and? I despise Lincoln, so you're not going to get a defense of him from me

5/20/2013 10:09:56 PM

Quote :

"You could say the same thing about lincoln and slavery."

ha he started opposing slavery when it would benefit him politically the most.

5/20/2013 10:11:48 PM

does the supposed context for coming out in favor of gay rights matter? does it matter that aaronburro thinks it was like "pulling teeth" for him to start the movement within the government? why?

he'll undoubtedly go down in history as the gay rights president. that's not up for debate. he's done a ton, regardless of whatever you imagine his true intentions for doing so were.

[Edited on May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2013 10:30:19 PM

Yes it matters. You don't get credit for hiding, avoiding, and dodging a question for the entirety of your political career just because you then made a speech when you couldn't be affected by said speech any more. You don't get credit for doing absolutely nothing for a cause and then having other people work their fucking asses off trying to get shit through state legislatures or up to the Supreme Court. Obama has done as much to help gay rights as I have done to help fight global warming.


seriously, lying through your teeth about something for 5 years doesn't mean shit to you?

[Edited on May 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2013 10:58:41 PM

do you get more or less credit for it than someone who actively opposes it?

Quote :

"and? I despise Lincoln, so you're not going to get a defense of him from me"

Yeah but your opinions are fucking retarded so I don't care what you think. Everyone else in america gives him credit for it, so in 100 years Obama will probably end up with credit for this, and you'll be as dead as your opinion.

[Edited on May 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2013 11:04:21 PM

Obama will credit for doing... nothing. Are you people forgetting all of the complaints last year from LGBT groups about how he hadn't done jack shit for them? Fuck you people are delusional about your Lord and Savior!

Seriously, he wanted NOTHING to do with gay rights his first term, but 4 months into his second term, after doing still nothing to advance it, now he's gonna be known for being the "gay rights" president? In what world does that make any lick of sense?

5/20/2013 11:05:59 PM

first president to endorse gay marriage

hasn't done jack shit

got it

[Edited on May 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2013 11:07:44 PM

yeah, after first opposing it for the entirety of his political career and only flip-flopping once the coast was clear. Sorry, I can do without "allies" like that

5/20/2013 11:08:43 PM

uh huh.

i'm assuming you're not gay. i bet gay people feel differently.

5/20/2013 11:09:38 PM

they sure as fuck didn't feel differently last year, when they were heavily criticizing him for not having done a damned thing for them.

5/20/2013 11:10:07 PM

and then he did.

yay

5/20/2013 11:10:53 PM

so if a guy ignores a girl for years upon years, but one day brings her a flower, that means he loves her and always has, right? please. Obama played the LGBT community like a fucking fiddle, and they are eating it up now that he has finally said something nice towards them.

5/20/2013 11:15:55 PM

no, it doesn't mean that. who implied that Obama has always loved the gays?

5/20/2013 11:18:41 PM

Seriously, why are you guys engaging aaronburro? Ignore or troll him, those are the only logical responses.

5/20/2013 11:57:42 PM

For not being gay, aaronburro sure knows a lot about what gay people think.

5/21/2013 1:06:48 AM

lol I was going to engage, but then ^^

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 2:14 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2013 2:13:11 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-obama-scandals-are-proven-and-ignored/275960/

-Obama has willfully failed to enforce the torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and duly ratified by the Senate, that compels him to investigate and prosecute torture.

-Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval.

-Obama and attorney-general Eric Holder have decided to remain in breach of the Geneva Conventions and be complicit themselves in covering up the war crimes of their predecessors

-He ordered the assassination of any American citizens in secret without due process, killing their teenage kids without ever explaining how or why that happened.

-He has refused to reveal even the legal reasoning he used to conclude his targeted killing program is lawful (basically playing the GW card of "I am the decider"

-He has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers.

-He has spied on millions of innocent Americans without a warrant or probable cause

-He automatically count dead military-aged males killed by U.S. drones as "militants"

-He signed a bill that enshrines in law the previously merely alleged executive power of indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects

-Not in the article, but looks like freedom of the press is in Obama's sights now. And to rub salt in the wound, that leaves a lot of people having to defend... Fox news.

5/21/2013 3:41:28 PM

exactly

5/21/2013 4:35:51 PM

If we're already talking Obama accomplishments/legacy, it's going to health care and the environment. Obamacare will absolutely change the course of health care in this country for the better. It's not just universal coverage and reforming the insurance industry, it's also pushing towards better models for care delivery, information exchange, electronic health records, etc... The impact won't be truly realized until well after he's out of office.

He also pumped $90 billion into green energy which was orders of magnitude more than ever before. Along with stricter fuel economy standards and EPA regulations on coal plants, he's made huge strides towards combating climate change. Again, we probably went see the full impact of all this for a decade, but that doesn't diminish the accomplishment.

Granted, most of this was done in only his first two years, but that's also all the time he had before the GOP started filibustering everything. The economy would also be doing a lot better without all the austerity being imposed by the GOP.

5/21/2013 4:46:25 PM

I hope to God those things stand out in the future, because it'll mean we'd have reversed the course on the erosion of civil liberties between now and then.

However, I don't see that happening as both parties seem to be more than happy to turn the US into a police state.

5/21/2013 4:55:49 PM

Obamacare (ACA) is not universal healthcare, its just more of the same privatized system we already have with some added tax penalties and coverage rules. It's one ofthe worst things about his presidency, because it has absolutely killed the movement for universal, national healthcare. There is pretty much no chance that we get actual universal or national healthcare now, obamacare is a bill written by pro-outsourcing conservatives and the private healthcare industry, any true liberal or progressive should be furious.

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM. Reason : sp]

5/21/2013 5:11:45 PM

I have to say, the most troubling thing recently is the assault on free press. The way that James Rosen is being targeted is both bizarre and frightening. I mean honestly, Fox News is hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity, but what the fuck is the justice department thinking?

5/21/2013 6:03:09 PM

^^ universal health care would never happen in this country ever. That was the best alternative.

5/21/2013 6:31:18 PM

actually, Chance, Obamacare is a great way to get towards universal healthcare. Put simply, it will destroy what little bit of a functional healthcare system we have left, at which point liberals like you will turn around with shit eat grins and tell us all about how "the free market doesn't work."

5/21/2013 7:38:52 PM

and here i thought we had the best health care system in the world? . . .

5/21/2013 7:53:57 PM

Obama supporters poorly justifying the abomination that is ACA is hilarious and disheartening at the same time. "Real" liberals (i.e., the ones with some semblance of an intellectual, philosophical foundation rather than petty partisan ties) see Obamacare for what it is: a fucked up, frankenstein mix of market inefficiencies and government managed bloat. This isn't a step towards universal health care. This is a giveaway to insurance companies and will end up fucking over people even worse when this all plays out.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/



Let's see...the individuals that represent the lowest cost/risk will see the biggest increases, and the individuals that represent the highest cost/risk will see the biggest decreases. This is the shit I'm talking about. Taking the inefficiencies inherent to a market system, and then prohibit the mechanisms that would allow these inefficiencies to clear out.

Get fucked, Obama. You're a brilliant guy, and you're a complete sociopath.

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 8:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2013 8:39:33 PM

Quote :

"Get fucked, Obama. You're a brilliant guy, and you're a complete sociopath. "

hyperbole much?

as an obama supporter (at least re: his domestic agenda, broadly), i see lots of flaws with PPACA. but the good that i see from it is that i feel it is the beginning of people in this country seeing healthcare coverage as something they deserve and have a right to if they work hard.

i have no doubt that (good and bad) parts of the law will change in the coming 10-20 years. but just like most social welfare programs, it will be incredibly popular once fully implemented. it will probably save many lives. but there's no way to know. we'll see.

5/21/2013 9:04:51 PM

Quote :

"hyperbole much?"

I'm not exaggerating. I think he is brilliant, and I think he is a sociopath, but almost all politicians are. No one can give the orders that Obama has given if they have a properly developed sense of empathy.

Quote :

"but the good that i see from it is that i feel it is the beginning of people in this country seeing healthcare coverage as something they deserve and have a right to if they work hard."

That's a really vague and "feel good" take on it. It's always encouraging that Americans can actually have a greater sense of entitlement than they already do, though.

Quote :

"it will probably save many lives. but there's no way to know. we'll see."

Yeah, when you're dealing with the health and financial outcomes for over 300 million Americans, the strategy of winging it is as viable as any other.

5/21/2013 9:27:35 PM

Do you ACA supporters support all privatization, or does healthcare get a pass for some reason? Are you also in favor of school vouchers?

ACA is not universal or national healthcare, and any liberal should be opposed to it. (its also not socialized healthcare, no matter how many times Fox says it. Socialized healthcare is what we need)

5/21/2013 9:38:02 PM

i would prefer single payer, as it's cheaper and better. but ppaca will cover more people than were covered before. so that's good, but not ideal.

5/21/2013 11:20:20 PM

I don't agree that we necessarily need socialized healthcare (but we need something achieves the intended goal of socialized healthcare), but we definitely don't need profit-driven middlemen involved in healthcare, which is what most insurers are. An executive shouldn't get a bonus, when their company is simultaneously denying medical treatments to sick customers.

The insurance mandate is a handout to corporations, which should make Paul Ryan happy, but I think the health exchange is a good idea. Standards for health offering is a good idea, as well as better oversight of the insurance industry.

5/21/2013 11:47:00 PM

I think the ACA will play out over the next 10 years and will end up highlighting the advantages of a single payer, socialized system, and the disadvantages of a for-profit, strictly market system. We all know that people are getting gouged for healthcare. What the ACA will do is cover every single American, either directly through insurance or indirectly through a tax penalty, and in states that create insurance exchanges it will show that the government is the only entity large and powerful enough (if implemented correctly, which is a challenge all its own) to reduce the costs of health care to the consumer. This is in direct comparison to states that will opt out of the exchange system, which will continue to see their healthcare costs rise at an above average rate (because the government won't determine what is the actual fair price for services, it will be determined by a private insurer who is motivated to collude with healthcare providers to gouge the customer). Once people see, once and for all, that the lack of regulation of the healthcare industry leads to ridiculously higher costs and lower quality of service (as evidenced by literally every industrialized nation besides the USA) there will be a political opportunity to institute a single-payer system, a political reality that was impossible to realize in 2009/10. At this point, there will be political will and an already existing institutional structure in the state governments to handle healthcare, we'll move to a system like in Canada or Germany.

tl;dr It's only a matter of time until Americans realize that providing health services to everybody on a for-profit business model is basically the definition of evil. Creating wealth through death.

5/22/2013 12:42:21 AM

Quote :

" -Obama has willfully failed to enforce the torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and duly ratified by the Senate, that compels him to investigate and prosecute torture. -Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval. -Obama and attorney-general Eric Holder have decided to remain in breach of the Geneva Conventions and be complicit themselves in covering up the war crimes of their predecessors -He ordered the assassination of any American citizens in secret without due process, killing their teenage kids without ever explaining how or why that happened. -He has refused to reveal even the legal reasoning he used to conclude his targeted killing program is lawful (basically playing the GW card of "I am the decider" -He has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers. -He has spied on millions of innocent Americans without a warrant or probable cause -He automatically count dead military-aged males killed by U.S. drones as "militants" -He signed a bill that enshrines in law the previously merely alleged executive power of indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects -Not in the article, but looks like freedom of the press is in Obama's sights now. And to rub salt in the wound, that leaves a lot of people having to defend... Fox news."

The only thing I disagree with is this:

-He has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers.


He's not waging a war on whistleblowers anymore. He's waging a war on journalism. And the fact that he's going after Fox News is unfortunate/brilliant, because it will most likely keep self declared liberals from protesting.

5/22/2013 3:06:24 AM

The Fox News journalist is neither the only whistleblower or journalist they have gone after

5/22/2013 6:46:10 AM

Quote :

"the disadvantages of a for-profit, strictly market system. We all know that people are getting gouged for healthcare."

Quote :

"Once people see, once and for all, that the lack of regulation of the healthcare industry "

Holy shit

At one time we had a true market system, that is when your grandparents talked about doctors making house calls. Todays system is so far from a market system and lack of regulations you have to be pretty ignorant to believe that. As the government has gotten more involved in this industry over several decades have you noticed anything in relation to cost happening? The two most subsidized industries have the fastest cost growth (education and health care), so MORE govt is probably the solution THIS TIME too. LOL

I would say most things that people hate about the current system is directly caused by govt. And their solutions to fix their previous mess usually doesn't work out well. At least not for long.

And to whoever posted the graph about the young paying for the old. That is how most of these entitlement programs work. We take from the least wealthy group to give to the most wealthy group so they wont have to use their money on shit they need/consume. Grand ole system they have set up.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 9:09:06 AM

Are you seriously arguing for 'lack of regulations' in the medical field?

5/22/2013 9:15:59 AM

Quote :

"As the government has gotten more involved in this industry over several decades have you noticed anything in relation to cost happening?"

That part of it is a chicken-egg problem. Did the government get in because prices were going up or did prices go up because the government was getting in?

You really have to trace the root of this problem back to employers offering health insurance. This started being standard when the government tried to put a ceiling on wages during WW2, which was stupid, but I don't think anyone could have seen the impact of that being this large and long term, and private companies are partly to blame for this as well. But placing blame doesn't really solve anything. I think we know now the thing that caused this problem was the salary ceiling, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that as a solution, but that doesn't automatically mean that any government-involved solution is destined for the same outcome.

5/22/2013 9:31:48 AM

no system that funnels money out of a community will be a sustainable one.

5/22/2013 9:40:05 AM

Quote :

"so MORE govt is probably the solution THIS TIME too. LOL"

only government is the solution, not shipping public money to private companies is the solution

5/22/2013 9:51:08 AM

Quote :

"You really have to trace the root of this problem back to employers offering health insurance. This started being standard when the government tried to put a ceiling on wages during WW2, which was stupid, but I don't think anyone could have seen the impact of that being this large and long term, and private companies are partly to blame for this as well. But placing blame doesn't really solve anything. I think we know now the thing that caused this problem was the salary ceiling, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that as a solution, but that doesn't automatically mean that any government-involved solution is destined for the same outcome."

exactly. The govt tried to intervene in another market (wage) and it spun off another problem. Employers now could not offer more money to attract or keep better employees so they adapted and started offering benefits. It was then ruled that those benefits weren't taxable but if you bought your own insurance the individual didn't get the same tax benefits, skewing the model more towards employer based.

But lets take a second to look into other issues. I suppose the LACK of regulation that forces hospitals to see everyone regardless of their complaint or ability to pay. Runny nose? go to the ER. etc. I would say that is the biggest factor skewing the market, initially. So as the price of care is increasing because people are using the ER as a primary care provider (why pay for something when you can get it for free) the government decides to "fix" this. We will "save taxpayer money" by GIVING poor people free insurance. Now they will go to primary care providers instead of the ER. Sounds good, only the opposite happened. Now many people who didn't feel right about using the ER and skipping the bill now were relieved of that guilt and those visits increased as well as costs. Now Medicaid is either the largest expense for all states or is projected to be soon. So much for that.

Now for insurance companies, sure they saw a new opportunity with the trend of health insurance being popular and sadly employer based. So instead of convincing millions of individuals that their company offered the best at the best price they could now convince a few that affected millions. Far from free market. Then you couple govt regulations and mandates on these insurances. So govt started forcing them to cover routine stuff. So insurance moved away from catastrophic to prepaid health care. Couple with other barriers to market, laws against shopping across state lines, etc. and it became a mess. And the govt is still expanding what insurance companies MUST cover, thus ONLY increasing the cost. Birth control was the latest example that was in the news. Some states are forcing insurance companies to cover sex change operations, etc. It is only going to get worse, IMO. And just how Medicaid, medicare has expanded the ACA will expand when the demand for those who pay little to nothing for the care they consume demand more and have the numbers to make them relevant for elections. The history is clear on that, sadly

5/22/2013 9:57:29 AM

Quote :

"You really have to trace the root of this problem back to employers offering health insurance. This started being standard when the government tried to put a ceiling on wages during WW2, which was stupid, but I don't think anyone could have seen the impact of that being this large and long term, and private companies are partly to blame for this as well. But placing blame doesn't really solve anything. I think we know now the thing that caused this problem was the salary ceiling, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that as a solution, but that doesn't automatically mean that any government-involved solution is destined for the same outcome."

Right, and then the IRS declared that any benefits provided on top of wages were not included in taxable income. Now we wonder why we have this pervasive third-party payer model.

All government-involved solutions are not destined for the same outcome, no, but the people with a cursory knowledge of history on this matter are tired of hearing about our "unregulated free market health care system".

5/22/2013 9:59:47 AM

Quote :

"We will "save taxpayer money" by GIVING poor people free insurance. Now they will go to primary care providers instead of the ER. Sounds good, only the opposite happened."

that's not what will drive those savings

If someone comes to the ER, the hospital has to provide them with at certain level of care. If they can't pay, the hospital passes that cost to paying customer through rate increases. If they have insurance, even if they use the ER, those costs are not passed onto paying customers in the form of higher rates. They don't need to move to a primary care physician to see those savings, the hospital just needs someone to pay them.

If you don't think the hospital should have to provide them some level of care, then you're a psychopath and there is no point discussing healthcare with you

5/22/2013 10:05:38 AM

Quote :

"The govt tried to intervene in another market (wage) and it spun off another problem. Employers now could not offer more money to attract or keep better employees so they adapted and started offering benefits."

How does the government hold all the blame for that while employers hold none?

5/22/2013 10:10:08 AM

The government was the one holding the gun, so they get all the blame. If you forcibly prevent a company from paying higher wages, they'll adapt in any way they can. Businesses aren't government. They can't steal from people to stay afloat, at least not unpunished.

5/22/2013 10:29:06 AM

Quote :

"All government-involved solutions are not destined for the same outcome, no, but the people with a cursory knowledge of history on this matter are tired of hearing about our "unregulated free market health care system"."

exactly. I cant fathom how anyone can say that with a straight face. It has to be ignorance, which you can excuse.

Quote :

"How does the government hold all the blame for that while employers hold none?"

There is a natural market. Good employees will demand more money. Employers are constantly in a fight to get new talent and keep their best. The govt said employers could not offer more money so they adapted and offered them more compensation in a different way. This is like blocking a river at one point, which causes the river to flow to another area which causes damage and trying to say the damn had little to do with it.

5/22/2013 10:29:38 AM

nevermind, not going to phone post.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 10:37 AM. Reason : . ]

5/22/2013 10:35:48 AM

nevermind, i am going to phone it.

this entire argument, really, is pointless. you're trying to figure out how to make a healthcare system that is adequate within the constraints of a monetary system that explicitly ignores the needs of the people in favor of money. such a healthcare system cannot exist, by definition.

unless you want healthcare that only supports rich people, of course. that's not only a morally vapid stance, but one that is basically stupid. middle class today is poor tomorrow; for your own sake, for totally selfish reasons, you should seek a solution that works for everyone, because you are everyone and you are not special.

5/22/2013 11:39:43 AM

Quote :

"this entire argument, really, is pointless. you're trying to figure out how to make a healthcare system that is adequate within the constraints of a monetary system that explicitly ignores the needs of the people in favor of money. such a healthcare system cannot exist, by definition. unless you want healthcare that only supports rich people, of course."

Bullshit. Every business operates to make money. If they do not, they cease to exist. Please explain to me why capitalism works in just about every other industry to bring goods and services to people of ALL income levels while increasing innovation and being pushed to keep prices down, but health care is different. And despite the clear evidence that things have gotten worse the more govt has taken over health care, why do people continue to push for more of a takeover? Is it simple ignorance?

And just some examples of for profit models that start out only for the rich. Heating and air, indoor bathrooms, tv, cars, on and on.

5/22/2013 1:02:07 PM

Your answer lies in comments like this:

Quote :

"If you don't think the hospital should have to provide them some level of care, then you're a psychopath and there is no point discussing healthcare with you"

There are people out there that, under the guise of "compassion", actually believe in and advocate a system of human ownership. They believe that they have a right to your knowledge, expertise, and labor. You are property.

5/22/2013 1:14:32 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me why capitalism works in just about every other industry to bring goods and services to people of ALL income levels while increasing innovation and being pushed to keep prices down, but health care is different."

Facts not in evidence. That's an extremely bold claim.

Quote :

"There are people out there that, under the guise of "compassion", actually believe in and advocate a system of human ownership. They believe that they have a right to your knowledge, expertise, and labor. You are property."

So what? What does that have to do with people who have actual compassionate ideas? There are people here that believe crazy ideas like the best system of government is no government.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 1:22:28 PM