• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

GottaGo said:
That explains how people can swallow things hook line and sinker.....

You accept someone else's understanding of things, without viewing the source yourself, much less on a subject you are trying to debate with 'facts'?

Good lord, indeed......
Click to expand...

I don't accept some one person's understanding of things. I never said that. You should re-read what I wrote.

An my point stands. If you went through and read a dissertation on particle physics and I had top physicists explain it to me point by point, who do you think would understand it better? The person that has no understanding of particle physics and tries to interpret the paper or the guy that has the experts explain everything to him in terms he can understand?
 
roughdraft274 said:
I don't accept some one person's understanding of things. I never said that. You should re-read what I wrote.

An my point stands. If you went through and read a dissertation on particle physics and I had top physicists explain it to me point by point, who do you think would understand it better? The person that has no understanding of particle physics and tries to interpret the paper or the guy that has the experts explain everything to him in terms he can understand?
Click to expand...

Actually, after someone explains a particular situation I don't normally understand, I then go back to the source document(s) and compare what they said to what I understand the document to say.

Besides, I do read and comprehend legalese.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Have you read every mortgage, contract and major piece of legislation that you've ever signed or has ever been passed through congress? Do you read every letter, every time, before you click accept on your computer?
Click to expand...

I've read every mortgage contract I've signed and every other contract I've signed.
 
GottaGo said:
Actually, after someone explains a particular situation I don't normally understand, I then go back to the source document(s) and compare what they said to what I understand the document to say.
Click to expand...

Right, and have you ever signed a mortgage? Have you ever supported a piece of legislation and understood that legislation without reading it?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Right, and have you ever signed a mortgage? Have you ever supported a piece of legislation and understood that legislation without reading it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've signed a mortgage, and I sat there and read and understood the documents... all of them. Drove the closing agent nuts.

I don't support legislation with out reading it.

Do you?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
I've read every mortgage contract I've signed and every other contract I've signed.
Click to expand...

Lol, maybe parts of it, but if you are seriously trying to claim that you read it top to bottom you are lying. My mortgage was easily 100 pages of statements that referred you to other pages, which referred you to parts of state and federal laws. Even if you really spend the days on end it would have required to read it, you wouldn't understand all of it. That's why by law in louisiana, when I signed my mortgage, they had to give me a one or two page document that outlined the mortgage in plain English. So that I could be sure of what I was signing.
 
GottaGo said:
Yes, I've signed a mortgage, and I sat there and read and understood the documents... all of them. Drove the closing agent nuts.

I don't support legislation with out reading it.

Do you?
Click to expand...

What legislation have you supported in your lifetime?

I can't believe you are really trying lie like this to prove a point.
 
j-mac said:
Well, I am happy for your Bro in Law....But, contrary to his anecdotal, and my guess less than genuine proclamation of dropping only $2k off some substantial salary he is making, or making up, I have supplied you with many articles, studies, and government based predictive tools that show that the rate of incoming doctors to general practice is way down, and of those doctors currently practicing many are likely to get out when this ramps up....Thus, leaving a shortage.

Now you try to shrug it off because your brother in law, whom may or may not exist, supposedly tells you that all is well so you say, eh, it's true because he said so? Get outta here.....:roll:
Click to expand...

Most of what I recall seeing from you has been from 1) questionable sources, 2) often couched in ifs and maybes and 3) more hyperbolic than anything else.

My brother in law was just an example. But say he from 300K to 290 K or even 250K. Would he really want to change places with me? You? I'd be happy to review actual dollars loss. My point is they won't be paupers and won't throw away the career for retail.

However, the reform won't rely on just doctors, and links are already in this thread concerning that. But heres some reading for you:

Both Medicare and the private sector are engaged in a wide variety of demonstrations and pilot programs designed to encourage greater efficiency and quality in the delivery of care. Many of the early initiatives of the newly created Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) within the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have focused on some aspect of Accountable Care Organizations or the promotion of primary care initiatives.

More recently, CMMI announced a bundled payment initiative that will test 4 different payment models. Unlike the current system of paying for individual services or according to type of care provided, these payment models use a single payment to cover all of the care provided for an episode of illness, such as a stroke. One model provides for shared savings between physicians and the hospital using a discounted Diagnostic Related Group, or DRG (a predetermined payment for treating a specific condition). Two other models bundle the inpatient stay with postacute care (using differing time periods after the hospital discharge); the bundled payment includes such costs as physician services, services of those providing postacute care, costs for any related readmissions, and all ancillary services provided during the episode. A fourth model pays the hospital a single prospectively determined amount to cover all services provided during the hospital stay, including any physician services.

JAMA Forum: Sustainable Health Care Reform Requires Changing How Physicians Are Paid « news@JAMA
 
Boo Radley said:
Most of what I recall seeing from you has been from 1) questionable sources....
Click to expand...


Stop right there Boo, You have already lost the argument by attacking the source. Truth is you selectively read what you want to, into whatever is contrary to your belief in UHC to start with so, no need to go further, I am not interested in your semantic arguments. All I can say is stay tuned...
 
j-mac said:
Stop right there Boo, You have already lost the argument by attacking the source. Truth is you selectively read what you want to, into whatever is contrary to your belief in UHC to start with so, no need to go further, I am not interested in your semantic arguments. All I can say is stay tuned...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Sources always matter. Sources with no history of being accurate cant be accepted. Accuracy matters. repeating an inaccuracy is the problem. Today we have a source for every scare one wants to be scared by. But they are largely nonsense.

But I'll make a bet with you. I bet the sky doesn't fall. Care to take me up?
 
roughdraft274 said:
I've seen the site before.

What pieces of legislation have you supported? Bush tax cuts? Welfare reform in the 90's? Or did you just start your crusade to read legislation after ObamaCare?
Click to expand...

I've been politically aware for about 15 years.

And what difference does that make regarding knowing what is or is not in the ACA?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Have you ever supported a piece of legislation and understood that legislation without reading it?
Click to expand...

If the people who vote on it don't read it, why are they in office? Maybe we should elect the ones who read it and explain it to the people voting on it?

We are about to get another read it after passing with the immigration bill. I'm sure there won't be any suprises in that one either!
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
If the people who vote on it don't read it, why are they in office? Maybe we should elect the ones who read it and explain it to the people voting on it?

We are about to get another read it after passing with the immigration bill. I'm sure there won't be any suprises in that one either!
Click to expand...

Care to actually address the question without changing the subject?
 
GottaGo said:
I've been politically aware for about 15 years.

And what difference does that make regarding knowing what is or is not in the ACA?
Click to expand...

Alot of legislation has been passed in the last 15 years. And it sounds like you haven't supported a single bit of it, lol. When you actually feel like addressing the question let me know.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nonsense. Sources always matter. Sources with no history of being accurate cant be accepted. Accuracy matters. repeating an inaccuracy is the problem. Today we have a source for every scare one wants to be scared by. But they are largely nonsense.

But I'll make a bet with you. I bet the sky doesn't fall. Care to take me up?
Click to expand...

I don't make bet's with people that have displayed a propensity for less than genuine intent. But, I never said the 'sky would fall' that is your strawman. And just so you hopefully get this through this time, you Joe, are not the arbiter of what is credible, or not in terms of news sources. So, you'll excuse me if I don't give a tinkers damn what you think about news sourcing that disagrees with your disingenuous push for UHC, or your semantic gymnastics in furthering your misrepresentation of my position.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Care to actually address the question without changing the subject?
Click to expand...

I've already addressed it many times. Apparently the answers aren't what you have been told they should be but you have been answered.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Alot of legislation has been passed in the last 15 years. And it sounds like you haven't supported a single bit of it, lol. When you actually feel like addressing the question let me know.
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of legislation I haven't supported. Some I have. Your question is still not pertinent to the point we've been discussing.

Nice dodge though.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
I've already addressed it many times. Apparently the answers aren't what you have been told they should be but you have been answered.
Click to expand...

The question you responded to and that you quoted you have never answered on this thread.


Have you ever supported a piece of legislation and understood that legislation without reading it?
 
GottaGo said:
There is a great deal of legislation I haven't supported. Some I have. Your question is still not pertinent to the point we've been discussing.
Click to expand...

And again, he dodges the question. You criticize me for arguing that I understand the healthcare legislation without reading it, and yet you can't name a single piece of legislation you've supported over 15 years? How many of them have you read?

But it's ok, those are tough questions lol.

At the end of the day your premise that you need to read the legislation is faulty. Do politicians need to read it? I absolutely think so. But for the average citizen, you will learn more from studying many different trustworthy sources on the bill than you will reading the actual bill, and you can learn the facts in much less time. The only people that would argue otherwise are conspiracy theorists that think that one party or another is out to destroy the country or other nonsense.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
I'll answer again using small words.

No.
Click to expand...

1. That's the first time you've actually answered that question on this thread.

2. Can you name any legislation that you've actually supported?
 
roughdraft274 said:
And again, he dodges the question. You criticize me for arguing that I understand the healthcare legislation without reading it, and yet you can't name a single piece of legislation you've supported over 15 years? How many of them have you read?

But it's ok, those are tough questions lol.

At the end of the day your premise that you need to read the legislation is faulty. Do politicians need to read it? I absolutely think so. But for the average citizen, you will learn more from studying many different trustworthy sources on the bill than you will reading the actual bill, and you can learn the facts in much less time. The only people that would argue otherwise are conspiracy theorists that think that one party or another is out to destroy the country or other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I carry a list in my back pocket.... *sarcasm alert*

I'd say I've read at least 20 pieces of legislation, as they progressed. How many have YOU read?

Then figure out where I stand. Here's a hint: My profile says 'Independent'.

You make your statement based on your opinion, as to who reads legislation. Sorry, those who refuse to read the legislation and wish to argue it with any veracity don't have much of a leg to stand on in calling others conspiracy theorists.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, now does it?
 
roughdraft274 said:
2. Can you name any legislation that you've actually supported?
Click to expand...

Sure. I thought the change proposed to the Fair Labor Standard giving the employee the option of taking comp time in leiu of OT was a great idea. And I support just about any legislation that eliminates an existing law as I think we have way to many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom