are living. Even if we accept your premise, people will likely use health care in their lifetime, not health insurance, so why is the insurance the product that's mandated?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby GreecePwns on Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:57 pm

Player just thinks that government should enforce all of her viewpoints.

Well technically, that is what voting is, so all voters endorse that belief.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Woodruff on Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:58 am

Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?


It's human nature to dislike or be fearful of the unknown, and Americans aren't exactly known for informing themselves. Why do companies market...to change perceptions and influence people. Given the healthy opposition to it, I'm not surprised that some would think this is necessary to try to get folks on-board.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Woodruff on Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:59 am

Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...


There's no benefit to the government having the authority to force you to make a purchase, so it's ALL about the costs.


That really doesn't make sense, you realize...right?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:23 pm

Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Why do the rest of us have to fund $684 million of advertisements if we were going to like the Obamacare law once we found out what was in it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -campaign/

It's great that you know of the individual mandate and are generally educated about what is expected of you. The marketing funds are necessary to educate the population of uninsured individuals that haven't paid any attention to what is going on in healthcare. Without a marketing campaign, it will fail.

That's a pretty obvious answer, so I expect that was a rhetorical question designed to point out the cost without the benefit...


There's no benefit to the government having the authority to force you to make a purchase pay for services you will use in your lifetime, so it's ALL about the costs.
Fixed.


If this was about paying for services, the government would enable those businesses to more effectively go after people for payment after services are rendered. Instead, this forces everyone to buy a different product even if they don't need it or want it simply because they are living. Even if we accept your premise, people will likely use health care in their lifetime, not health insurance, so why is the insurance the product that's mandated?

Not possible. Someone gets diagnosed with cancer, racks up 300k in medical debt and what happens? Can they pay? No, they declare bankruptcy and you and I pay for it. Paying for insurance is necessary because only the top 1% could afford to pay for the costs of services if something happened to them. Your statement advocates for no insurance, and instead paying for the cost of services when needed. This would result in ONLY reactive care, and dramatically lower the percentage of people who get preventive care. Then, more people would only go to the doctor when there was something very, very wrong which would be very, very costly. All of these people wouldn't be able to afford the care so we are worse off than we were/are.

Simply: health insurance is necessary because it is very expensive.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby Night Strike on Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:51 pm

jj3044 wrote:Not possible. Someone gets diagnosed with cancer, racks up 300k in medical debt and what happens? Can they pay? No, they declare bankruptcy and you and I pay for it. Paying for insurance is necessary because only the top 1% could afford to pay for the costs of services if something happened to them. Your statement advocates for no insurance, and instead paying for the cost of services when needed. This would result in ONLY reactive care, and dramatically lower the percentage of people who get preventive care. Then, more people would only go to the doctor when there was something very, very wrong which would be very, very costly. All of these people wouldn't be able to afford the care so we are worse off than we were/are.

Simply: health insurance is necessary because it is very expensive.


So why is the answer to use the government to force people to purchase a product simply for living? If someone doesn't have the personal means or insurance to pay for treatments, then hold them accountable to pay. Make the debts unable to be discharged in bankruptcy. Allow people to actually buy the insurance plans that benefit them rather than everyone being forced into the same plan. Mandate that all health care prices are posted for all people to see so they can shop around. Stop the government from having the monopoly over deciding where health care providers can set up shop in order to enable competition. There are MANY more options available to make health care more affordable......and government mandates aren't one of those ways.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:55 pm

Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:Not possible. Someone gets diagnosed with cancer, racks up 300k in medical debt and what happens? Can they pay? No, they declare bankruptcy and you and I pay for it. Paying for insurance is necessary because only the top 1% could afford to pay for the costs of services if something happened to them. Your statement advocates for no insurance, and instead paying for the cost of services when needed. This would result in ONLY reactive care, and dramatically lower the percentage of people who get preventive care. Then, more people would only go to the doctor when there was something very, very wrong which would be very, very costly. All of these people wouldn't be able to afford the care so we are worse off than we were/are.

Simply: health insurance is necessary because it is very expensive.


So why is the answer to use the government to force people to purchase a product simply for living? If someone doesn't have the personal means or insurance to pay for treatments, then hold them accountable to pay. Make the debts unable to be discharged in bankruptcy.

But how are you going to make someone accountable to pay a 300k bill when they only make 25k a year? It's nice to say that everyone should be accountable for only the services they use, instead of paying for insurance, but this just isn't possible. When you come up with a way this scenario works, you will be elected president yourself.
Allow people to actually buy the insurance plans that benefit them rather than everyone being forced into the same plan.

You do realize in the exchange (because we are primarily talking about the exchange here, right?), everyone can choose the plan level appropriate for them, from lower-cost catastrophic coverage, to higher-cost, platinum-level plans, right? Also, the variety of coverage levels will be offered by competing health plans.
Mandate that all health care prices are posted for all people to see so they can shop around. Stop the government from having the monopoly over deciding where health care providers can set up shop in order to enable competition. There are MANY more options available to make health care more affordable......and government mandates aren't one of those ways.
I completely agree with you here. Luckily most insurers are adopting transparency tools due to ACA regulations (see my previous post on Castlight for example), which is especially important with high deductible healthplans.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:45 pm

Tea Party, motherfucker!!!

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby tzor on Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:49 am

jj3044 wrote:Not possible. Someone gets diagnosed with cancer, racks up 300k in medical debt and what happens? Can they pay? No, they declare bankruptcy and you and I pay for it. Paying for insurance is necessary because only the top 1% could afford to pay for the costs of services if something happened to them.


Stated as such, you are arguing for something that is a real "insurance" (much in the same way life insurance is). That is not what health insurance is or ever was. Yes, you could easily set up a system like life insurance where everyone pays a certain amount based on statistical factors and should the unfortunate come up and expensive treatment is required they are paid for and if not ... your money went to someone else. It would be one big lottery where everyone prays they don't win.

Note that doesn't solve the overall problem. That problem is the use of non transparency in costs and the associated problems of local monopolies or near monopolies. The cost of the non payers is already racked into the costs for procedures to begin with (and government plans are basically partial non payers; the average person actually pays more because medicare pays less). Since the costs are hidden the consumer doesn't have the ability to choose between one procedure or the other based on cost/benefit. There is no incentive to reduce costs while increasing service and results. This results in one of two things; increasing costs and decreasing services. The only solution here to return health to the "free market."

Note also you just can't go from the current system to that system easily. You just can't.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:10 am

tzor wrote:
jj3044 wrote:Not possible. Someone gets diagnosed with cancer, racks up 300k in medical debt and what happens? Can they pay? No, they declare bankruptcy and you and I pay for it. Paying for insurance is necessary because only the top 1% could afford to pay for the costs of services if something happened to them.


Stated as such, you are arguing for something that is a real "insurance" (much in the same way life insurance is). That is not what health insurance is or ever was. Yes, you could easily set up a system like life insurance where everyone pays a certain amount based on statistical factors and should the unfortunate come up and expensive treatment is required they are paid for and if not ... your money went to someone else. It would be one big lottery where everyone prays they don't win.

Note that doesn't solve the overall problem. That problem is the use of non transparency in costs and the associated problems of local monopolies or near monopolies. The cost of the non payers is already racked into the costs for procedures to begin with (and government plans are basically partial non payers; the average person actually pays more because medicare pays less). Since the costs are hidden the consumer doesn't have the ability to choose between one procedure or the other based on cost/benefit. There is no incentive to reduce costs while increasing service and results. This results in one of two things; increasing costs and decreasing services. The only solution here to return health to the "free market."

Note also you just can't go from the current system to that system easily. You just can't.

I am absolutely NOT arguing for this, because if everyone had catastrophic insurance only (i.e. like life insurance), no one would get preventive care, and that is one of the main ways we can reduce costs... get people healthier, and diagnosing & treating diseases in early stages where they are less expensive to treat.

I keep repeating myself, you probably haven't read my other posts. I am very much for preventive care and incenting people to get preventive care (I work in this part of the industry), because there have been proven return on investment on receiving age/gender specific screenings. Also, the ACA mandates more consumer transparency tools (again, see my post on Castlight, for example).
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby tzor on Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:41 am

jj3044 wrote:I am absolutely NOT arguing for this, because if everyone had catastrophic insurance only (i.e. like life insurance), no one would get preventive care, and that is one of the main ways we can reduce costs... get people healthier, and diagnosing & treating diseases in early stages where they are less expensive to treat.

That doesn't have to be true. Remember, your "costs" for this insurance are based on various factors. There is no reason why "discounts" can't be factored into the catastrophic insurance calculation. We do this all the time with automobile insurance. You spend $25 to take an approved AARP drivers education course and you get a discount on your automobile insurance. It makes sense for you because you lower your cost all in all. It makes sense for the insurance companies because they know that your taking the costs will reduce their potential payments to you. And what happened to you? Well you just sat in a stupid classroom for hours and YOU ARE SUDDENLY HAPPY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.

So, how do you get a healthy person to get preventive care? By giving him an incentive to do so! We can hide the costs under the rug and make it appear "free." That is the current system and it's not working!

People don't want to do things because "years from now it will be good for you." They want to save money now and most are willing to spend money to save even more money immediately.

I don't think you can solve the problem until you make all costs "transparent" because neither the insurance companies nor the government can or want to constrain costs on their own.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: ObamaCare - Delayed Until After Elections

Postby jj3044 on Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:18 am

tzor wrote:
jj3044 wrote:I am absolutely NOT arguing for this, because if everyone had catastrophic insurance only (i.e. like life insurance), no one would get preventive care, and that is one of the main ways we can reduce costs... get people healthier, and diagnosing & treating diseases in early stages where they are less expensive to treat.

That doesn't have to be true. Remember, your "costs" for this insurance are based on various factors. There is no reason why "discounts" can't be factored into the catastrophic insurance calculation. We do this all the time with automobile insurance. You spend $25 to take an approved AARP drivers education course and you get a discount on your automobile insurance. It makes sense for you because you lower your cost all in all. It makes sense for the insurance companies because they know that your taking the costs will reduce their potential payments to you. And what happened to you? Well you just sat in a stupid classroom for hours and YOU ARE SUDDENLY HAPPY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.

So, how do you get a healthy person to get preventive care? By giving him an incentive to do so! We can hide the costs under the rug and make it appear "free." That is the current system and it's not working!

People don't want to do things because "years from now it will be good for you." They want to save money now and most are willing to spend money to save even more money immediately.

I don't think you can solve the problem until you make all costs "transparent" because neither the insurance companies nor the government can or want to constrain costs on their own.

I agree with your premise 100%, except that you seem to think that those two points aren't being improved.

I am going to repeat myself again. At some point I am going to stop posting all together because it seems like nobody is actually reading what I post.

The ACA does a lot to improve wellness incentives. Health insurers and employers can now use up to 30% of the cost of the policy to incentivize members to get preventive health screenings, and participate in lifestyle related wellness programs. ALSO, they can utilize up to an additional 20% of the cost of the policy to incentivize a non-smoking incentive. That is up to 50% of the cost of the policy!

As far as transparency, please just re-read my last post on the subject, the ACA DOES encourage insurers to provide transparency tools such as Castlight services.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:17 am

What perfect timing for OBamacare to kick in. I suppose they were thinking the stimulus plans and the bailouts would work, and we would be back at 5.5% unemployment right about now and the deficit was supposed to be cut in half. We're gonna get our credit rating downgraded, probably a couple notches this time. I'm not sure Obamacare planned spiking interest rates and the economic environment that creates with major cities going bankrupt into the program.

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:22 am

Phatscotty wrote:Image


How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:06 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Image


How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?


Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Jdsizzleslice on Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:11 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Image


How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?


Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...
User avatar
Brigadier Jdsizzleslice
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:55 pm
32

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:15 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Image


How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?


Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in.


You never do stop being a partisan hack, do you? <chuckle>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare - DEFUNDED!?

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:16 pm

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Image


How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?


Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline


Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.


Good job in stating the obvious, but that was essentially my question.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users