Poll: Shutdown damaging GOP/Tea Party, actually HELPING Obamacare....

[GarfieldtheCat]

I am not the one ignoring polls. A vote for Obama didn't mean you automatically approved of the ACA. Did people voting for Bush the second time automatically approve of both wars, the Patriot Act, Waterboarding, Gitmo?

Wow, such faux outrage from the trolls. Don't worry, in 10-20 years, the GOP will drop the phrase "Obamacare" and just call it the ACA, and claim they were all for it. By then you will have been told ACA is good, so you will do a 180 yourself, just like the GOP.

You do realize the none other then Ronald Reagen vilified Medicare, calling it "socialist" (Gee, does that sound familiar? History repeats itself again!), and then when it was accepted by the public (and even, gasp!, liked!) totally did a 180 and supported it?

Didn't Hannity and Rush tell you this already? You rally don't know your hisotry do you?

 

[Tom]

Leftists don't care what 'the people' think about anything. Their guy won, and their guy "Dear Leader" gets to do whatever he wants. If he wants to erect statues of himself in every town square with one arm raised, that's what Dear Leader wants, that's what Dear Leader gets, screw what anyone else thinks.

However many years from now when someone they absolutely hate is elected and has the same overbearing power they gleefully cheered for Dear Leader to have, they'll all go back to whining, gnashing their teeth, stomping their feet, and insisting it's Nazi Germany all over again. Leftwingers never think beyond the whim of the day.

"the people" elected him. And Obamacare isn't "leftist", its a middle of the road attempt to improve our healthcare situation, both from an economic standpoint and an actual health standpoint.

Obamacare has been under constant attack, actually for decades. Its not surprising that at this point, before most of its taken effect, it doesn't have high approval ratings.

The real reason its under such attack is, fear it will work. And chances are it will.

In the end, chances are people will like it. Just like Medicare, Social Security.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, such faux outrage from the trolls. Don't worry, in 10-20 years, the GOP will drop the phrase "Obamacare" and just call it the ACA, and claim they were all for it. By then you will have been told ACA is good, so you will do a 180 yourself, just like the GOP.

You do realize the none other then Ronald Reagen vilified Medicare, calling it "socialist" (Gee, does that sound familiar? History repeats itself again!), and then when it was accepted by the public (and even, gasp!, liked!) totally did a 180 and supported it?

Didn't Hannity and Rush tell you this already? You rally don't know your hisotry do you?

In 20 years people are going to be so screwed and say "why didn't someone do something 20 years ago?"

The answer is that no one wanted to so they got Obamacare and kicked the can down the road.

 

[dank69]

In 20 years people are going to be so screwed and say "why didn't someone do something 20 years ago?"

The answer is that no one wanted to so they got Obamacare and kicked the can down the road.

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster? The part that makes everyone carry insurance instead of treating the ER as their own free clinic? The part that doesn't let insurance companies drop people when they aren't profitable anymore? The websites that will let people shop and compare prices in one place?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster? The part that makes everyone carry insurance instead of treating the ER as their own free clinic? The part that doesn't let insurance companies drop people when they aren't profitable anymore? The websites that will let people shop and compare prices in one place?

So lets say that there is a bridge with big potholes. I mean break your wheels ones. So there's a big push to fix them. Why wouldn't there be? After all people using the bridge have had problems or know those who have. In the meantime the bridge has weakened and collapses. What part of fixing potholes made the bridge fall?

 

[BoberFett]

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster? The part that makes everyone carry insurance instead of treating the ER as their own free clinic? The part that doesn't let insurance companies drop people when they aren't profitable anymore? The websites that will let people shop and compare prices in one place?

Look at the cute little strawmen.

 

[dank69]

So lets say that there is a bridge with big potholes. I mean break your wheels ones. So there's a big push to fix them. Why wouldn't there be? After all people using the bridge have had problems or know those who have. In the meantime the bridge has weakened and collapses. What part of fixing potholes made the bridge fall?

I only ask because you often make the claim that the ACA will be a disaster all by itself

 

[dank69]

Look at the cute little strawmen.

You clearly don't even know what a straw man is.

 

[BoberFett]

You clearly don't even know what a straw man is.

Clearly YOU don't know what a straw man is. You've neatly set up several points which you can easily knock down, rather than discuss what actually is wrong with ACA.

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster? The part that makes everyone carry insurance instead of treating the ER as their own free clinic? The part that doesn't let insurance companies drop people when they aren't profitable anymore? The websites that will let people shop and compare prices in one place?

Oh, so since you've listed three things that no person in their right mind could be against, clearly there's absolutely nothing wrong with Obamacare!

That's the very definition of straw men, fool.

 

[Bowfinger]

Clearly YOU don't know what a straw man is. You've neatly set up several points which you can easily knock down, rather than discuss what actually is wrong with ACA.

Oh, so since you've listed three things that no person in their right mind could be against, clearly there's absolutely nothing wrong with Obamacare!

That's the very definition of straw men, fool.

No, it unarguably is not, fool. He never claimed those were positions taken by HR. He asked a straightforward question and offered three possible answers (though clearly his answers were intended as counter-arguments to demonstrate benefits of the ACA). HR, in turn, offered a reasoned answer, in essence that it's not any individual provisions but rather we're focused on the superficial when we need to be making structural repairs.

Edit: Ironically (or more accurately, hypocritically), your second paragraph is a straw man:

"Oh, so since you've listed three things that no person in their right mind could be against, clearly there's absolutely nothing wrong with Obamacare!"
​

Dank69 suggested nothing of the sort.

 

[BoberFett]

No, it unarguably is not, fool. He never claimed those were positions taken by HR. He asked a straightforward question and offered three possible answers (though clearly his answers were intended as counter-arguments to demonstrate benefits of the ACA). HR, in turn, offered a reasoned answer, in essence that it's not any individual provisions but rather we're focused on the superficial when we need to be making structural repairs.

Edit: Ironically (or more accurately, hypocritically), your second paragraph is a straw man:

"Oh, so since you've listed three things that no person in their right mind could be against, clearly there's absolutely nothing wrong with Obamacare!"
​

Dank69 suggested nothing of the sort.

I expect better from you Bowfinger.

HR believes ACA as a whole will prove to be damaging to healthcare in the US. Dank's question was not in earnest, he didn't intend to discuss anything, he wanted to to stifle the debate. ("Why don't you don't want to raise taxes? Because you hate children?") He listed three specific provisions of ACA that on the surface appear to be unobjectionable, thereby attempting to shut down HR's opinion that there could be anything possibly bad about ACA. Those three points, which HR never argued were the damaging part of ACA, are known as strawmen. HR never brought them up, so why did Dank? The actual question:

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster?

could have stood on it's own, without the need for the strawmen.

 

[dank69]

I expect better from you Bowfinger.

HR believes ACA as a whole will prove to be damaging to healthcare in the US. Dank's question was not in earnest, he didn't intend to discuss anything, he wanted to to stifle the debate. ("Why don't you don't want to raise taxes? Because you hate children?") He listed three specific provisions of ACA that on the surface appear to be unobjectionable, thereby attempting to shut down HR's opinion that there could be anything possibly bad about ACA. Those three points, which HR never argued were the damaging part of ACA, are known as strawmen. HR never brought them up, so why did Dank? The actual question:



could have stood on it's own, without the need for the strawmen.

Okay, it appears you need a clue. A straw man is called a straw man because it is easy to knock down. The three things I listed are not easy to knock down. I hope you are taking notes so you dont embarrass yourself like this again in the future

 

[dainthomas]

Denying the truth as a vast liberal media conspiracy. How did that work for you in the last election?

Actually the voters conspired against the Tea Party.

 

[BoberFett]

Okay, it appears you need a clue. A straw man is called a straw man because it is easy to knock down. The three things I listed are not easy to knock down. I hope you are taking notes so you dont embarrass yourself like this again in the future

/facepalm

You were asking him how ACA was damaging, and knocked down three easy answers.

 

[dank69]

/facepalm

You were asking him how ACA was damaging, and knocked down three easy answers.

I hope that facepalm was for yourself, because you are just flailing at this point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I only ask because you often make the claim that the ACA will be a disaster all by itself

The goal of increasing access to care is something I endorse but there's three problems I can name off the top of my head. I'll go into it but it will take a while so probably tomorrow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look at the cute little strawmen.

He merely points out some of the desirable aspects of the ACA as rhetorical questions. He never claimed that HR thought they were part of what HR sees as fatal flaws.

This defines strawman arguments-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Several posters use them regularly. Dank69 did not.

So, disregarding the rhetorical questions, the first question remains-

What part(s) of the ACA specifically do you think is(are) going to bring about disaster?

The original answer was totally non-specific, merely an analogy, and therefore non-responsive. HR is thinking it over & will hopefully reply with specifics in the future.

Which has generally been the whole direction of the preaching of doom & gloom around the ACA, that it'll be some sort of non-specific disaster in some non-specific way, like the sky is falling....

 

[BoberFett]

Jesus Hume Christ, what is wrong with some of you?

From your own wiki link:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

 

[Jhhnn]

Jesus Hume Christ, what is wrong with some of you?

From your own wiki link:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

And HR's position is what, exactly, other than nebulous doom & gloom?

He hasn't made any actual argument beyond that, certainly not in this thread. When challenged, he offered an analogy about potholes as a diversion.

How can there be a substitute argument for an argument that was never made?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And HR's position is what, exactly, other than nebulous doom & gloom?

He hasn't made any actual argument beyond that, certainly not in this thread. When challenged, he offered an analogy about potholes as a diversion.

How can there be a substitute argument for an argument that was never made?

Why don't you tell me just what my position is regarding health care reform since you consider what I've said in the past "nebulous"? For that matter, why don't you explain in detail the problems that we face and what non nebulous solutions you have, or at least a detailed plan to address how they might be solved and what options there are? I don't mean any "magic missile" appeals.

On second thought don't bother. Bowfinger and some others have an idea what I've covered before and I'll go over it with dank in more detail later. What I'd like to know is why you seem reluctant to have something superior, or is this the best that those in office can possibly do? Heh, me the enlightened Progressive and you the Tea Party conservative perhaps.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why don't you tell me just what my position is regarding health care reform since you consider what I've said in the past "nebulous"? For that matter, why don't you explain in detail the problems that we face and what non nebulous solutions you have, or at least a detailed plan to address how they might be solved and what options there are? I don't mean any "magic missile" appeals.

On second thought don't bother. Bowfinger and some others have an idea what I've covered before and I'll go over it with dank in more detail later. What I'd like to know is why you seem reluctant to have something superior, or is this the best that those in office can possibly do? Heh, me the enlightened Progressive and you the Tea Party conservative perhaps.

When cornered, just attack the messenger, huh?

I haven't claimed to have answers. I merely contend that answers can likely be found if all the parties involved are willing to identify specific issues & offer constructive changes.

If you're trying to say that the Teahadists are doing that, you're delusional. If you're trying to say that you've raised specific issues in this thread & offered solutions, I'd appreciate if you'd point it out.

Healthcare & insurance have a specific structure in this country, which the ACA alters but does not reject entirely. That's an uphill fight against disinformation, tradition and fear as it is, so it seems unlikely that more radical alternatives would have the chance of a snowball in hell, which is basically what you've offered in the past, iirc. When seeking answers to problems, the first consideration is if we can get there from here. We can't even take the baby steps of the ACA w/o a major battle, the outcome of which is still undetermined.

 

[dank69]

Jesus Hume Christ, what is wrong with some of you?

From your own wiki link:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

It is impossible for me to pretend that I refuted his stated position while actually refuting a different one since he hasn't stated his position yet.

Let me make that perfectly clear. I haven't claimed to refute his position. I haven't created the illusion of having refuted his proposition because he hasn't even offered his propostion yet.