• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puddles

Banned
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Me: Other countries runt heir healthcare systems for half of what we do!
Conservative: it's only cheaper because we do all the research here! Also wait times! Rationing!
Me: But they cover 100% of their population.

Argument "They cover 100% of their population" hits for 0 damage! It's completely ineffective!
 

Clevinger

Member
colorado thinks romney would be better on national security compared to obama.

wut?
ibuh61HGM91oNw.gif

Who could blame them after that magnificent foreign policy tour he just went on?
 

codhand

Member
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Actually most of my conservative friends now agree single-payer would work best, but they are opposed to a system that lacks "incentive".

And yeah, hearing them prattle on about how fantastic our system is here, I'm always amazed at how familiar conservatives are with the flaws of other countries health care systems.
 

KingGondo

Banned
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Me: Other countries runt heir healthcare systems for half of what we do!
Conservative: it's only cheaper because we do all the research here! Also wait times! Rationing!
Me: But they cover 100% of their population.

Argument "They cover 100% of their population" hits for 0 damage! It's completely ineffective!
Just ask them if they think healthcare is a right, and leave it at that.

If they don't the next line of questioning should be:

1) Do you have insurance?

And if not:

2) What would happen if you got very sick or had a traumatic injury requiring extensive care?
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The Romneys won’t tell us how, or even if, they assigned super-low values to the A shares, but there are a couple of ways to do it. One is to use standard options models to price the shares—then feed inappropriate assumptions into those models. Romney could alternatively have used a model called liquidation valuation, which Kleinbard says would have been “completely inappropriate.” Without seeing the assumptions used on Romney’s tax returns from the years when those lowball A shares were squirted into his I.R.A., we cannot know how he did it. Whatever methods he used, however, the valuations were, according to Andrew Smith, of Houlihan Capital in Chicago, “pushing the envelope.” (Andrea Saul retorts, “Why should successful investments be criticized?”)
This is the equivalent of finding a way to turn on no-clip in an online shooter and then yelling "its in the game guys" while you run around killing everyone.
 
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Me: Other countries runt heir healthcare systems for half of what we do!
Conservative: it's only cheaper because we do all the research here! Also wait times! Rationing!
Me: But they cover 100% of their population.

Argument "They cover 100% of their population" hits for 0 damage! It's completely ineffective!

Few people care, and those who don't care already have "great" coverage, until they actually have to use it.

One of my best friends used to be pretty cool to the idea of healthcare as a right, then his extremely fiscally conservative father got really sick and his insurance screwed him. Seeing it first hand changed his views pretty drastically. No one wants to spend the last weeks of a loved one's life arguing with insurance agents about what care that has already been given, will actually be paid for.
 

RDreamer

Member
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Me: Other countries runt heir healthcare systems for half of what we do!
Conservative: it's only cheaper because we do all the research here! Also wait times! Rationing!
Me: But they cover 100% of their population.

Argument "They cover 100% of their population" hits for 0 damage! It's completely ineffective!

Yep, my parents are this way. They have sent angry emails with things about Obamacare saying this all happened "just so we can pay to have give everyone insurance" like that's a bad thing. They also really believe the wait times and rationing stuff, which is kind of crazy, but they say they've talked to people from Canada and the UK with total horror stories.

It's always weird to me when a conservative says they've heard horror stories from actual citizens of those countries, because I spend a fair amount of time on the internet where people from other countries also hang out (like here!) and I've rarely ever heard anyone from those countries complain at all about the systems.

Just ask them if they think healthcare is a right, and leave it at that.

They don't. Most don't.

I'm not even certain I would consider it a "right" necessarily. I would consider it a means toward the rights we have in our constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness), as without good healthcare we couldn't have equal access to those rights. I also think it should be a pillar that every society strives for. It should be part of the basic societal contract to help each other as much as we can with regards to health.

What's weird too, though, is my parents don't even think it should be a goal for everyone to have healthcare. That one really weirded me out. I remember one time just saying "So you don't think, even as a sort of pie in the sky goal our society should move toward a day where everyone would have healthcare?" and I got a no. Stubborn lot those conservatives are.


No one wants to spend the last weeks of a loved one's life arguing with insurance agents about what care that has already been given, will actually be paid for.

This is the craziest part, I think. People think that the government will be all up in your business and argue with you about everything you may need, and even deny crucial things. They don't want the government deciding life and death. While I understand that, vaguely, that's already what's happening... except it isn't the government, it's insurance. But still, that very conversation they're afraid of having and that fight they're afraid of is already happening!
 

Puddles

Banned
I've actually been to a lot of those countries and used their services. For example, I got sick in the UK and visited an NHS hospital. No issue. The bill I got was less than what a checkup would have cost in the U.S.

I worked in South Korea for two years and used their medical system quite a bit. Superior in almost every way, although I hear they have an issue with cancer-related bankruptcies for some reason. But you can visit a specialist without an appointment, pay $10 for his fee, and $10 at the pharmacy for whatever drugs he prescribes you. I paid about $70/month in taxes to support that. Amazing system.
 
This is the equivalent of finding a way to turn on no-clip in an online shooter and then yelling "its in the game guys" while you run around killing everyone.
I think thats a bit unfair. If its allowed by the law, its proper. Its like how people use NFA Trusts to bypass the Chief Law Enforcement Officer Sign off when their CLEO wont sign the ATF Form.

Exploits are often banned explicitly in mp games.
 

codhand

Member
Just ask them if they think healthcare is a right, and leave it at that.

Yeah, actually this is what I say first. I strongly believe every body bore from the flesh of mother's womb should have health care, but hey that's just me. With that being said, people here--in this thread--have mentioned it's not the best thing to ask, because technically/legally it is not a right, but again, my belief is that it is.

I worked in South Korea for two years

You did that whole teaching thing? A friend of mine did that... Props.

Superior in almost every way

This is the shit that makes heads explode, and when they start trotting out all these systemic flaws that are unbeknownst to 99% of the population.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Have you guys ever discussed universal healthcare systems with a Fox News type and realized that "100% of the population being covered" is completely meaningless to them? It's happened to me a few times recently.

Me: Other countries runt heir healthcare systems for half of what we do!
Conservative: it's only cheaper because we do all the research here! Also wait times! Rationing!
Me: But they cover 100% of their population.

Argument "They cover 100% of their population" hits for 0 damage! It's completely ineffective!

Anecdotal, but most far-right people I've met have been the most selfish people I've met.
 

Tim-E

Member
It's going to be hilarious when the ACA is fully implemented and people actually like it and businesses are just fine once it goes into effect after all this whining.
 

RDreamer

Member
It's going to be hilarious when the ACA is fully implemented and people actually like it and businesses are just fine once it goes into effect after all this whining.

And we all know this is going to happen. I mean Massachusetts isn't some fiery burning cesspool of mashing teeth and wailing. Businesses still operate and probably even thrive there, and the people are fine.
 

Tim-E

Member
Ever since hearing about the possibility of Ryan being the VP nom, I've been overwhelmed with bouts of laughter just thinking about it.
 
WaPo: Romney confuses 'Sikh' with 'Sheik'
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — Mitt Romney mistakenly confused the words “Sikh” and “sheik” at a fundraiser here Tuesday night when he offered his condolences to the victims of last weekend’s shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee correctly spoke of the Sikh religion earlier in the day when he observed a moment of silence at a campaign event in Illinois. But at the Iowa fundraiser, he instead talked about the “sheik temple” and the “sheik people.” Sheik is an Arabic honorific, whereas Sikh is a religion with roots in South Asia.

Shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin: A gunman killed at least six people in Oak Creek, outside Milwaukee, before being fatally shot by police, authorities said.

Referencing his earlier event in the Chicago area, Romney said: “We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith. And of course, the person who carried out this heinous act was a person motivated by racial hatred and religious intolerance.”

Romney spokesman Rick Gorka said the candidate “mispronounced similar sounding words,” noting that he was clearly referring to the Wisconsin shooting and not trying to offend people of Sikh faith.

Gorka also pointed out that the comment came at the end of a long day of campaigning. Romney left his New Hampshire home at 7 a.m. and traveled between three states, holding three events and taping an interview before he took to the microphone at the evening finance reception in West Des Moines.

The event raised between $1.8 million to $2 million. Romney’s Iowa campaign co-chairman, David Oman, said it was “the largest and most successful presidential fundraiser we have ever had in the history of the state of Iowa.”
 
Yeah, actually this is what I say first. I strongly believe every body bore from the flesh of mother's womb should have health care, but hey that's just me. With that being said, people here--in this thread--have mentioned it's not the best thing to ask, because technically/legally it is not a right, but again, my belief is that it is.

So when they say "no" it isn't a right, the next question you ask is how much a person should have to make before they can be able to have healthcare. At what income level should a person be covered. And who should be able to decide that.

Bring them down that rabbit hole, because it's a very unflattering argument for them to make.
 

codhand

Member
So when they say "no" it isn't a right, the next question you ask is how much a person should have to make before they can be able to have healthcare. At what income level should a person be covered. And who should be able to decide that.

Bring them down that rabbit hole, because it's a very unflattering argument for them to make.

Yup, this is what I tell friends who complain about reticent conservatives, take their thought process to its logical conclusion, and you always hit "hate-oil".
 

Tim-E

Member
Like the Heston shoulder laugh, or like an insane chuckle?

Heston shoulder laugh. The idea of Mitt attaching himself to the Ryan budget like that and having it be an issue constantly brought up in ads, debates, and in the news at this level makes me giddy.
 

codhand

Member
Heston shoulder laugh. The idea of Mitt attaching himself to the Ryan budget like that and having it be an issue constantly brought up in ads, debates, and in the news at this level makes me giddy.

Seriously though, what will Mitt do today? What a wonderful trip it's been so far. I don't care where it ends, strap me to the roof and let me along for the ride.
 

Tim-E

Member
Seriously though, what will Mitt do today? What a wonderful trip it's been so far. I don't care where it ends, strap me to the roof and let me along for the ride.

I've said it before, but I can't wait for the books that will be written about the inner workings of this campaign a year or two from now.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I think thats a bit unfair. If its allowed by the law, its proper. Its like how people use NFA Trusts to bypass the Chief Law Enforcement Officer Sign off when their CLEO wont sign the ATF Form.

Exploits are often banned explicitly in mp games.
Its still using something implemented for a different purpose in an unintended way. If what was described in the paragraph I quoted was accurate that should be illegal, because at that point its not even smart investment, its straight up exploiting a glitch in the system. (the assumption that shares invested will have a reasonable valuation)
 
Its still using something implemented for a different purpose in an unintended way. If what was described in the paragraph I quoted was accurate that should be illegal, because at that point its not even smart investment, its straight up exploiting a glitch in the system.

Except if it hasn't been ruled (assuming were talking about taxes) as an unacceptable deduction or method, and there is contradictory language or evidence to say you can't do it, than it's fine. Perhaps I'm drilled into the pure legal issues at hand a bit too much.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Except if it hasn't been ruled (assuming were talking about taxes) as an unacceptable deduction or method, and there is contradictory language or evidence to say you can't do it, than it's fine. Perhaps I'm drilled into the pure legal issues at hand a bit too much.

Yeah, its probably strictly legal under current laws, but its a pretty clear violation of the intent of the system.
 
Yeah, its probably strictly legal under current laws, but its a pretty clear violation of the intent of the system.

That's the thing while intent can resolve interpretation of ambiguous issues in a law, unless it's done, aspirational intent doesn't mean much. I mean a classic example was the old Assault Weapon Ban, pre-ban mags and a few cosmetic changes (which were stupid to be banned in the first place) helped render it useless (which was good).

Who will play Mitt Romney in the inevitable HBO original movie?

Mitt Romney.
 

Measley

Junior Member
Few people care, and those who don't care already have "great" coverage, until they actually have to use it.

One of my best friends used to be pretty cool to the idea of healthcare as a right, then his extremely fiscally conservative father got really sick and his insurance screwed him. Seeing it first hand changed his views pretty drastically. No one wants to spend the last weeks of a loved one's life arguing with insurance agents about what care that has already been given, will actually be paid for.

That's pretty much true of anything though.

I have a conservative friend who was against anything from the government. Until his fiance got pregnant, and they both had to use Medicaid for her examinations. Then his fiance got a job as a public school teacher and pulled their asses into a middle class lifestyle. Then his sister and her husband both lost their jobs and had to get on unemployment and welfare to make it through the tough times, and both are using government loans and grants to go back to school and get better jobs. Now he says that "some" socialism is okay, but he's still voting for Romney in the fall because Obama's a "commie socialist".

Yeah, he actually said that.

Shit is infuriating.
 

Tim-E

Member
That's pretty much true of anything though.

I have a conservative friend who was against anything from the government. Until his fiance got pregnant, and they both had to use Medicaid for her examinations. Then his fiance got a job as a public school teacher and pulled their asses into a middle class lifestyle. Then his sister and her husband both lost their jobs and had to get on unemployment and welfare to make it through the tough times, and both are using government loans and grants to go back to school and get better jobs. Now he says that "some" socialism is okay, but he's still voting for Romney in the fall because Obama's a "commie socialist".

Yeah, he actually said that.

Shit is infuriating.

I see that all around where I live. Everyone here knows a handful of people who get government assistance in some fashion, and it's okay that they get it because they know them and they can see they need help, but they get so angry when they find out people they don't know that are receiving benefits because they're nothing but welfare queens and freeloaders.
 
I see that all around where I live. Everyone here knows a handful of people who get government assistance in some fashion, and it's okay that they get it because they know them and they can see they need help, but they get so angry when they find out people they don't know that are receiving benefits because they're nothing but welfare queens and freeloaders.

At the same time it's equally wrong to pretend they don't exist.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I see that all around where I live. Everyone here knows a handful of people who get government assistance in some fashion, and it's okay that they get it because they know them and they can see they need help, but they get so angry when they find out people they don't know that are receiving benefits because they're nothing but welfare queens and freeloaders.

Everybody gets something from the government. EVERYBODY.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
At the same time it's equally wrong to pretend they don't exist.

Yes, but the questions are a.)are the number of people who abuse the system statistically significant and b.)do measures that people propose for "reforming" the system cause harm to legitimate participants that outweighs the benefit gained from curbing the abuse?
 

Tim-E

Member
At the same time it's equally wrong to pretend they don't exist.

I don't pretend they don't exist, but they don't make up most beneficiaries like they would have you believe. People are going to abuse any system in place, but in the interest of trying to avoid being a third world country I would rather a small percentage of people abuse the welfare system than have no welfare system at all.

The typical recipient of cash assistance only gets it for five months, and for food stamps, the typical duration of benefits is less than eight months. The idea that a majority of welfare receipients are just freeloaders who aren't trying is simply not true.

Everybody gets something from the government. EVERYBODY.

Yep.

"I hate the government, but I want well-maintained roads and bridges, a responsive fire and police department, an absurdly large military, and boy my medicare and social security sure are awesome!"
 

Jackson50

Member
VIRGINIA U.S. Senate: Tim Kaine (D) 48% / George Allen (R) 46% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

Pollingreport.com
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute
At least Allen's losing.
Courts have burdens of proof, but they also have discovery. The parties to lawsuits exchange not only what relevant, admissible evidence they have in their possession, but even inadmissible evidence that could reasonably lead to relevant admissible evidence. Indeed, even attorney work product--usually confidential--is not immune to discovery if the other party can show that they are unable to obtain the evidence by other means and that it is necessary to prove their case.

The ball is in Romney's court, who is the only person in possession of the evidence. As long as Reid is not straight-up lying about being told something by a source that could be credible--and I see no reason to think that he is--there is nothing wrong with his relaying the information in my opinion.
I'm not qualified to argue the complexities of jurisprudence. But I'd expect a statement intimating a claim by an unidentified source would constitute little evidentiary value. Further, I'm not referring to a legal burden of proof. Reid has an epistemic burden of proof given his claim. Likewise, I don't think Reid is fabricating information. But we lack the means to evaluate his statement.
Romney's response about paying lots of taxes immediately made me wonder how many refunds he got and what his actual tax burden was. Most of the complex instruments have associated refunds. He just needs to show them and get it over with.
Certainly. He should have a while ago. And his obtrusive reticence is revelatory.
 

pigeon

Banned
At the same time it's equally wrong to pretend they don't exist.

Tricky! It might be wrong (in the sense of inaccurate), but by no means is it equally wrong, partly just because assuming there are no cheats is closer to the truth than assuming there are so many cheats as to be a meaningful public policy issue, and because there's no moral animus to giving somebody support they don't really need, but there certainly is one to preventing people from getting support they do need.
 
Obama v Romney








Approval/Senate






WISCONSIN U.S. Senate: Tammy Baldwin (D) 51% / Jeff Fitzgerald (R) 39% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

WISCONSIN U.S. Senate: Tammy Baldwin (D) 48% / Mark Neumann (R) 45% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

WISCONSIN U.S. Senate: Tammy Baldwin (D) 47% / Eric Hovde (R) 43% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

WISCONSIN U.S. Senate: Tammy Baldwin (D) 47% / Tommy Thompson (R) 47% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

VIRGINIA U.S. Senate: Tim Kaine (D) 48% / George Allen (R) 46% (Quinnipiac U./New York Times/CBS News Poll, 7/31 - 8/6)

Pollingreport.com
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute
CO Obama 45 Romney 50. The fuck? Even Ras has it as a tie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom