Obama says "corPSEman"....lol

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I kinda threw that one in there

I'd figured.

Oh, and btw, I was in the fucking navy, and I couldn't pronounce Boatswain's Mate right, until someone explained it to me.

Even then, I was like, "Well why don't you just fucking spell it Bosuns Mate, if that's how you say it?

JC

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I'd figured.

Oh, and btw, I was in the fucking navy, and I couldn't pronounce Boatswain's Mate right, until someone explained it to me.

Even then, I was like, "Well why don't you just fucking spell it Bosuns Mate, if that's how you say it?

JC

Kind of what I feel about Arkansas

[smileyman]

Arkansans cant say it right either. And then there's the whole Razorback/hawg/pig sooeee thing

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

....The Republicans drafted up a bill (pretty much copied from the Whole Foods founder) that would have changed healthcare significantly. Purchasing across state lines (something only your federal healthcare plan can accomplish if passed), allowing people who purchase healthcare plans outside of a large company (such as a small business owner) to deduct it on their taxes, and removing mandates on what health insurance companies can provide (such as mandatory hair plug coverage). Other than some bullshit about the government not covering abortions (which I agree with but was a ploy to play to their base) the Republican plan did want to change healthcare......

I listened to the whole 1 hour and 25 minutes. Honestly, I thought he put the GOP in there place on every question asked. I was pretty impressed to say the least as he didn't seem to get tripped up on anything.

Obama countered the Republicans health care ideas pretty well (at least from his view). While I do not think that doing nothing is going to result in an 8 trillion dollar deficit over 10 years, I do think that he explained pretty clearly why some of the Republican ideas won't work or are insignificant i.e Tort Reform and Purchasing Insurance across State Lines.

The one fundamental principle that I do not see eye to eye on is the assertion that everybody is entitled to healthcare. While the idea is noble in all we really cannot afford it.

[smileyman]

Everyone already gets health care. My provider was eager to pay my hospitals trumped up billing knowing that it included items that were unecessary but were added to help them cover other patients who did not have coverage or pay the reduced costs of their procedures.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Are you serious? Do you watch anything on TV besides Olbermann?

101 and I watch it together every night, just because he's so dreamy...

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

The Republicans drafted up a bill (pretty much copied from the Whole Foods founder) that would have changed healthcare significantly. Purchasing across state lines (something only your federal healthcare plan can accomplish if passed), allowing people who purchase healthcare plans outside of a large company (such as a small business owner) to deduct it on their taxes, and removing mandates on what health insurance companies can provide (such as mandatory hair plug coverage). Other than some bullshit about the government not covering abortions (which I agree with but was a ploy to play to their base) the Republican plan did want to change healthcare.

Wether you agree with the Republican plan or not, you can't accuse them of not wanting to change it. You know it, I know it, and Obama sure as hell knows it.

Listen, Pebbles, the Republicans have had ample opportunities to reform health care in the past. Did they? No. All they've done is look for loop holes their drug/insurance company contributors could crawl through on their path to higher profits, with less and less benefits for the patient.

So spare me the, "Republicans want reform" propaganda, as history, with a few rare exceptions, shows just the opposite.

JC

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

I listened to the whole 1 hour and 25 minutes. Honestly, I thought he put the GOP in there place on every question asked. I was pretty impressed to say the least as he didn't seem to get tripped up on anything.

Wow. Look at us, all agreeing and shit. I know that must have hurt to say out loud.

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

The one fundamental principle that I do not see eye to eye on is the assertion that everybody is entitled to healthcare. While the idea is noble in all we really cannot afford it.

That's one we will never agree on. What better way to judge a society, than on how it takes care of it's own members?

Like they say in the Marine Corps, "Never leave a man behind".

JC

[EpyonXero]

I really think that live debate thing should be a regular event, like the British Question Time.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

No, it means exactly what he said, Republicans want to maintain the status quo on health care. In truth, the Republicans didn't offer up anything that would significantly change how health care works. They put up some half-assed tort reforms, that according to the CBO, would have resulted in dick, as far as savings go.

What the CBO report actually said was they estimated a $4.3 billion savings in mandatory spending and $160 million in discretionary spending from 2010-2019 if tort reform was instituted. The CBO report also only assigned numbers to savings for the government, not savings to consumers. They stated that one of their previous reports could not find enough evidence from states that had instituted tort reform that it had a significant effect, but they also mentioned reports from others that estimated a 7% to 9% drop in spending. Why they would estimate around $4.5 billion in savings to the government without at least a corresponding percentage savings to everyone else doesn't make much sense to me.

As for Navy terms, one word: forecastle.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

What the CBO report actually said was they estimated a $4.3 billion savings in mandatory spending and $160 million in discretionary spending from 2010-2019 if tort reform was instituted. The CBO report also only assigned numbers to savings for the government, not savings to consumers. They stated that one of their previous reports could not find enough evidence from states that had instituted tort reform that it had a significant effect, but they also mentioned reports from others that estimated a 7% to 9% drop in spending. Why they would estimate around $4.5 billion in savings to the government without at least a corresponding percentage savings to everyone else doesn't make much sense to me.

Well that's just it, you can spin those numbers all day long, and you still come up with no savings for consumers.

Originally Posted by goof2

As for Navy terms, one word: forecastle.

I'll see your forecastle, and raise you Gunwales.

JC