Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 419800)

Hank, there is an invention known as "google" you may find helpful for these thing. .

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 419807)

Dissent. You never know. If Reagan had replaced Bush in 1984, and he certainly had the clout to do it at that point, we never would have had W. Do you think that would have made a difference or not? What if Biden gets elected in 2016,and then riding off his dad's coattails, Beau Biden gets elected in 2028 and destroys the country?!!?!

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 419801)

fuck that. let's make the bet "will the Dems equal how well the Rs did in 2002. if they do as well in the house AND senate, you win. otherwise you pay. you don't need do better in either house, just equal in both.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 419802)

We're all missing things, because I missed where health care reform addresses that problem in any way.

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 419807)

Dissent. You never know. If Reagan had replaced Bush in 1984, and he certainly had the clout to do it at that point, we never would have had W. Do you think that would have made a difference or not? What if Biden gets elected in 2016,and then riding off his dad's coattails, Beau Biden gets elected in 2028 and destroys the country?!!?!

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 419780)

I don't buy any of the projections. That doesn't mean I don't know the bill. That means I don't agree that any of the cost savings projected to come in in the bill are going to pan out.

Can I make that clearer? Here: I don't buy the numbers. You do. When I say, "This bill is a piece of shit," it's not because I am unfamiliar with its specifics. It's because I am familiar with them and, unlike you, I don't buy the assumptions or the projections. You and Ty and everybody else here argues a pile of projections, and pledges of future action in re: cost savings as though they're fact. They're not.

And no shit it will benefit providers and insurers. They're going to get a waterfall of federal money. WTF does that have to do with savings? Really? What exactly was your point there, other than to help prove mine?

And I'm not sore about this in the least. I don't really care, and why should I? It won't impact me, and if it does, I'll find a way to carve around whatever adverse impact that might be. I just happen to think you're a pack of deluded clowns for having a hard on for this bill. "Yay! Hope! Everybody gets a pony!" The more things change, the more they stay the same. If we're here in seven years, I'll take great pleasure in laughing at you when the press starts talking about how "Health care reform is hurting those it was supposed to help." It will. Seven years. Put a pin in it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 419818)

What is wrong with George W. Bush?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 419818)

What is wrong with George W. Bush?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 419819)

Great. Can't wait. Now shut the fuck up about it until then.

TM

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 419820)

After 8 years, it's a handwipe (somewhat ambiguous) that stirs you up?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 419814)

OK. Replacing Biden wouldn't make a difference [in the outcome of that election] because people don't vote for the VP and no one is voting against Biden.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 419813)

I never said it did, though I think there are some specific provisions that do (like requiring hospitals to post their prices). I'm just saying that the dream of a free market healthcare system is just that, a dream, because there are a host of sound reasons why countries all over the world have chosen a different model, and those reasons go beyond distributive justice.