It WAS a republicunt thing, stupid. Before Romney the basic idea went back to Bob Dole.

But as soon as President Blackenstein mentioned it all of you shitballs developed amnesia.

In your case....certainly a pre-existing condition.

(June 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It WAS a republicunt thing, stupid. Before Romney the basic idea went back to Bob Dole.

But as soon as President Blackenstein mentioned it all of you shitballs developed amnesia.

In your case....certainly a pre-existing condition.

If it WAS a republicunt thing, and the dumbocrats adopted it, that makes it a bipartisan thing, dumbass.

(June 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(June 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It WAS a republicunt thing, stupid. Before Romney the basic idea went back to Bob Dole.

But as soon as President Blackenstein mentioned it all of you shitballs developed amnesia.

In your case....certainly a pre-existing condition.

If it WAS a republicunt thing, and the dumbocrats adopted it, that makes it a bipartisan thing, dumbass.

If it was a Republicunt thing, and Democrats adopted it, and at this point the Republicunts pretended they had nothing to do with it because it was a plot by the Marxist Socialist Muslim Nigger to destroy America, then no, it's not bipartisan, you ignorant dogfuck.

(June 14, 2014 at 12:23 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: If it was a Republicunt thing, and Democrats adopted it, and at this point the Republicunts pretended they had nothing to do with it because it was a plot by the Marxist Socialist Muslim Nigger to destroy America, then no, it's not bipartisan, you ignorant dogfuck.

What would it be in that case?

Partisan, as the GOP has abandoned their own invention.

Obamacare is a compromise and has always been a compromise. It was the best Democrats could do to better health care over the ever present destructive influence of the repugs. Single payer universal health care is the goal of all democrats that I know. It makes no sense to add middle man insurance companies onto the payroll.

(June 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 12:23 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: If it was a Republicunt thing, and Democrats adopted it, and at this point the Republicunts pretended they had nothing to do with it because it was a plot by the Marxist Socialist Muslim Nigger to destroy America, then no, it's not bipartisan, you ignorant dogfuck.

What would it be in that case?

I don't know if there's a word to describe a thing that the original inventors hate primarily because a person they hate thought it was a good idea.

And yes, that is absolutely what is going on, right here in my own great state of Kentucky, where Obamacare is called Kynect and this red state is perfectly okay with it as long as you don't call it "Obamacare".

(June 14, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Obamacare is a compromise and has always been a compromise. It was the best Democrats could do to better health care over the ever present destructive influence of the repugs. Single payer universal health care is the goal of all democrats that I know. It makes no sense to add middle man insurance companies onto the payroll.

The problem with Obamacare and single payer is that they do not address the problem. Here is an analogy. Suppose Gilligan's Island only has enough food to support 5 castaways. Unfortunately there are 7 castaways. It does no good whatsoever for the 7 castaways to simply declare that everyone of them is entitled to food. Eventually 2 of them will starve to death. The solution the castaways should pursue is to make the island provide more food.

If the problem is there is not enough health care for everyone, you do not solve the problem by providing everyone with health insurance. Health insurance is not health care any more than food stamps are food. The solution is providing more health care so that there will be enough for everyone. Obamacare and single payer do not address this problem which is why they fail.

(June 14, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: The problem with Obamacare and single payer is that they do not address the problem. Here is an analogy. Suppose Gilligan's Island only has enough food to support 5 castaways. Unfortunately there are 7 castaways. It does no good whatsoever for the 7 castaways to simply declare that everyone of them is entitled to food. Eventually 2 of them will starve to death. The solution the castaways should pursue is to make the island provide more food.

If the problem is there is not enough health care for everyone, you do not solve the problem by providing everyone with health insurance.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now. The reason you are opposed to Obamacare/single payer healthcare is that they aren't designed to solve a problem we don't have.

(June 14, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: The problem with Obamacare and single payer is that they do not address the problem. Here is an analogy. Suppose Gilligan's Island only has enough food to support 5 castaways. Unfortunately there are 7 castaways. It does no good whatsoever for the 7 castaways to simply declare that everyone of them is entitled to food. Eventually 2 of them will starve to death. The solution the castaways should pursue is to make the island provide more food.

If the problem is there is not enough health care for everyone, you do not solve the problem by providing everyone with health insurance.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now. The reason you are opposed to Obamacare/single payer healthcare is that they aren't designed to solve a problem we don't have.

Are you claiming that enough healthcare exist so that everyone can have what they need when they need it? I doubt that, it rare that I see health care resources sitting idle.