• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

It is rather presumptuous to assume that one's fellow-travelers are as committed to expert consensus as you claim you are - I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country and associate with many folks from Berkeley. Unless they represent an unusually ignorant and rare form of liberal, I have yet to run into a single one with a strong and righteous opinion that was also informed by experts. In fact, I find them to be no more informed or rational than the local bar pounders.

Almost to a person they depend on their self-referential myths of the peer group, and various empty platitudes, as their "expertise". In fact, for those that are friends I just let them rant about the poor, the corporations, and various hobgoblins - heaven forbid that we discuss an issue through deductive reasoning or developed moral philosophy. Cliches are the deepest thought they are willing to entertain (I can't even get them to read a critical article in The Atlantic, let alone from a conservative publication).

I mean, yeah, certainly the individual members of any group are wrong. Even liberals as an entire group can be wrong. But, the liberal position I'm talking about isn't the mix of all the views liberals hold, I mean the established positions that liberals as a whole generally hold. When the general liberal position and the general conservative position differ on a point, the liberal position is almost always more closely aligned with the facts. That isn't because liberals are smarter, more rational or better informed necessarily, it is because liberals as a whole tend to be deciding which side of an issue to take by looking at facts where conservatives tend to pick a side based on ideology. For example, the liberal position on a given tax might be that they support it because it will reduce inequality and inequality is bad because it has effects A, B and C, and because they believe the impact of that tax on growth will be minimal, as found in studies X, Y and Z, and so on, while the conservative position might oppose the same tax for purely ideological reasons that don't depend on factual claims at all. For example, they might think "people should keep what they earn" or that "taxes are theft" or some such ideological stance.

Pragmatism isn't necessarily inherently superior to ideology. But pragmatists are definitely more aligned with the facts, since that is the material pragmatists work with, where ideologues work with ideological principles.
 
So it did so without ACA? How can that be?

I'm referring to the myriad payment and delivery system reforms (public and private) the ACA has spurred.

Will you ever think with your brain instead of your heart?

I don't think I've ever made an argument based on "heart." To what are you referring?
 
It is rather presumptuous to assume that one's fellow-travelers are as committed to expert consensus as you claim you are - I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country and associate with many folks from Berkeley. Unless they represent an unusually ignorant and rare form of liberal, I have yet to run into a single one with a strong and righteous opinion that was also informed by experts. In fact, I find them to be no more informed or rational than the local bar pounders.

Almost to a person they depend on their self-referential myths of the peer group, and various empty platitudes, as their "expertise". In fact, for those that are friends I just let them rant about the poor, the corporations, and various hobgoblins - heaven forbid that we discuss an issue through deductive reasoning or developed moral philosophy. Cliches are the deepest thought they are willing to entertain (I can't even get them to read a critical article in The Atlantic, let alone from a conservative publication).

Yeah, well, I debate far right wing Fox News watchers all the time. Merely ignorant would be a step up for them. They know stuff that happens to be false, all the time! Personal anecdotes aren't all that informative.....
 
No, what I have is bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury data and they don't support your claim about either quality or cost, oh, wait, cost doesn't matter to you

Hmm. You Never cited those. Plus, I don't know why any of those three sources would be useful for quality measures in healthcare.

I guess you not only don't know the ACA, but you have absolutely no capacity to research it on your own.

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were just some guy making fun of Conservatives by posting like a cartoonish one.
 
I mean, yeah, certainly the individual members of any group are wrong. Even liberals as an entire group can be wrong. But, the liberal position I'm talking about isn't the mix of all the views liberals hold, I mean the established positions that liberals as a whole generally hold. When the general liberal position and the general conservative position differ on a point, the liberal position is almost always more closely aligned with the facts. That isn't because liberals are smarter, more rational or better informed necessarily, it is because liberals as a whole tend to be deciding which side of an issue to take by looking at facts where conservatives tend to pick a side based on ideology. For example, the liberal position on a given tax might be that they support it because it will reduce inequality and inequality is bad because it has effects A, B and C, and because they believe the impact of that tax on growth will be minimal, as found in studies X, Y and Z, and so on, while the conservative position might oppose the same tax for purely ideological reasons that don't depend on factual claims at all. For example, they might think "people should keep what they earn" or that "taxes are theft" or some such ideological stance.

Pragmatism isn't necessarily inherently superior to ideology. But pragmatists are definitely more aligned with the facts, since that is the material pragmatists work with, where ideologues work with ideological principles.

I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.

For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".

Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.
 
Yeah, well, I debate far right wing Fox News watchers all the time. Merely ignorant would be a step up for them. They know stuff that happens to be false, all the time! Personal anecdotes aren't all that informative.....

You tell me about your personal experience with Fox news watchers, but then tell me that personal anecdotes aren't that informative? And what, pray tell, does your "your too" experience have to do with my criticism of tuheybays characterization of fellow liberals?
 
I'm referring to the myriad payment and delivery system reforms (public and private) the ACA has spurred.



I don't think I've ever made an argument based on "heart." To what are you referring?

What do you think ACA addresses if not the heart? You believe that people want what you want and that isn't reality. You ignore personal responsibility and seem to believe it is someone else's responsibility to take care of those issues. As I have always stated, that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. Healthcare does need reformed but it doesn't start with the federal govt. but rather the state and local governments. The massive central govt. today is more interested in keeping their jobs rather than doing their job and that reality is missing from your desire for that govt. to be a parent
 
Hmm. You Never cited those. Plus, I don't know why any of those three sources would be useful for quality measures in healthcare.

I guess you not only don't know the ACA, but you have absolutely no capacity to research it on your own.

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were just some guy making fun of Conservatives by posting like a cartoonish one.

I have over 51, 000 posts and bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury are sites that capture data. You base your comments on your own beliefs and opinions. That isn't reality. I don't give a damn about ACA as I have always been smart enough to take care of myself. I learned personal responsibility a long time ago. You apparently never have or believe others haven't so you expect the Federal Taxpayer to pick up the slack. Let me remind you, healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal one. Local and state citizens pay for the uninsured, not the federal taxpayer. You mean well but quite frankly you appear to be very naïve, gullible, and very poorly informed as to data and facts.
 
I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.

For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".

Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.

Yeah, for sure. Pragmatism requires some underlying goals and ideology relies on factual reality as well because that's the medium in which ideologues try to implement their ideology. But the emphasis and focuses are different. Pragmatists generally think the goals are pretty easy and obvious- the most material well being for the most people for example, and that the hard part is figuring out how to make that actually happen. Ideologues generally think the practical details are trivial to figure out and the principles are the hard part.
 
You tell me about your personal experience with Fox news watchers, but then tell me that personal anecdotes aren't that informative? And what, pray tell, does your "your too" experience have to do with my criticism of tuheybays characterization of fellow liberals?

I don't think either of our stories mean a whole lot as far as whether liberals or conservatives rely more on evidence rather than emotion.

Speaking only for me, I used to be a reliable Republican voter and considered myself a conservative, and I kept having to deal with too much cognitive dissonance - facts weren't lining up with my ideology, so I changed my ideology. I'm much less often having to reconcile the two as a moderate/liberal.
 
I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.

For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".

It's obviously true that any choice has trade-offs and there are winners and losers. But I don't frankly agree that using a "moral schema" to make public policy choices is the correct way to go about it. The only reason to use a principle to make a decision is because the principle has proved over time to "work" in some way, and therefore can be assumed to "work" in the future. And in my experience, principles or 'moral schema' sometimes work and sometimes don't and we have to evaluate each case, using data and evidence and studies, etc.

Pollution is a good example. Libertarians rely on the checks and balances in the "free market" and don't believe much in regulation and would eliminate the EPA and leave regulation to the states or allow individuals to sue for damages. But we know that fails, we have evidence here and all over the world that proves it and so eliminating pollution regs is a decision to privatize profits and socialize costs - polluters will pollute, individuals cannot effectively enforce their rights and collect damages against behemoth entities, and so polluters will pollute and privatize the profits and the public bears those costs.

So "markets" fail with pollution, we know why, they're a negative externality, and so I favor regulating polluters because that works best to burden the polluter with the costs of the pollution, which is the actual "free market" result.

And to bring that back to your statement about there not being a "rightness" other than a sense of what is morally correct, that is still true. We can decide to subsidize polluting activities, and at what level, for more jobs, higher pay, whatever. But what we can't do is pretend that "free markets" are working and that we're not deliberately subsidizing polluters and offloading costs onto the public. But that is exactly what conservatives do, in my view. They hide behind ideology - free markets in this example - to obscure the actual choice we are making if we were to disband the EPA.

Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.

I just see almost no "moral underpinnings" in public policy choices. There are trade-offs and we evaluate them. I think that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd never worry about defending the "moral underpinnings" of a choice, I'd just defend the trade-off.
 
Last edited:
It's obviously true that any choice has trade-offs and there are winners and losers. But I don't frankly agree that using a "moral schema" to make public policy choices is the correct way to go about it. The only reason to use a principle to make a decision is because the principle has proved over time to "work" in some way, ...

The correct way to 'go about it' is to recognize that all choices of public policy involve positive (what is) understandings as well as normative (what should be) moral views. The basis of most taxation, welfare, entitlements, etc. are all about conceptually knowing what is (the economics of taxation) and knowing what should be - what is "fair" or a matter of "social justice". The progressive nature of the income tax exists because of a moral belief that it is "fair" to tax the better off at increasing percentages, while a flat percentage or single flat amount is unfair.

Libertarians tend to use positive theory (e.g. economics) to understand the processes behind the empirical data on "what is" in policy, and then moral theories to arrive at a concept of both effective and fair policy. In contrast, liberals tend to reject anything beyond the level of their case by case random talking point data (unmoored to any theoretical understanding of the issue) and pull it from the ass moralisms (unmoored to anything but their gut).

Pollution is a good example. Libertarians rely on the checks and balances in the "free market" and don't believe much in regulation and would eliminate the EPA and leave regulation to the states or allow individuals to sue for damages. But we know that fails, ...

So "markets" fail with pollution, we know why, they're a negative externality, and so I favor regulating polluters because that works best to burden the polluter with the costs of the pollution, which is the actual "free market" result.

Actually your view of libertarians is a good example the superficial empiricism and 'gut' moralism that cripples 'pragmatic' liberalism. Informed libertarians don't rely on arbitrary 'checks and balances', they recognize the nature of pollution in terms of both economic and moral theory. From economic theory they recognize that pollution is externality, a cost in the use of a common property (e.g. the air) that damages other users, without compensation for the damage imposed. And contrary to your assumption behind the 'free market result', they also understand that, as shown in the Coase theorem there are multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution and pay for damages in an economically efficient manner (including having those affected by pollution pay the polluters to not pollute - which in theory is just as free market efficient as having polluters pay those affected).

So economic theory provides a model and understanding of what is, but moral theory tells libertarians what should be. If, under common law, air is the property of all then those who use it at the expense of other 'owners' they should either a) cease or b) compensate those affected. Libertarians generally prefer a market system of bartering and trade or tax compensation because it is economically more efficient than 'case by case' regulatory limits. And all other things being equal, what is more efficient creates greater surplus for the well being of the commons.

And no, we don't know that it always fails. It has worked when it is implemented with integrity, and failed when it has not. Like all regulatory schemes in the management of the commons, it depends on the power, rationality and integrity of the governments imposing them.
 
Last edited:
Continued:



And to bring that back to your statement about there not being a "rightness" other than a sense of what is morally correct, that is still true. We can decide to subsidize polluting activities, and at what level, for more jobs, higher pay, whatever. But what we can't do is pretend that "free markets" are working and that we're not deliberately subsidizing polluters and offloading costs onto the public. But that is exactly what conservatives do, in my view. They hide behind ideology - free markets in this example - to obscure the actual choice we are making if we were to disband the EPA.

Nor can we pretend that free markets are 'not working' - no more than we can assume that every government program that is less than ideal (which is most of them) is 'not working'. To the degree that the free market is 'unfree' due to flawed government policy then most libertarians are more than happy to push for correction. There is no love of crony and subsidized corporate capitalism, or subsidized farming, among libertarians.

Finally, those who wish to disband the EPA wish to do it because a) the necessary pollution laws are better handled through other agencies and b) the EPA has shown itself to relentlessly harmful to the well being and rights of many innocent Americans. You should not confuse hostility to a particular government entity to hostility to some or many of its supposed goals. I have no use for the Intelligence czar or the department of Homeland security, but it does not mean I am against intelligence and security.

I just see almost no "moral underpinnings" in public policy choices. There are trade-offs and we evaluate them. I think that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd never worry about defending the "moral underpinnings" of a choice, I'd just defend the trade-off.

You can't 'defend the trade-off' unless you have a normative view of what ought to be, and that, my friend, is a moral underpinning.
 
The correct way to 'go about it' is to recognize that all choices of public policy involve positive (what is) understandings as well as normative (what should be) moral views. The basis of most taxation, welfare, entitlements, etc. are all about knowing concepts what is (the economics of taxation) and knowing what should be - what is "fair" or a matter of "social justice". The progressive nature of the income tax exists because of a belief that it is "fair" to tax the better off at increasing percentages because it is assumed to be 'fairer' than a flat percentage or single flat amount.

The only difference is that for some of us we have used positive theory (e.g. economics) to understand the processes behind the empirical data on "what is", and then moral theories to arrive at a concept of effective and fair policy. In contrast, others reject anything beyond the level of their case by case random talking point data (unmoored to any theoretical understanding) and pull it from the ass moralisms (unmoored to anything but their gut).

And you don't think conservatives use "pull it from the ass moralisms?"

Actually your view of libertarians is a good example the superficial empiricism and 'gut' moralism that cripples 'pragmatic' liberalism. Informed libertarians don't rely on arbitrary 'checks and balances', they recognize the nature of pollution in terms of both economic and moral theory. From economic theory they recognize that pollution is externality, a cost in the use of a common property (e.g. the air) that damages other users, without compensation for the damage imposed. And contrary to your assumption behind the 'free market result', they also understand that, as shown in the Coase theorem there are multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution and pay for damages in an economically efficient manner (including having those affected by pollution pay the polluters to not pollute - which in theory is just as free market efficient as having polluters pay those affected).

I'll just say that libertarians may understand all that in theory, and there may exist multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution, but "market" solutions have in actual reality mostly failed.

And you mention the Coase theorem, but like a lot of economic theories, it fails in practice (Coase acknowledges this) because of significant transaction costs in the real world, and a lack of information about the actual damages and costs and the difficulties of estimating them. Breathing lead is a bad thing, but what is the harm, e.g., per gallon of leaded gas? If it's 5 cents are users going to pay that into a fund per gallon and distribute it to the 315 million people in the U.S. pro rata? Some live in rural areas with little exposure, some in cities with dense exposure... etc. Lead was removed by regulations, and we're learning more and more every year why that was a good thing.

And, sure, it's "free market efficient" to pay polluters not to pollute - i.e. we will reach some economically optimal level of pollution - but it's also a shift of wealth from the public to polluters, which can be restated as a system of privatizing profits and socializing costs. The Koch brothers would love that result!

So economic theory provides a model and understanding of what is, but moral theory tells libertarians what should be. If, under common law, air is the property of all then those who use it at the expense of other 'owners' they should either a) cease or b) compensate those affected. Libertarians generally prefer a market system of bartering and trade or tax compensation because it is economically more efficient than 'case by case' regulatory limits. And all other things being equal, what is more efficient creates greater surplus for the well being of the commons.

And us liberals would say that market systems that have the real world effect of reducing pollution or paying damages to those harmed, great. But what we'd point out are the immense reality-based barriers to those schemes actually working, and point to the many times they've failed.

And no, we don't know that it always fails. It has worked when it is implemented with integrity, and failed when it has not. Like all regulatory schemes in the management of the commons, it depends on the power, rationality and integrity of the governments imposing them.

Again, liberals would simply look at the evidence of it working versus not working. I'm fairly certain that 'market' based pollution schemes routinely fail, which is why pretty much all first world economies with clean air and water rely on regulations to achieve that, not Coase theorem schemes. And when 'market' based approaches work, I know no liberal who is opposed.
 
What do you think ACA addresses if not the heart?

Quality, costs, coverage, dysfunctional markets, inefficient care delivery systems, health care workforce development, prevention and chronic disease management, public health infrastructure, approval for new biologics, etc.

It's a systematic approach to systemic problems. Your problem is that you don't read what people actually say, you read what you think your cartoonization of them should say.

As I have always stated, that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. Healthcare does need reformed but it doesn't start with the federal govt. but rather the state and local governments.

Indeed, that's a philosophy reflected in the ACA.
 
Nor can we pretend that free markets are 'not working' - no more than we can assume that every government program that is less than ideal (which is most of them) is 'not working'. To the degree that the free market is 'unfree' due to flawed government policy then most libertarians are more than happy to push for correction. There is no love of crony and subsidized corporate capitalism, or subsidized farming, among libertarians.

I'll say this much. If Ron Paul was president (assuming he'd govern as a 'true' libertarian), then your statement about crony capitalism might be believable. The problem is in reality crony capitalists and their lackeys use libertarian concepts to justify corrupt policies. Just as an example, if you want to rely on individuals defending property rights and suing for damages, you can't make it more difficult to sue, and limit damages to some "compensatory plus nominal punitive" figure. If you do it takes the math skills of a toddler to see what that does - few people sue, fewer win a case for damages because of immense transaction costs, so profits are maximized by ignoring damages to the many.

Finally, those who wish to disband the EPA wish to do it because a) the necessary pollution laws are better handled through other agencies and b) the EPA has shown itself to relentlessly harmful to the well being and rights of many innocent Americans. You should not confuse hostility to a particular government entity to hostility to some or many of its supposed goals. I have no use for the Intelligence czar or the department of Homeland security, but it does not mean I am against intelligence and security.

But you say, "the laws are better handled through other agencies..." Which ones and how is it better, exactly? If you devolve it to the states, we know that states 'compete' in part with a race to the bottom. Money concentrated in a few hands means it's easier to buy off local and state officials than Federal legislators from 50 states.

And you state with some certainty that EPA has roved itself to be "relentlessly harmful to the well being and rights of innocent Americans" but don't have any way to prove that on any kind of net basis - that the net harm is positive. And you can't compare that to the alternative. Look at a country without EPA or its equivalent and get back to me with the environmental conditions of the water and air. Sure, there are victims of EPA, but there would be victims in any other possible scheme you can imagine or describe and the task is comparing those conditions, weighing the trade off.

If you've been to China or really any developing country, you'll skip them, or point out that its the corruption of a communist/dictatorial government. But the problem is in this country when we supposedly had property rights and all the rest, we had much of the same until we regulated pollution. There were many 'innocent victims' such as dead people and those with their property destroyed from unregulated pollution. You have to compare that era to the EPA world not some idealized perfect world with no victims.

And "free trade" means we encourage - demand really - that companies locate in a corrupt country to take advantage of being able to offload pollution and work place safety and all the rest to 1.5 billion people, and then ship those goods back here. We make it impossible for firms operating in an actual "free market" where costs are assigned to those imposing them to "compete."

You can't 'defend the trade-off' unless you have a normative view of what ought to be, and that, my friend, is a moral underpinning.

But what "ought to be?" Are "free markets" a goal? Not for me. Economics is amoral and "free" markets are no more virtuous than regulated markets in my view. We weigh them based on results. And what "ought to be" depends on from whose perspective you look at the results. I don't see anything like a black and white answer to "what ought to be." Is what ought to be maximized GDP or profits? Or is what ought to be a decent living standard for the most Americans?
 
Last edited:
I'm a liberal. We pretty much always side with the consensus of the experts in any given area. Conservatives are driven by ideology. Ideology sometimes matches up with the facts and sometimes not. So, sometimes conservatives are on the same side of an issue as the experts and sometimes not. Liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists decide which side of an issue to be on by looking at the facts, the practical effects on the real world, the evidence, etc. So, we pretty much side with the facts and experts. Issues where conservatives align with the experts are not politically controversial. The politically controversial issues are where conservative ideology and practical reality diverge, so on politically controversial issues, liberals always are aligned with the experts and conservatives never are. You haven't noticed that yet?

All I can say to that is: :lamo :rofl :funny
 
You don't buy it because your ignorant gut tells you something else. But your gut is wrong. If you don't like my links, find your own that demonstrate a different reality. I won't wait up for that.

If you go here you can find enrollment data. Men age 21-65 are only 10% of the Tenncare population. Kids are 55%, women (these are the pregnant and mostly single mothers) are 27%. The rest are seniors.

And that 145,000 men are either getting SSI, aka disabled and receiving Federal benefits for their disability, or they are single dads or in a low income family with children. There just isn't a category for "poor" - if you're just "poor" you're SOL.

I get it - when I learned this it surprised me too, but what I KNOW is almost none of the guys in our rehab center (they spend $0.00 on alcohol or rec. drugs btw) qualify for Tenncare. They work, earn low wages, get no health benefits from their jobs for the most part, and when they need medical care they go to the ER or the incredibly overburdened two free clinics in the area. I've seen it for years.

And the state covers almost half of all children which you saw in the link, because we're a poor state. And we cover lots of poor women because we are a poor state. Wages are low, and lots of employers don't offer benefits. An employer's dream.
\

1.3 million on medicaid in a state with a population of 6.5 million is not enough? :lamo
 
No, what I have is bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury data and they don't support your claim about either quality or cost, oh, wait, cost doesn't matter to you

Careful....the libruls will get depressed if you tell them the DNC talking points are a line of bull.:mrgreen:
 
1.3 million on medicaid in a state with a population of 6.5 million is not enough? :lamo

OK, so you were burned on the your proved ignorance of basic facts and so shift the goal posts... Why am I not surprised?

And if you want to take over the Tenncare program great. You can kick out the 55% who are kids in poor families. Now how are they going to get healthcare? You don't have a clue, but know it's easier to throw random bricks at the solution in place than come up with a better one.
 
Quality, costs, coverage, dysfunctional markets, inefficient care delivery systems, health care workforce development, prevention and chronic disease management, public health infrastructure, approval for new biologics, etc.

It's a systematic approach to systemic problems. Your problem is that you don't read what people actually say, you read what you think your cartoonization of them should say.



Indeed, that's a philosophy reflected in the ACA.

Your opinion noted. You think it really matters what people say? Results matter, not rhetoric. You support another entitlement program that once created will perform like all others giving the govt. another slush fund to waste. Cannot believe you cannot see actual results of SS and Medicare, the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal tascollars. Oh, well. liberal insanity again.
 
Your opinion noted. You think it really matters what people say? Results matter, not rhetoric. You support another entitlement program that once created will perform like all others giving the govt. another slush fund to waste. Cannot believe you cannot see actual results of SS and Medicare, the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal tascollars. Oh, well. liberal insanity again.

Says the ACA has nothing to do with quality.

Doesn't understand quality is one of the linchpins for the ACA payment reform.

Says results matter, not rhetoric.

Doesn't understand the results, replies with rhetoric.
 
Says the ACA has nothing to do with quality.

Doesn't understand quality is one of the linchpins for the ACA payment reform.

Says results matter, not rhetoric.

Doesn't understand the results, replies with rhetoric.

That never was the intent as it was all about coverage. Whether or not quality was written into ACA is irrelevant for results matter. What you don't want to admit is that Federal Bureaucracies always cost more than intended and do less than intended. Results do matter but to you it is about feelings and belief in a govt that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt
 
OK, so you were burned on the your proved ignorance of basic facts and so shift the goal posts... Why am I not surprised?

And if you want to take over the Tenncare program great. You can kick out the 55% who are kids in poor families. Now how are they going to get healthcare? You don't have a clue, but know it's easier to throw random bricks at the solution in place than come up with a better one.

Obamacare is not a solution. It's making the problem incredibly worse. That is the real point and fact. Just a side question, while I admire your acts of charity involving the group of 70, how many of them have substance abuse issues?
 
That never was the intent as it was all about coverage. Whether or not quality was written into ACA is irrelevant for results matter. What you don't want to admit is that Federal Bureaucracies always cost more than intended and do less than intended. Results do matter but to you it is about feelings and belief in a govt that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt

Thanks for confirming you have no clue about what the ACA involved.

And thanks for the Hannity phrases #16., #128 and #34.
 
Back
Top Bottom