So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon 369 Replies latest social current

• 

  DogGone

  My turn to have fun with cherry picking stats: (only this time, with the source: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Surveys/2008/The%202008%20Commonwealth%20Fund%20International%20Health%20Policy%20Survey%20of%20Sicker%20Adults/IHP2008_CMWF__DSQ_for_web%20pdf.pdf )

  On the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor change are needed: CAN 34% UK 36% USA 23%

  Did not fill a prescription for medicine or skipped doses: CAN 16%, UK 8%, USA 39%

  Had a specific medical problem but did not visit a doctor: CAN 9%, UK 4%, USA 34%

  Skipped or did not get a medical test, treatment, or follow-up: CAN 10%, UK 6%, 36%

  In the past 2 years, how often did you feel your time was wasted because your medical care was poorly organized? Often/Sometimes: CAN 29%, UK 20%, USA 35%

  Have you believed a medical mistake was made in your treatment or care in the past 2 years? CAN 14%, UK 10%, USA 16%

  USA Respondents who are currently insured but did NOT have health insurance over the last year: 14%

  Now, there are also some stats which favour the US in that document. My point, of course, is that we can cherry pick these things to make a point, combine it with bogus data, and circulate it like it matters. Those who already agree with our stand will unquestioningly adopt our data and propogate the info. There is no incentive to "test things out".

  People of the forum.... Does this sound familiar?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  All politics aside, let's remember that ACA is being propped up by a government that is $17 trillion dollars in debt. Said government is attempting to raise its debt ceiling yet again in order to create more debt which it is equally as incapable of paying as the current debt.

  How anyone believes an insolvent federal government is in any position to subsidize healthcare is beyond me.
• 

  minimus

  U GOT THAT, SHIRLEY!
• 

  Berengaria

  attempting to raise its debt ceiling yet again in order to create more debt

  This is incorrect. The debt ceiling is being raised to meet debt already incurred.

  As for subsidies, why is health care for Americans more objectionable than tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, subsidies for agriculture and oil companies etc. etc. etc.?

  The deficit is shrinking and the economy is growing. Retailers are expecting higher sales this holiday season..........................All this is in jeopardy if the GOP continues this stupid shut down and threatens default.
• 

  DogGone

  I'd like to know which cluster of ideas is not true (and I'm being sincere, I don't know):

  1. This is a giant government subsidy that we can't afford. Once people get used to this government subsidy in January it will be impossible to roll back as entitlements are hard to undo regardless of the damage to the state.
  2. This is creating a massive additional expense for individuals that can't afford it
  3. This is creating a massive additional expense for businesses that can't afford it

  I'm truly lost. Don't one of these have to be false?

  Or will the system be more expense for the private sectore (#2 and #3) and more expensive for the public sector (#1) than it is currently trending? How is this possible economically speaking? Or is category #2 meant to exclude all those who don't have coverage, hence they don't count as individuals that can't afford the extra expense of coverage?

  I'm speaking on the macro level here....
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  The debt ceiling is being raised to meet debt already incurred.

  Sorry, you can't borrow more money you can't repay to offset previous debt you can't repay and call it a win.

  why is health care for Americans more objectionable than tax breaks for the ultra wealthy

  No one has made this argument.

  The deficit is shrinking and the economy is growing

  Really? Stop watching corporate media and get the facts. The numbers are dismally bad and getting worse.
• 

  Berengaria

  Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

  What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

  Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
• 

  Berengaria

  Sorry, you can't borrow more money you can't repay to offset previous debt you can't repay and call it a win.

  I didn't call it a win, I simply clarified what raising the debt ceiling is.

  So rather than "growing", we are seeing consistent positive rather than negative numbers. Though they may be low.

  The bottom line is that no good is going to come from the GOP's current stunt.
• 

  Simon

  Why is it that when Republicans are not in power, they care greatly about govermnent debt. Yet when they are in power they are gung-ho about driving it up with their phoney wars and tax-breaks for the wealthy?

  Hmmn, puzzling. Well, at least it's something we'll never have to worry about ever again. The GOP are getting past being electable now that they are pandering to their extreme wing and they will lose more and more support until only the true die-hard nuts remain.

  "Vote for the Min & Marvin Party, We stand together! (on the backs of others)"

  If the US didn't allow multi million dollar companies to effectively avoid paying taxes, there would be no problems. It's not that there isn't money, it's that the tax burden is unfairly falling on the less wealthy more and more.
• 

  minimus

  Um, Simon the House of Reps was most recently elected with a large Republican majority. Not just Obama got elected, remember.