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

He already said he doesn't read them, he just uses the Cliff Notes version and hopes they got it right in translation. He's not so different than the idiots in Congress who vote to enact laws they haven't read. :)
 
GottaGo said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'd have to say 0. I've read parts of legislation. The difference between your answer and mine? Mine's actually true!


GottaGo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: I don't care what your profile says. I'm basing my judgement off your posts. So you can put down what ever you want.

Yes, my comment on who reads legislation is based off of opinion. Just like your bolded comment is your opinion. That something is opinion doesn't make it false. If I were to say that I live in the greatest country on earth that would only be an opinion. Doesn't invalidate my statement. So thanks for the astute observations that sometimes people express opinions.

It's also my opinion that your idea, that I can't understand a piece of legislation without reading the entire thing, is ridiculous. And that's what this boils down to. Your original opinion is borderline retarded. It's not a book, its not a movie, it's not a work of art. You can comprehend, understand and agree with a piece of legislation given enough time studying independent reliable sources without actually reading the entire piece of legislation.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
He already said he doesn't read them, he just uses the Cliff Notes version and hopes they got it right in translation. He's not so different than the idiots in Congress who vote to enact laws they haven't read. :)
Click to expand...

The difference is that my answer is honest. If you want to continue your dishonesty, then by all means...

I'll take your extreme ignorance of even the basics of the healthcare bill in this very thread as proof that I'm right, either that or it's proof of very, very, disgustingly poor reading comprehension on your part. Very likely it's a mixture of both.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great, I supported that too. I think it makes sense. And yet I haven't read the bill, lol. I very much doubt you did either. BTW, it's called The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. Can you tell me something I don't know about the bill? I've only read two or three sources on it, so by your logic I should be completely ignorant of the legislation.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'd have to say 0. I've read parts of legislation. The difference between your answer and mine? Mine's actually true!
Click to expand...
Mine too.


Here's a hint: I don't care what your profile says. I'm basing my judgement off your posts. So you can put down what ever you want.
Click to expand...
Oh, and just how many of my posts have you read? The ones in this thread, perhaps? Have I, in return, made a judgment call as to you? An assumption of what you believe in, or don't, based on a few measly posts in one particular thread? To coin a phrase, I believe from the movie "Paper Moon', know your mark.

Yes, my comment on who reads legislation is based off of opinion. Just like your bolded comment is your opinion. That something is opinion doesn't make it false. If I were to say that I live in the greatest country on earth that would only be an opinion. Doesn't invalidate my statement. So thanks for the astute observations that sometimes people express opinions.
Click to expand...
Legally, unless you preface it or end it with the statement "In my opinion' or 'I believe', you are making an absolute statement, not an opinionated statement. Just FYI. :wink:

It's also my opinion that your idea, that I can't understand a piece of legislation without reading the entire thing, is ridiculous. And that's what this boils down to. Your original opinion is borderline retarded. It's not a book, its not a movie, it's not a work of art. You can comprehend, understand and agree with a piece of legislation given enough time studying independent reliable sources without actually reading the entire piece of legislation.
Click to expand...
On a simple piece of legislation, I might grant you that gleaning information from other sources might serve you well. However, considering the size and impact of the ACA, and overall social changes that will occur with it's full implementation, and the fact that you chose to debate the subject, well, learning about it third hand doesn't hold up well. It makes your position very weak. Just sayin'.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The difference is that my answer is honest. If you want to continue your dishonesty, then by all means...

I'll take your extreme ignorance of even the basics of the healthcare bill in this very thread as proof that I'm right, either that or it's proof of very, very, disgustingly poor reading comprehension on your part. Very likely it's a mixture of both.
Click to expand...

The fact you think you are 'right' on anything in this thread just shows that not only do you not know what it says, you don't care to know what it says. But hey, enjoy your healthcare. And if you are one of the lucky one's who gets to pick up the tab for someone else, enjoy that too.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Great, I supported that too. I think it makes sense. And yet I haven't read the bill, lol. I very much doubt you did either.
Click to expand...

I read it, more than once while explaining it to idiots who only knew what they had been told about it.
The bill is like 2 pages long. What could possibly be your reason for not reading it, no pictures?
 
GottaGo said:
Legally, unless you preface it or end it with the statement "In my opinion' or 'I believe', you are making an absolute statement, not an opinionated statement. Just FYI. :wink:
Click to expand...
This is a debate forum. There is no need to specify what's an opinion. I see that you haven't done this either on this very thread. So maybe you should take your own advice and "know your mark".
GottaGo said:
On a simple piece of legislation, I might grant you that gleaning information from other sources might serve you well. However, considering the size and impact of the ACA, and overall social changes that will occur with it's full implementation, and the fact that you chose to debate the subject, well, learning about it third hand doesn't hold up well. It makes your position very weak. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

1. The complete social changes that will occur with the implementation of the ACA can't be known simply by reading the bill. You'd have to read up on the CBO's scoring of the bill and other sources to fully understand that.

2. Incorrect. I have studied up on all the major aspects of the law, have read dozens of sources over the entire debate, some opinion based, many factual, about the legislation. I understand it as well or better than anyone I've met on Debate Politics that I've run into. You can say that I don't, and that would be your opinion, but we both know that you don't care about opinions, so you are kind of stuck in a conundrum there. You don't just get to declare someone ignorant on a topic. You'd have to show that somehow. So when you find me spreading incorrect information about the bill, please point it out. Otherwise you are just saying that my arguments are weak simply because I haven't read the bill. It's my opinion that we should actually base arguments on the strength of them, not on who they came from. So you can say my position is very weak, and that's your opinion, but it means precisely dick.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
I read it, more than once while explaining it to idiots who only knew what they had been told about it.
The bill is like 2 pages long. What could possibly be your reason for not reading it, no pictures?
Click to expand...

I'm not against reading it, I just don't see the point. Every source I have read on it agrees on what it does.

And you didn't address the second part of my post. Typical, you don't like a question so it's easier to ignore it than actually muster up an answer.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
The fact you think you are 'right' on anything in this thread just shows that not only do you not know what it says, you don't care to know what it says. But hey, enjoy your healthcare. And if you are one of the lucky one's who gets to pick up the tab for someone else, enjoy that too.
Click to expand...

Who do you think currently pays for emergency treatment for uninsured currently? You're like a peacock, proudly waving your feathers while not even noticing the big pile of **** you just stepped in.
 
roughdraft274 said:
This is a debate forum. There is no need to specify what's an opinion. I see that you haven't done this either on this very thread. So maybe you should take your own advice and "know your mark".
Click to expand...
:lol: if you are going to attempt to throw a comment back at me, please, at least make it applicable to the statement. Know your mark has to do with your assumptions about me. Opinions was a whole 'nuther conversation.

1. The complete social changes that will occur with the implementation of the ACA can't be known simply by reading the bill. You'd have to read up on the CBO's scoring of the bill and other sources to fully understand that.
Click to expand...
The CBO addresses financial impact only, not the social changes. Not quite their forte, I'd say.

2. Incorrect. I have studied up on all the major aspects of the law, have read dozens of sources over the entire debate, some opinion based, many factual, about the legislation. I understand it as well or better than anyone I've met on Debate Politics that I've run into. You can say that I don't, and that would be your opinion, but we both know that you don't care about opinions, so you are kind of stuck in a conundrum there. You don't just get to declare someone ignorant on a topic. You'd have to show that somehow. So when you find me spreading incorrect information about the bill, please point it out. Otherwise you are just saying that my arguments are weak simply because I haven't read the bill. It's my opinion that we should actually base arguments on the strength of them, not on who they came from. So you can say my position is very weak, and that's your opinion, but it means precisely dick.
Click to expand...
I've discussed the bill in more places than here, and interestingly enough argued points of it with people it doesn't affect. Talk about an unbiased view from them, lol.

I've yet to figure out what 'dick' does mean, in this connotation... :wink:

Oh, I found one I'd been looking for, this is the type of legislature I usually follow.
Seed Availability and Competition Act of 2013 (H.R. 193) - GovTrack.us
 
roughdraft274 said:
And you didn't address the second part of my post. Typical, you don't like a question so it's easier to ignore it than actually muster up an answer.
Click to expand...

You mean the part where you asked me to guess what you already know about the bill? Well gee I must have forgotten my mind reading kit today.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Who do you think currently pays for emergency treatment for uninsured currently?
Click to expand...

I know exactly who pays for it, the same people who now get to pay more for doing the same thing. Great idea.
 
GottaGo said:
The CBO addresses financial impact only, not the social changes. Not quite their forte, I'd say.
Click to expand...
They have also reported on the total number estimated to get insurance after the ACA. They don't just address the finances, granted that's their main focus and purpose. Again, something you can't learn by simply reading the bill. :prof
GottaGo said:
Oh, I found one I'd been looking for, this is the type of legislature I usually follow.
Seed Availability and Competition Act of 2013 (H.R. 193) - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...

And do you care to show me something you learned from reading that bill that I couldn't easily learn by researching it or reading the summary? What would I be missing out on exactly?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
I know exactly who pays for it, the same people who now get to pay more for doing the same thing. Great idea.
Click to expand...
What's cheaper, the entire medical costs related to having a child from start to finish or 9 months of birth control pills?

Pay more for the same thing? You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
You mean the part where you asked me to guess what you already know about the bill? Well gee I must have forgotten my mind reading kit today.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to guess on anything. What is something in that bill that I couldn't have understood completely by either researching the bill on reputable news sites or by reading the summary of the bill? You're arguing that reading the bill is the only way to understand it, so prove it. What's the major part that I couldn't have learned by a quick google search?
 
roughdraft274 said:
What's cheaper, the entire medical costs related to having a child from start to finish or 9 months of birth control pills?
Click to expand...

Is that what you meant by who pays for the emergency room costs for the uninsured? Maybe it's just me but is that called 'changing the subject'?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Sure you did. You asked me to tell you something you didn't know about the bill already.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I've read a few sources on the bill. What couldn't I have learned about the bill by reading a few sources or the bills summary? What could I not learn through this method? Where's the hidden part that I could not possibly now unless I read the actual text of the bill?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Is that what you meant by who pays for the emergency room costs for the uninsured? Maybe it's just me but is that called 'changing the subject'?
Click to expand...

It's not changing the subject. It's pointing out that preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency care. I could have just as easily used blood pressure medication vs treatment after a stroke. Point remains the same regardless.

BTW, any time you ask if it's you, it's a safe assumption that, yes, yes it is you.
 
j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know j, in college they teach to evaluate sources. They do this not so anyone can be arbiter, but so that everyone would know and understand sources are not created equal. Those who throw around silly comments like "your not arbiter" are merely trying to avoid assess their poor source.

And for my push to be disingenuous, I would have to not want UHC. As I do want it, it can't be disingenuous. You don't like people to disagree with j. I get that. You want silly sources accept as if they were valid. I get that. But you spend too much time focusing on me than the point. We will adjust to reform. Doctors won't leave the profession in significant numbers. And yes you are doing the sky is falling bit. It won't fall.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
They have also reported on the total number estimated to get insurance after the ACA. They don't just address the finances, granted that's their main focus and purpose. Again, something you can't learn by simply reading the bill. :prof

And do you care to show me something you learned from reading that bill that I couldn't easily learn by researching it or reading the summary? What would I be missing out on exactly?
Click to expand...

As I stated before, the simple bills don't require much reading, and likely a summary would suffice. But there is a huge difference between this bill, and the ACA. Just a wee bit, mind you. :wink:
 
GottaGo said:
As I stated before, the simple bills don't require much reading, and likely a summary would suffice. But there is a huge difference between this bill, and the ACA. Just a wee bit, mind you. :wink:
Click to expand...

You forgot to state that that was merely opinion on your part.

So you're basic argument boils down to, you probably don't have to read the bill, unless you say that you do? I'm not sure how I ever got by without that pearl of wisdom...
 
roughdraft274 said:
You forgot to state that that was merely opinion on your part.

So you're basic argument boils down to, you probably don't have to read the bill, unless you say that you do? I'm not sure how I ever got by without that pearl of wisdom...
Click to expand...

But it isn't opinion on my part. Simple fact being:

Read the fly leaf on the book "War and Peace"
Read the book "War and Peace'

Read the flyleaf on "Herman's Great Adventure"
Read the book "Herman's Great Adventure"

Does the difference make it's self known? :wink:
 
Boo Radley said:
You know j, in college they teach to evaluate sources. They do this not so anyone can be arbiter, but so that everyone would know and understand sources are not created equal. Those who throw around silly comments like "your not arbiter" are merely trying to avoid assess their poor source.

And for my push to be disingenuous, I would have to not want UHC. As I do want it, it can't be disingenuous. You don't like people to disagree with j. I get that. You want silly sources accept as if they were valid. I get that. But you spend too much time focusing on me than the point. We will adjust to reform. Doctors won't leave the profession in significant numbers. And yes you are doing the sky is falling bit. It won't fall.
Click to expand...


Wow, you even came back to edit it...I must have touched a nerve...:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom