obama is a tyrant
I agree as well, they're not the end all be all. I just can't stand when people act like Bush was worse than Obama, when they're at a level playing field of bad. Some of their ideas I agree with, such as Bush's initial reaction to the September 11th attacks (I do not agree with how he implemented the military action though), and Obama's health care reform (I do not agree with the ACA whatsoever, but I do agree that we need to reform our health care system).
If we can convince Democrats to stop being little leeches, and Republicans to stop being douchebags, then we can have civil compromise between the people to come up with the most efficient way to handle the issues.
Bush's "You're either with us or against us" thing was dumb, and to be honest I haven't done enough research to actually comment about Obama's affordable care act. But if well informed publications like The New Yorker support it (I've been planning to read a bunch of articles for a while), I don't think it can be that bad.
Jonathan Gruber, an M.I.T. economist as well as one of the architects for both Romney's healthcare plan in Massachusetts and Obama's ACA, summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”
Honestly doesn't seem nearly as bad as the Tea party/GOP are making it out to be.
Whenever I see/hear critique on the news about the ACA, it's always by tea party members/GOP members. Really lowers the credibility of critique against the ACA to me.
I also don't know enough about Democratic politics but I do know that moderate sensible Republicans have all been pushed aside and replaced by tea party members. Nothing good can come out of the tea party.
Source: https://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-per-cent.html
Last edited by noob555; 11-03-2013 at 05:22 PM.
The Tea Party is just an extreme version of Conservatism, sad enough to say. I do not trust New Yorker Magazine, as they are a liberal-based magazine, which brings bias into the news. They only focus on the bad of the Republicans, taking every little issue that arises and finds a way to blame it on them. Meanwhile, when it comes to the ACA, the New Yorker is filled with Obama quotes saying "if this worked you would see", "if that worked you would see", and then goes about blaming Republicans for ever issue that arises in the ACA. In this situation such as with the ACA, I don't look at statistics or news from "official" sources, as both sides are bullshit. I'm actually collecting data from the amount of people it is helping, and hurting, with their premiums (to start off). The average I have is a 62% raise in premium rates, and a 14% loss of coverage altogether. The other 24% don't have healthcare at all. (all of those statistics are out of eight hundred and twenty two people I have collected data from around my school, which is a liberal arts college).
The Tea Part claims to love America but they are against Americans. They believe in shit like Objectivism and were started by the Koch brothers. Sure you can say that the New Yorker cherry picks at Republicans, but there are enough Tea Party republicans to engineer a government shut down. Not to mention that it's been in the works by the Koch brothers since the 80s.
I wouldn't really call economist data BS because they are basing their data off of a act which is published to the public. ( The site still has some kinks to work out). I'm not going to call your data BS because I honestly don't have any right to, but it just doesn't seem rational to me that the act is really that broken and it's mostly the Republicans that are acting against it.
Also have you put into account that it's mostly college students that are part of the 3%?
Last edited by noob555; 11-03-2013 at 06:08 PM.
The act appears to only be salvageable on a theoretical basis, as it IS broken in almost all rational and physical regards. My personal insurance premiums would skyrocket dramatically, yet still end up in a substantial downgrade of both coverage and an increase of deductible. There really is nothing 'affordable' about it, in relation to both the consumer AND the governmental funds needed to maintain it. Recent stats listed that approximately 3/4 of the current citizens registered are signed up for government aid, ie Medicaid/Medicare. The remaining 1/4 generates nowhere near the amount of inflow recquired to keep the program afloat. All else aside, it's basically doomed before it's even begun.
You were seeking strength, justice, splendour.
You were seeking love.
Here is the pit, here is your pit.
Its name is Silence..
Vouch Thread: https://www.mpgh.net/forum/490-vouche...ml#post9084683
Because Obama knows that if healthcare everyone has a health insurance the prices of health insurance will drop like a motherfucker!
NewTrans.nl
Exactly, which leads me to ask why the government would introduce subsidies for Obamacare before it was cancelled. Like seriously, our country is running historically high deficits which are projected to get much worse over time. So lets give 48% of Americans new subsidies to buy insurance! Does that really make sense? These subsidies are offered to Middle class incomes and lower so just expect how bad it would be.
2013 nearly ending and some USAmericans still think the USA is a free, wealthy and proud state.... I pity you naive fools
Cause no one is perfect :_)
I'm an Australian kunt but cause he's black he wins. Just like everyone said. He's black. GG.