Thread: Told you so?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Why? Because your making a massive assumption. We all know there were policies out there that did not fit inside the obamacare law. In fact millions and it already came out the he knew that when he lied to everyone. Insurance companies will get their share of the blame when they get caught fucking people. Right now obama got caught so its on him.

I can't wait for you to post pics of your visit to DC protesting like a crazed dog in front of the WH.

Give 'em hell, Chesty!

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I can't wait for you to post pics of your visit to DC protesting like a crazed dog in front of the WH.

Give 'em hell, Chesty!

$10 says he'll have a bottle of ketchup in his hand, as a gift for Obama.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

This begs the question... Do you see the average American as a bunch of 10 year olds and government as a parent? I am sincerely hoping your answer is no. If your answer is yes, I could not disagree with you more. When you mention "problems with democracy" and then seems to infer government in a parental role, this concerns me a great deal. Concerns me that any American would see government this way.

Of course not, you interpreted my example too litterally. It was an extreme example ment to illustrate that a government in which is dictated by the same group of people in which the government resides over will inherently have an affinity for making choices which directly and (usually) immediately benefit the people. Which is also to say that many people (not all, but many) only concern themselves with issues that relate to themselves. Futhermore you assume that there exists no bias when users vote. Both bias and indifference (will call it this for short) combine to result in amoral and tortious/ancillary rulings (best term I could find).

Perfect example is gay rights. The main subset of advocates lies obviously, in the homosexuals who are directly effected by a lack of rights; with a (likely) smaller subset who are not homosexual but do concern themselves with gay rights because of knowing someone who is homosexual and affected by this (are the indirect); and finally an even smaller subset whom are not homosexual and know no one directly affected (the satellites).

My point is that there exists an argueably clear line (denial of rights to a group of people based on a minority difference) and futhermore one thats resurfaced time and time again (black slavery, women voting, etc; a group of people denied rights based on a superficial difference).


Its hard for any human to concern themselves with issues that they are not directly effected by, harder for indirect, and even harder for completely unrelated to the individual (propaganda may help or hurt). Furethermore, the voting system almost forces users to vote on all topics (and not just ones in which they have researched). Do we all research every topic that appears on every public voting? Can we vote without bias? Do we prioritize issues based on the number of those affected, or do we prioritize by selfesh values? These issues are not all the issues that plague all forums goverments but they are common resurfacing problems with forms of democracy.

Tablet-

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Again, I think my post is indicative of what is happening with many of these 'cancellations'.

So why not level some of the blame at insurance companies, who have been boning people for years, and not solely at obamacare?

Because Obamacare is the vehicle they are using to fuck consumers. It allowed them to get out of their contractual obligations with people and MAKE THEM PAY MORE FOR COVERAGE. How do you not see this?

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Because Obamacare is the vehicle they are using to fuck consumers. It allowed them to get out of their contractual obligations with people and MAKE THEM PAY MORE FOR COVERAGE. How do you not see this?

True but to be fair they could and have raised their rates before as well. This is just the first time they were able to go across the board with it and without having to go to each state and put in the request.

So to me the key question here is is it better to have "crappy" insurance you can afford, of "good" insurance you can't? All of these people that have had their insurance cancelled had the option of "better" insurance all along, but for whatever reason chose the plans that were recently cancelled because they are "sub-standard". They now face the options of paying more for insurance that they likely can't afford, or paying the fins and not having insurance. Neither option sounds ideal to me.

Originally Posted by Bunni

Of course not, you interpreted my example too litterally. It was an extreme example ment to illustrate that a government in which is dictated by the same group of people in which the government resides over will inherently have an affinity for making choices which directly and (usually) immediately benefit the people. Which is also to say that many people (not all, but many) only concern themselves with issues that relate to themselves. Futhermore you assume that there exists no bias when users vote. Both bias and indifference (will call it this for short) combine to result in amoral and tortious/ancillary rulings (best term I could find).

Perfect example is gay rights. The main subset of advocates lies obviously, in the homosexuals who are directly effected by a lack of rights; with a (likely) smaller subset who are not homosexual but do concern themselves with gay rights because of knowing someone who is homosexual and affected by this (are the indirect); and finally an even smaller subset whom are not homosexual and know no one directly affected (the satellites).

My point is that there exists an argueably clear line (denial of rights to a group of people based on a minority difference) and futhermore one thats resurfaced time and time again (black slavery, women voting, etc; a group of people denied rights based on a superficial difference).


Its hard for any human to concern themselves with issues that they are not directly effected by, harder for indirect, and even harder for completely unrelated to the individual (propaganda may help or hurt). Furethermore, the voting system almost forces users to vote on all topics (and not just ones in which they have researched). Do we all research every topic that appears on every public voting? Can we vote without bias? Do we prioritize issues based on the number of those affected, or do we prioritize by selfesh values? These issues are not all the issues that plague all forums goverments but they are common resurfacing problems with forms of democracy.

Tablet-

The problem you cite here has already been covered in Constitutional law. So now it's really up to the judicial system to vette that out as complainants come forward regarding violations of their constitutional rights. There is no shortage of people in the legal profession willing to fight that fight either.

There's your answer. No parent needed, nor any moral judgment. The constitution is clear; if someone's rights are truly being violated, at this point it's a simple matter of arguing in court. Doesn't matter who was affected, though the American system of government does depend on the idea that the individual will always seek out their own self interests - something that was true, is true and will always be true. That's the beauty of the system - it is independent of political party with respect to the rights of the individual by design.

My problem is with everyone calling this a problem and trying to change it to their own advantage instead of using it as intended. Government by its nature is not a moral animal. In fact it uses often morality as a mechanism for control. The long history of Democrats leveraging social issues to get elected and expand the role of government beyond constitutional boundaries is a perfect example. Parenting involves morality - teaching children right from wrong, as well as protecting them from themselves. So the parenting reference is inadequate in terms of how people should view government.

This brings me to another point...

This is a common logical fallacy that anyone who is passionate about politics can make, though it seems to happen more with liberals. Libs tend to view people who do not believe what they believe as "evil" in some way, and make moral judgments about what kind of people conservatives are, while conservatives tend to simply see liberals as illogical and ideological. Conservatives don't usually tend to think liberals are evil; moreso they see liberals as well meaning but misguided. Obviously this is not a hard fast rule, but this is what we usually see.

How many times do you see liberals using media platforms to characterize conservatives as racist, greedy evil or immoral people without pointing out actual racist, greedy, immoral acts they themselves are committing? How many times do you see Conservatives doing that to liberals? The conservative argument is usually more geared toward calling liberals crazy or at best unrealistic rather than saying they are evil.

Interesting food for thought anyway...

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So to me the key question here is is it better to have "crappy" insurance you can afford, of "good" insurance you can't? All of these people that have had their insurance cancelled had the option of "better" insurance all along, but for whatever reason chose the plans that were recently cancelled because they are "sub-standard". They now face the options of paying more for insurance that they likely can't afford, or paying the fins and not having insurance. Neither option sounds ideal to me.

Agree, but... The real point though is that people really don't buy something they don't want or can't use. So people losing these plans for more expensive plans they can't afford is arbitrary and unnecessary. Obamacare is "helping" people who didn't want to be helped. I mean, most of us have insurance through our employer, so let me use a more simple example. What if the government came to you and said you were no longer allowed to have the car insurance you currently have; that the coverage is not enough. What if they said that your car insurance would be terminated and that you would need to buy a policy that is 30% to 50% more expensive within the next 90 days?

This is essentially what we are talking about. It's ridiculous, and I can completely understand why not one Republican voted for it.

Trying having to purchase commercial auto insurance just because a company says thats what they want you to have. It burns my ass every month paying for that shit when i know it serves no purpose. My damn health insurance went up and progressive tried to hit me with a 300% increase when my policy restarts at the end of the month. Obviously i have already found new auto insurance. Fucking commercial policies are a joke. End rant.