Jump to content

ObamaCare Irony


Magox

Recommended Posts

 

 

lol you got zinged in that other topic well enough for some posts you made but that said...still waiting on a link to the solicitation and quote from it...

 

 

 

then you are an idiot for not seeing both at once before your eyes

 

I got zinged? More like if you shout loud enough and don't stop, you'll win. You have to understand who you are dealing with. He's a bully, but when confronted enough, he slinks away. His position was not one I would want to defend. I know his schtick. When confronted with info that refutes his position he doesn't address it, but reverts to his original rant and rants louder. On the other hand, he has some knowledge and when his vagina isn't full of sand he can be useful, like when I want to know the second in command at Shiloh.

Edited by 3rdnlng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I got zinged? More like if you shout loud enough and don't stop, you'll win. You have to understand who you are dealing with. He's a bully, but when confronted enough, he slinks away. His position was not one I would want to defend. I know his schtick. When confronted with info that refutes his position he doesn't address it, but reverts to his original rant and rants louder. On the other hand, he has some knowledge and when his vagina isn't full of sand he can be useful.

 

the topic itself is boring and tired...but the source war within it worth a read for chuckles...you bit either way...and started talking about googling for more poorly sourced stories to prove the legitimacy of one...that said...given how uninteresting the topic itself is I haven't looked for legit source material...but none has been posted..thus everybody may be a looser in this bout...as PPP should be

Edited by SameOldBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

the topic itself is boring and tired...but the source war within it worth a read for chuckles...you bit either way...and started talking about googling for more poorly sourced stories to prove the legitimacy of one...that said...given how uninteresting the topic itself is I haven't looked for legit source material...but none has been posted..thus everybody may be a looser in this bout...as PPP should be

 

I talked about googling for stories that quoted quasi-government officials. I didn't give a schit about your bs about poorly sourced stories because you obviously have no clue. BTW, you can't stand the heat, Tommy is an idiot, and I'd share a (non sexual) foxhole with him before sharing a Cosmopolitan with you any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked about googling for stories that quoted quasi-government officials. I didn't give a schit about your bs about poorly sourced stories because you obviously have no clue. BTW, you can't stand the heat, Tommy is an idiot, and I'd share a (non sexual) foxhole with him before sharing a Cosmopolitan with you any day.

 

I can feel your anger, it give you focus, it makes you stronger...

Edited by SameOldBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked about googling for stories that quoted quasi-government officials. I didn't give a schit about your bs about poorly sourced stories because you obviously have no clue. BTW, you can't stand the heat, Tommy is an idiot, and I'd share a (non sexual) foxhole with him before sharing a Cosmopolitan with you any day.

 

This is another way of saying "I buy any propaganda that suits my belief system".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is another way of saying "I buy any propaganda that suits my belief system".

 

You took that out of context so you are either being disingenuous or are just too stupid to understand context. I now suggest you visit the pertinent thread and read the quotes from government officials. You can't even get it right when you join up with your sensei, Tommy. You see, he gets so worked up over the purity of source that he sees a reference to somebody like Infowars (even though they were being ridiculed) in an article and goes beserk. Think twice before you jump on his coatails in an effort to finally be right. He's often right, but when he is wrong he plays the bully card and tries to shout the opposition down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took that out of context so you are either being disingenuous or are just too stupid to understand context. I now suggest you visit the pertinent thread and read the quotes from government officials. You can't even get it right when you join up with your sensei, Tommy. You see, he gets so worked up over the purity of source that he sees a reference to somebody like Infowars (even though they were being ridiculed) in an article and goes beserk. Think twice before you jump on his coatails in an effort to finally be right. He's often right, but when he is wrong he plays the bully card and tries to shout the opposition down.

 

In other words. You have no idea of the importance or source material. You don't know how do find it. And therefore believe stupid **** because, hey, more than one website is posting it. This is why you are so phucking stupid. This is why I normally ignore your stupid ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In other words. You have no idea of the importance or source material. You don't know how do find it. And therefore believe stupid **** because, hey, more than one website is posting it. This is why you are so phucking stupid. This is why I normally ignore your stupid ass.

 

No, you dumbass. The statement was made that all articles were sourced from Infowars. I disagreed and showed quotes from government sources that were never in an article by Infowars. You think that because one (1) RFQ was posted that it proves that it was the extent of ammunition purchased, which is just wrong. Regardless, your continual repeating of "you're stupid" doesn't prove a point, other than you have no ability to digest what is presented to you and have to fall back on just calling people names. Do you have even a modicum of intellectual curiosity to think that quotes from government sources might mean something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

costs need to come down it's really that simple. govt programs have been the only "insurers" recently successful in forcing hospitals and health systems to accept lower payments that are more in line with other countries and with sustainability. private insurers are losing the battle to big hospitals and big and ever expanding healthcare systems. they've lost the edge in negotiating rates due to the massive size of these systems.

 

i'm reminded of a lecture i attended about 10 years ago which began when the speaker showed city skyline photos and asked what about them struck the audience. he went on to point out that many of the most impressive buildings filling the horizon were insurance company buildings. that's changing. now, it's shiny new hospitals and clinics and medical centers that are, more often then not, the largest employers in big, small and medium sized communities with some of the highest paid executives. despite it's considerable warts, the ACA is the best chance we currently have for reigning in unsustainable health care costs. it could have been much more explicit in this regard but would never have passed in such form. so, the optimist sees it as a starting point, a work in progress. the pessimist sees it as an end game failure. both should see the beginning of the end of private, employer purchased insurance as we currently know it which was destined to happen with or without the aca.

Costs won't come down. And everyone will pay more out of pocket for insurance and have medical care denied. Forward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costs won't come down. And everyone will pay more out of pocket for insurance and have medical care denied. Forward!

no, costs will slowly but surely regress to medicare reimbursement levels for everything from hospital administered tylenol to liver transplants. and yes, there will be less procedures cuz the copays for elective surgeries will almost certainly increase. i think that's well and good. you?...i suspect not so much. Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, costs will slowly but surely regress to medicare reimbursement levels for everything from hospital administered tylenol to liver transplants. and yes, there will be less procedures cuz the copays for elective surgeries will almost certainly increase. i think that's well and good. you?...i suspect not so much.

Well, when qualified people stop entering medical school meaning medical care is left to mostly unqualified doctors and mid-levels, complication and death rates skyrocket, lawyers are still making bank on lawsuits, and the entire system becomes unsustainable because of waste, fraud, and abuse, as already occurs will everything the gubment gets their hands on, no, it won't be well and good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when qualified people stop entering medical school meaning medical care is left to mostly unqualified doctors and mid-levels, complication and death rates skyrocket, lawyers are still making bank on lawsuits, and the entire system becomes unsustainable because of waste, fraud, and abuse, as already occurs will everything the gubment gets their hands on, no, it won't be well and good.

 

Don't exaggerate. Even in Canuckistan the best of the best become doctors.

 

Still not sure how birdog1960 pulled it off. Outlier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is simply another mandate by the libs to provide a free program for those at the bottom of the economic scale while all others (employers, people who are employed and of course "the rich") get to pay more. 2700+ pages of bull manure and that's really all it means. The government will pick the winners and losers and do a crappy job of administering it. It won't promote personal responsibilty and it'll be one more "benefit" to keep the downtrodden trapped for life in a socialist dependency system that will guarantee a large voting block for the party that supports it. Nobody in their right !@#$ing mind would have analyzed our health care challenges and come up with this piece of shyt legislation. All you that support Dems should be quite proud. Nobody can defend this thing. It flat out sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is simply another mandate by the libs to provide a free program for those at the bottom of the economic scale while all others (employers, people who are employed and of course "the rich") get to pay more. 2700+ pages of bull manure and that's really all it means. The government will pick the winners and losers and do a crappy job of administering it. It won't promote personal responsibilty and it'll be one more "benefit" to keep the downtrodden trapped for life in a socialist dependency system that will guarantee a large voting block for the party that supports it. Nobody in their right !@#$ing mind would have analyzed our health care challenges and come up with this piece of shyt legislation. All you that support Dems should be quite proud. Nobody can defend this thing. It flat out sucks.

or it might provide basic healthcare for nearly all americans and help avoid epidemics of things like tb, pertussis and influenza that might well effect well heeled citizens if not for it.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

or it might provide basic healthcare for nearly all americans and help avoid epidemics of things like tb, pertussis and influenza that might well effect well heeled citizens if not for it.....

Who was being denied access to basic healthcare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...