• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

sunmaster14 said:
Recognizing sarcasm is apparently not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

It's quite a bit stronger than your ability to administer it.

Here's a hint: When using sarcasm in text form, don't phrase it like you would any other statement. You must use either use content or context to indicate the sarcasm.

For example, when responding to the question "Do you have evidence for that claim?":

Yes, I have evidence. = Poor sarcasm

Of course I have evidence for my rhetorical point that wasn't meant to be factual. Wait right here while I get it. = Good sarcasm

Maybe practice on your own until you feel you have a better handle on it, then try it out here once you do.

Well, according to your definition of "lie," which is a reasonable one I'll admit, it is necessary to show that (1) Obama told a falsehood, (2) he knew he was telling a falsehood, and (3) he told that falsehood with the intention of deceiving his audience.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have conceded (1) already. I believe (3) follows from (2) in this case because he repeated the falsehood on many occasions in front of millions of people, and it was clearly relevant to advancing the cause he was advocating at the time (i.e. rallying political support for Obamacare). So if you stipulate (1) and that (3) follows from (2), all I need to do is prove (2).

Alas, I cannot do it, because even though his own advisors published reports which showed that his "lie" could not possibly be true, and indeed that Obamacare was specifically designed to make it not true, it is possible that his advisors never told him. He may very well have learned that not all people could keep their health plan or their doctor from watching the news in the fall of 2013, just as he has learned so many unpleasant things about his administration.
Click to expand...

That being said, can you provide a reason why you feel comfortable repeatedly asserting Obama lied, while at the same time bending over backwards to declare any and all falsehoods from Republicans as not-lies?

Other than rank partisanship, I mean.
 
sunmaster14 said:
For anybody who doesn't have strong political connections or influence with the government.
Click to expand...
So the people in the most prosperous countries in the world (European countries, Scandinavia specifically) just all happen to have political connections?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Despite what single payer proponents claim, the US system is not market-based at all. Governmental distortions invade every nook and cranny.
Click to expand...
All those completely government run health care systems work a lot better AND cheaper than the US. Yet somehow the US, which is really the only industrialized nation with a significant portion of it's health care market which is free market based, runs terribly. And your conclusion is that the problem is with the government part?
 
Unabogie said:
I suggest if you're going to come in here boasting of your superior intellect, you better bring your A game or you're going to get smacked around.
Click to expand...

I would never boast of my superior intellect. My superior humility precludes it.
 
johnny karate said:
<snip>

That being said, can you provide a reason why you feel comfortable repeatedly asserting Obama lied, while at the same time bending over backwards to declare any and all falsehoods from Republicans as not-lies?

Other than rank partisanship, I mean.
Click to expand...

Rank partisanship isn't a good enough reason? I guess my threshold for saying that a politician lied is pretty high. I admit now that Obama possibly didn't lie. It's at least as likely that he had absolutely no understanding of the consequences of the 2,000 page law that he signed. He left most of the drafting to Congress after all.
 
Peephole said:
All those completely government run health care systems work a lot better AND cheaper than the US. Yet somehow the US, which is really the only industrialized nation with a significant portion of it's health care market which is free market based, runs terribly. And your conclusion is that the problem is with the government part?
Click to expand...

Why do you think those systems work better than the US system? Also, the US health care market has almost no market mechanism at all. There does seem to be a heavily regulated market for a financial product which can be used to pay for health care though, but it almost seems as if it was designed to insulate the health care consumer from the cost of his consumption decisions. Interesting that.
 
Peephole said:
So the people in the most prosperous countries in the world (European countries, Scandinavia specifically) just all happen to have political connections?
Click to expand...

The people in those nations understand that government policy can make a big difference in the quality of life for the average person. They then demand that politicians demonstrate the ability to run an effective government that makes life better. Those that fail to do so are replaced.

In the US, a large segment of the population has been taught that government only makes things worse. They vote for politicians that want to dismantle government and lead us to the glorious society envisioned by Ayn Rand.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Rank partisanship isn't a good enough reason? I guess my threshold for saying that a politician lied is pretty high. I admit now that Obama possibly didn't lie. It's at least as likely that he had absolutely no understanding of the consequences of the 2,000 page law that he signed. He left most of the drafting to Congress after all.
Click to expand...

So now Obama is either lying or just clueless.

Well, I guess it's progress... of a sort.

However, I am still left wondering why you give Republicans so much latitude with their "hyperbolic political commentary" and yet demand such exactitude from Obama.

Perhaps I hit on the answer in my previous post.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why do you think those systems work better than the US system? Also, the US health care market has almost no market mechanism at all. There does seem to be a heavily regulated market for a financial product which can be used to pay for health care though, but it almost seems as if it was designed to insulate the health care consumer from the cost of his consumption decisions. Interesting that.
Click to expand...
I guess the highlighted part is one reason why you think the US healthcare market is distorted.

This below post is from a few years ago but seems relevant:

It also demonstrates how to be amusing and make a point sarcastically

Cain said:
If we had an actual free market, then most of these problems would disappear. First of all, in a free market there are no barriers to entry, and this assumption holds up particularly well in the case of health-care where anyone can start a local business. All of this competition means lower prices for you (and lower profits for business). Second, consumers are informed (no asymmetries); they're not swayed by silly superstitions and they don't need something like ten years of training. Moreover, bad decisions are perfectly reversible and consumers have lots of time to shop around. Third, indivisible benefits and costs: not happenin' here. When other people get sick and die, it's on them. Some people -- yes, I'm talking about communists -- like those two old white guys in the video -- will complain about how much is lost in "worker productivity" on account of days missed due to tooth aches and chest pains. Well, boohoo. Fourth: the children. It's actually better if fewer kids see doctors because it toughens them up. It's like my doctor says, "what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger." This may sound counter-intuitive to you. If it does sound counter-intuitive, then you're stupid, and you need to get your "duh-face" checked out... if you can. Fif: no government bureaucrats. Instead of decisions made by some poindexter in Washington who thinks he knows more than your doctor, under a free market they'll be made by some business major in Connecticut who doesn't care if he knows better than your doctor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Ah, okay. So the grandfather aspects of the ACA were deliberately added to allow Obama to state his lie.

This is taking the concept of "critical thinking" to a whole new level :D

Oh, and maybe those thoughts should be taken to a whole new forum.
Click to expand...

Objectively speaking the standards make it difficult to keep grandfathered plans even if the insurance companies wanted to:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called "grandfathering," which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" when seeking re-election last year.
Click to expand...
 
Follow up... Well, as much as I'd like to find a way to blame the ACA for the insurance problem we're presently having, I can't. Unless I can blame the ACA for a stupid clerical error that has now been straightened out, I guess. :blush:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom