Obamacare written to deceive the public.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Numbers, please?

I cited my claim. Just because you decided to edit out my citation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My apologies. I was on my phone when I posted that, and I hadn't seen it.

Let me go look.

eta: From your article:

The study found that 26 percent of 2,002 American adults surveyed said they waited six days or more for appointments, better only than Canada (33 percent) and Norway (28 percent), and much worse than in other countries with national health systems like the Netherlands (14 percent) or Britain (16 percent). When it came to appointments with specialists, patients in Britain and Switzerland reported shorter waits than those in the United States, but the United States did rank better than the other eight countries.

So it turns out that America has its own waiting problem. But we tend to wait for different types of medical interventions. And that is mainly a result of payment incentives, experts say.

Americans are more likely to wait for office-based medical appointments that are not good sources of revenue for hospitals and doctors. In other countries, people tend to wait longest for expensive elective care — four to six months for a knee replacement and over a month for follow-up radiation therapy after cancer surgery in Canada, for example.

In our market-based system, patients can get lucrative procedures rapidly, even when there is no urgent medical need: Need a new knee, or an M.R.I., or a Botox injection? You’ll probably be on the schedule within days. But what if you’re an asthmatic whose breathing is deteriorating, or a diabetic whose medicines need adjustment, or an elderly patient who has unusual chest pain and needs a cardiology consultation? In much of the country, you can wait a week or weeks for such office appointments — or longer if you need to find a doctor who accepts your insurance plan or Medicare.

Glad to see my point upthread supported.

[The Grand Nudger]

The reason being that those who are dissatisfied with their government often abstain from voting. They think to themselves "I don't like either option" which would be like a juror saying "I don't want to say guilty or not guilty"; on its own it doesn't make logical sense, but to the individual voter it makes perfect sense. "I don't want to be responsible for either outcome".

It's called non-participation, it's a form of protest (and particularly so for those who have no reasonable expectation of having an impact any other way). I simply don't feel comfortable signing on with a group based on who's engaged in the least amount of unjust or unethical activities, and neither side or candidate will ever..in my lifetime, represent my positions or interests. Some people do, good for them, and some people feel that an otherwise garbage candidate has one or two redeeming positions, again, good for them. Sometimes people just don't want to see the other guy win. That tells our government that even though the people decidedly loathe them - they're just good enough to maintain the con. If others wish to reward them with votes (and therefore legitimacy) for this drain circling strategy by all means, they should clog the polls and cast their lots in with the termites. My bar for participation is just a tad bit higher than the bare minimum, that's all.

DP also made a very good point about the ludicrous nature of rewarding people for one behavior, and then expecting another. Consider this an extension of that.

[Aractus]

Rhythm, the reason why we have mandatory voting isn't to force people to make a decision. If a person goes to a polling booth, and really doesn't want to cast their vote, they're perfectly entitled to leave the ballot paper blank and put it in the ballot box. Of course, jurors can't do that - they must make a valid decision. But the fact is, even with very high informal votes going to around 5%, we have around 90% of registered voters casting valid ballots at elections. Once we get down around 85% we consider that very low participation.

To me, and to most Australians, we don't understand how countries with optional voting can claim to be a real democracy. No genuinely valid democracy is based on a vote by only 35% of the population.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm, the reason why we have mandatory voting isn't to force people to make a decision. If a person goes to a polling booth, and really doesn't want to cast their vote, they're perfectly entitled to leave the ballot paper blank and put it in the ballot box. Of course, jurors can't do that - they must make a valid decision. But the fact is, even with very high informal votes going to around 5%, we have around 90% of registered voters casting valid ballots at elections. Once we get down around 85% we consider that very low participation.

b-mine..

-and what would happen, do you think, if those numbers dipped to 35% What would the perception of whomever "won" that election be? It;s a testament to our apathy that at 35% we're still yelling

"Lesser Evil! Lesser Evil!"

Fuck the lot of them, I can't make it any clearer. They get not a shred of credibility by my vote, end of.

To me, and to most Australians, we don't understand how countries with optional voting can claim to be a real democracy. No genuinely valid democracy is based on a vote by only 35% of the population.

............exactly Aractus.......exactly........now how low do you think we'll have to go here in the states before people start to think.."hmn....we're not a valid democracy, and our "leaders" are making an illegitimate claim to authority"?

I, like the juror who refuses to render verdict, am willing to accept -that- responsibility, -that- outcome, -those- consequences. I'm a juror in a kangaroo court who won't be the patsy no matter how bad they say it'll get for me. I'm positively gleeful at the prospect, truth be told.

[simplemoss]

What's funny about this is Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail too influence the impartial CBO into excepting their economic theory of "the rich get richer.... hooray" economics now their complaining that obamacare was written with some muddled language so repubs couldn't exaggerate, and misinform the American public about obamacare


Pot meet kettle lol

[A Theist]

But if I posted my views on a right wing forum....I'd be called a communist or socialist.

Speaks volumes about right wing forums, eh?

A lot of you guys here have called barack a conservative. Definitely speaks volumes about left wing forums.

[downbeatplumb]

A lot of you guys here have called barack a conservative. Definitely speaks volumes about left wing forums.

By European standards he is a right wing president.
You don't seem to have noticed the steady drift of American politics to the right that has taken place since 9/11.
The day America went mad.
Prior to this America was becoming more inclusive and becoming what I viewed as something akin to the Federation in Star Trek with ideals that were humanistic.
After 9/11 we have debates about "what is actually torture"?
America had gone from being a positive force in the world to an entity to be feared, with agencies that resembled a technologically advanced Gestapo and laws passed that let them do what the hell they liked.
A country of freedom fries and Murica Hoo Rah.
Obama is a breath of sanity in a country gone mad, republicans hate him.

[A Theist]

A lot of you guys here have called barack a conservative. Definitely speaks volumes about left wing forums.

Obama is a breath of sanity in a country gone mad, republicans hate him.

Why don't you guys take him off our hands then. I'm sure barack would be happier governing your country than he is ruining ours. Since everyone in your country, it seems, thinks the same way, believes the same way, acts the same way, says the same things,...it would be a perfect fit for your country and for barack. He wouldn't have to worry about independent thinking legislatures in your country opposing him.

...btw, Captain Kirk can kick Picard's ass any day of the week.

[downbeatplumb]

Obama is a breath of sanity in a country gone mad, republicans hate him.

Why don't you guys take him off our hands then. I'm sure barack would be happier governing your country than he is ruining ours. Since everyone in your country, it seems, thinks the same way, believes the same way, acts the same way, says the same things,...it would be a perfect fit for your country and for barack. He wouldn't have to worry about independent thinking legislatures in your country opposing him.

Obama would be too right wing to get along over here.
Over there, he at least is not as rabidly right wing as the frankly insane republicans.
There is not a potential republican candidate I would trust with scissors let alone a nuclear arsenal.

[abaris]

Obama would be too right wing to get along over here.
Over there, he at least is not as rabidly right wing as the frankly insane republicans.
There is not a potential republican candidate I would trust with scissors let alone a nuclear arsenal.

Obama would make a perfect conservative in Europe. At least in some countries. The only difference being, our politcal systems, at least for the most part, aren't two party systems and they aren't majority based in the sense of the winner taking it all. So our conservatives have to enter coalitions and have to seek the consent of at least one other party in the government.