Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Serious proposals to replace obamacare begin

Qzukk (229616) writes | about 9 months ago

User Journal 49

The WSJ has floated an opinion piece offering what it calls a conservative alternative to Obamacare, that I think is the first time I've seen any conservative alternative except "Nuh-Uh!" Google news popped it up with a link to http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-381425/ which seems to be some sort of glorified rss feed with an HTML skin, so I have no idea if the link will be good for

The WSJ has floated an opinion piece offering what it calls a conservative alternative to Obamacare, that I think is the first time I've seen any conservative alternative except "Nuh-Uh!" Google news popped it up with a link to http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-381425/ which seems to be some sort of glorified rss feed with an HTML skin, so I have no idea if the link will be good for anyone else in the future.

It is, in my opinion, a beginning. In the past, I've called obamacare the wrong answer to the wrong question. This article suggests extending the current employer tax writeoff so that everyone, not just the employers, can buy insurance with tax-free money. Then it goes a step further by means-testing a tax credit for the poor so they can buy privately operated insurance with their tax credit instead of getting Medicaid. I think this is a good start to answering the question of how to make it possible for everyone to get at least minimal health insurance (if they want it. This is the conservative version, remember).

It is still the wrong question, though.

cancel ×

49 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45419059)

Any hack conservative can write a letter to a conservative newspaper to ridicule a piece of legislation that they don't like. That doesn't make it a serious proposal if it isn't actually going towards consideration in congress; really at this point it is as much as alternative to the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 as is universal single payer healthcare an alternative to the same terrible law.

Although as you pointed out it is still aiming to answer the wrong question. This market based bullshit only reinforces the terrible system that we have had for decades and gives more power to an atrociously corrupt industry. Only when legislators get the balls to make proposals that get us away from - or at least give alternatives to - the insurance-driven system will we see meaningful changes. But of course the "left" won't do it because they are owned by the insurance industry and the rest won't do it because they simply don't want to (and they are also owned by the same insurance industry).

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45419161)

Could it also be that a reformed insurance system is the overall least-worst approach? Sane Englishmen [amazon.com] prophesy woe for us if we continue to follow the genius that brought us Healthcare.gov.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45419509)

Could it also be that a reformed insurance system is the overall least-worst approach?

Have you paid any attention at all to what Washington has done in the past 3 years?

They just tried to reform the insurance system. The whole fucking law is based on giving more shit to the insurance industry for free.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45419545)

That was not a reform. That was a wrecking ball. There is a difference.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45419747)

That was not a reform. That was a wrecking ball. There is a difference.

It may have been a wrecking ball for the consumers, who are now obligate customers of the insurance industry. But to the industry itself it was a giant golden goose that will lay giant golden eggs for them and them alone for a long time to come. Hell the healthcare.gov website errors only benefit the insurance industry more, as it will drive more customers to pick plans with incomplete information out of fear of the fee rather than concern for what they actually get for their money or what plan is the best fit for their needs and market.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45421077)

Or we could, you know, set about reforming the whole hot, bi-partisan mess.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45421631)

Or we could, you know, set about reforming the whole hot, bi-partisan mess.

A couple comments ago you insisted there were no functional parties and that they are all on the same side. What is there then to reform? And how would it have any ability to change health care?

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45429133)

The basic plan is what you've seen: elect more of the Paul/Lee/Cruz/(Rubio) variety, and drive out the sellouts.
Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45429621)

The basic plan is what you've seen: elect more of the Paul/Lee/Cruz/(Rubio) variety, and drive out the sellouts.

That doesn't really answer my earlier question about your assertion of there no longer being two parties. Those guys all run as republicans; are you saying they are the only "true" republicans, or are they not actually republicans at all, just using that label until they can establish a new party?

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This also doesn't answer my second question; how will they reform health care? I haven't seen a proposal from any of them that goes beyond repealing the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010. If they repeal it then the industry wins in that case, too. There is nothing they can do that makes the situation better for the consumer, even if they had unlimited power on their own and President Lawnchair was hit in the head with a toilet and agreed to just sign anything they delivered to him.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45431381)

Look at the evidence: just as the Founders revolted against Parliament, so the Tea Party insurgency is revolting against the Progressive elite.
My thought is that some of the details may be escaping you.
I'll start another JE on the topic.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45434095)

just as the Founders revolted against Parliament, so the Tea Party insurgency is revolting against the Progressive elite.

No. There is no strong comparison between the two. The founders revolted against rule that was handed down by people who they did not elect, who were imposing their will on them without giving them any ability to act against it. The Tea Party is revolting in spite of having representation in Washington. You have the right to vote, and now that your vote is not bringing you the results you want, you are seeking to change the weight of a vote so that you can impose your will on the people regardless of what they want.

Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country. You want to install rulers in spite of the wishes of the public because you see their wishes as wrong.

You have the right to leave the country if you find it is not to your liking. Why do you insist that others leave when you are the one who wants to rule - and change the mechanism of ruling?

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45440435)

You have projected falsehood upon me. I forgive you.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45440581)

You have projected falsehood upon me. I forgive you.

I am interested in what part of what I said you feel to be a falsehood, and why. You didn't give me anything to go with here.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45441581)

Pretty much every assertion beginning with "You" that you offered was incorrect. But that's OK. Still love ya.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45442331)

Pretty much every assertion beginning with "You" that you offered was incorrect

Hmm. Let's take a look [slashdot.org]

You have the right to vote,

I'm reasonably sure you still have the right to vote, unless you had it revoked for some reason.

and now that your vote is not bringing you the results you want

You have repeatedly expressed a hatred for the president and all things followed by (D). It would seem that indeed you are not satisfied with the outcome of most of the recent election.

you are seeking to change the weight of a vote so that you can impose your will on the people regardless of what they want

You have repeatedly stated that you think the people should lose the ability to elect senators directly. Being as you hate democrats, who currently have a slight advantage in the senate, this seems to rather obviously be a way for you to overcome what you see as an injustice.

Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country

I stand by this statement.

You want to install rulers in spite of the wishes of the public because you see their wishes as wrong.

My statement two statements ago, which is supported by your own statements, supports this statement as well. Furthermore as it shows you are interested in moving away from direct representation, which was one of the fundamental complaints that the founders lodged against the British.

You have the right to leave the country if you find it is not to your liking

You do have that right. You can leave if you want. I hear there is room for new people in Somalia and Afghanistan. They might have a government more to your liking.

Why do you insist that others leave when you are the one who wants to rule - and change the mechanism of ruling?

OK, I cannot easily find an example of you telling me (or anyone else) to leave the country, I apologize if that was an inaccurate assessment.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45443131)

Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country

I stand by this statement.

I support and defend your right to be jacked up through through the roof. You're just wrong.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45444575)

Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country

I support and defend your right to be jacked up through through the roof. You're just wrong.

It appears that you, and many others from the Tea Party, want to project the Tea Party as being 100% in line with the wishes of the Founding Fathers. I pointed out several places where I see this as being - at best - false advertising. If you really want people to see your revolution to be morally equivalent to the one that birthed our country, please give some reasons why they would see that to be true.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45450709)

All the reasons boil down to the founding principles of the country: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. You've rejected those, and the messengers. You're going to have to move on to rejecting HTTP and Unicode, in your nihilism, as far as I can tell.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45451791)

All the reasons boil down to the founding principles of the country: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness

Surely you jest when you claim that those are central pillars of the Tea Party, right?

life

The Tea Party is, quite simply, a party of death. Or, at best, a party of life for sale. The Tea Party endorses health care that is directly tied to one's ability to pay for it; if you can only afford aspirin when you need chemotherapy, aspirin it is. That is hardly a way to embrace life. Couple that to the fact that the Tea Party wants to outlaw all forms of birth control - including situations where the life of the mother is at risk - and make a miscarriage a criminal offense, and you see that indeed the Tea Party is interested in anything but defending life of more than the chosen few.

liberty

Liberty is for sale under the Tea Party doctrines in a way not entirely dissimilar to life itself. When the Koch Brothers are driving the government we will see an even heavier skew of laws towards those who can afford protections and further persecution of those who cannot.

pursuit of happiness

This is the most laughable of all. When only the wealthy have access to quality education, health care, food, and housing, only they will have the ability to pursue happiness.

That selection, however may be the closest the Tea Party gets to a resemblance to the Founders. Indeed the Founders gave rights to only specific people, and over time we gradually righted those wrongs and extended the limited rights to most of the rest of our country. The difference, however, is two-fold here. First, the selection basis is different. Second, there is no reason to believe that anyone could ever convince an empowered Tea Party to change it.

You've rejected those

You are, quite simply, dead wrong on that statement. I fully endorse those principles. The difference is that I want everyone to have access to the same tools to be able to make a go at them. You, on the other hand, want to keep the best tools away from the majority of the population and call it "close enough to equal".

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45451985)

Couple that to the fact that the Tea Party wants to outlaw all forms of birth control - including situations where the life of the mother is at risk - and make a miscarriage a criminal offense, and you see that indeed the Tea Party is interested in anything but defending life of more than the chosen few.

Hey, you may need to make sure that the concentration on your vitriol doesn't mentally destabilize you. There are some concerns about distributing condoms in grade schools, but that's really more about trying to roll back the hedonistic Closing of the American Mind. You may have meant abortions, I suppose. Yes, the scourge of abortion is arguably of greater magnitude than that of slavery, but the most reasonable argument I can offer is that I don't want my tax dollars paying for a single pagan offering to Moloch. While I know abortion is murder, and have seen its negative effects in more than one case, I think States should be able to permit this evil just as readily as States destroy the meaning of marriage.
"Party of Death" is hilarious and non-sensical. Nothing in the Tea Party call for fiscal sanity and federalism has much to do with the hard-core SoCon points you're making.

When the Koch Brothers are driving the government we will see an even heavier skew of laws towards those who can afford protections and further persecution of those who cannot.

Do you mean the way Unions buy favors from this Administration, or in some other way? The climax of the Progressive Project, ironically, is a return to the patronage of Imperial Rome. It's an inevitable consequence of concentrating power.

The difference is that I want everyone to have access to the same tools to be able to make a go at them. You, on the other hand, want to keep the best tools away from the majority of the population and call it "close enough to equal".

I'm arguing for equality of opportunity, not equality of condition. What you seem to practically (as opposed to theoretically--I'm sure you've a head full of Socialist abstractions) is a nomenklatura that redistributes wealth along lines with which you're in general agreement. I figure you're some sort of insider.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45457255)

Yes, the scourge of abortion is arguably of greater magnitude than that of slavery

No, it is not. Especially when you insist on making such an argument without any meaningful data to support it. You could just as well argue for fluoridated water being on par with the Bataan Death March.

Do you mean the way Unions buy favors from this Administration

Can you show me a favor that the unions bought from the Lawnchair Administration? Anywhere? The health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 sure as hell didn't do shit to help the unions.

It's an inevitable consequence of concentrating power.

You don't honestly believe that the Tea Party proposals would do anything but concentrate power, do you?

I'm arguing for equality of opportunity, not equality of condition

No, you are not. You are not arguing for equality of anything. I have been trying to point out to you how unequal the availability of opportunity already is, and have shown you already how much more unequal the Tea Party proposals would make it. You can use "condition" as a distraction as much as you want, but the end result is the same; the Tea Party world make the equality of opportunity an even more unattainable goal than what it already is for many. Of course, reinforcing that inequality does more for the masters of the Tea Party - and their checkbooks - than the actual equality ever could.

redistributes wealth along lines with which you're in general agreement

I have not once called for redistribution of wealth. Not. One. Single. Time. I have pointed out that we have a taxation code that is highly regressive, and it punishes people who are not wealthy. The rewards that are sowed by the top echelons are received on the backs of the rest, and the Tea Party wants to ensure that does not change.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45459691)

I'm just going to have to:
(a) keep forgiving you,
(b) continue to support reform,
(c) remain patient when you're systematically refuted, but continue to whinge on in the face of actual recovery.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45466785)

keep forgiving you,

For what? I don't ask you for forgiveness, I ask you to understand reality.

continue to support reform

I recently came to realize that by this you literally mean re-form. You want to bring our country back to the form it had near its conception, when only the wealthy had a say in the government and the rest were told to STFU and go back to work in the mines. Funny thing about that notion though is that the majority of the country would rather not do that. You can go try for it somewhere else but it is unlikely you can find a place where enough potential slaves exist to make it work.

remain patient when you're systematically refuted, but continue to whinge on in the face of actual recovery.

I'm sorry, but you haven't refuted anything. And what are you trying to project as "actual recovery"? What is it that you think you can bring about by ensuring that class warfare ultimately favors those with the most capital, regardless of statistical distribution of resources?

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45469479)

I can't tell whether you get the joke that the 1% have truly benefitted [berkeley.edu] from this administration, or whether you just overlook the thuggery like the codpiece media, or whether missed the joke that Socialism was merely a vehicle for aristocracy to crush the Enlightenment.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45475049)

I can't tell whether you get the joke that the 1% have truly benefitted from this administration

Of course the top 1% have done well. That is the natural outcome of a conservative presidency.

missed the joke that Socialism was merely a vehicle for aristocracy to crush the Enlightenment.

If we ever had socialism - or enlightenment - in this country we could evaluate that.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45478557)

I guess I'm beginning to understand why you are rejecting Obama as a Leftist, even if I simultaneously reject your erroneous notion of "conservative".

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45481235)

I guess I'm beginning to understand why you are rejecting Obama as a Leftist

It has taken you this long to realize that President Lawnchair is, from a functional standpoint, not even vaguely close to resembling a general notion of being remotely in the same ballpark of being the slightest bit near being the ultra-far-mega-uber leftist that you keep claiming him to be. I hope some day to welcome you to reality, friend.

I simultaneously reject your erroneous notion of "conservative".

No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income. You have finally noticed that Lawnchair economics have been disproportionately benefiting the top 1%. Once you finally wake up and discard the conservative talking points that inaccurately describe the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010, you might finally come to realize why Obama will some day come to be recognized as the most conservative president this country has ever had (at least, prior to the 2016 election).

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45487329)

No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly. Show me, ANYWHERE, in Article 2 [usconstitution.net] where you can even kind of arrive at this conclusion. This seems at the root of the seemingly decadent, misguided notions that you appear to bring to the table.
Now, we can be non-partisan, and say that one party was handing out candy, and the other party refusing to pay for it, and thus they're all to blame. I'm comfortable with that.
What cannot occur is more of same.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45488037)

No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly.

I never said the president aids people directly or should. However every president we have had in decades has lowered the taxes on the wealthiest Americans, taking what was once a marginally flat taxation code and making it the most regressive in the world today (amongst countries that can be said to have income taxes, anyways). Neither I, nor most people from the democratic party, seek direct aid from the government. All I seek from the government is actually equal opportunities for people.

Now, we can be non-partisan, and say that one party was handing out candy, and the other party refusing to pay for it, and thus they're all to blame. I'm comfortable with that.

Indeed the GOP has been handing out candy to corporations and wealthy Americans for a long time. For some reason the democrats refuse to prevent it from happening. Whether this means they directly endorse it or not is an open question but they sure as hell aren't putting up much of a fight.

Re:Meh (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45489167)

No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly.

I never said the president aids people directly or should.

Oh. I'm sorry. Must be my lying effing eyes, but "No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people" looks exactly like what you said. Is the President the Candy Man, or is the President not the Candy Man?

However every president we have had in decades has lowered the taxes on the wealthiest Americans, taking what was once a marginally flat taxation code and making it the most regressive in the world today (amongst countries that can be said to have income taxes, anyways). Neither I, nor most people from the democratic party, seek direct aid from the government. All I seek from the government is actually equal opportunities for people.

Hey, look, if you're trying to maneuver me into being an apologist for this Byzantine trainwreck of a tax code, this beast that is so jacked up through the roof as to make ObamaCare look a good idea, you're really off base. I'm for blowing away the 16th & 17th Amendments + the Federal Reserve Act, and restoring our federal government to a minimalist affair in keeping with the original design. I think that technology has leveled the playing field enough to mitigate the risks of State governments running too amok. See, that would be an Actual Conservative Approach, unlike your petulant attempts to brand Barack a "conservative".

Now, we can be non-partisan, and say that one party was handing out candy, and the other party refusing to pay for it, and thus they're all to blame. I'm comfortable with that.

Indeed the GOP has been handing out candy to corporations and wealthy Americans for a long time. For some reason the democrats refuse to prevent it from happening. Whether this means they directly endorse it or not is an open question but they sure as hell aren't putting up much of a fight.

Wow, that's mighty gracious of you, Mr. One-hand-clapping. Why not approach the last century from a dispassionate, even-handed view and confess that it's been a bi-partisan (to the extent it's not really one continuous Ruling Class) cock-up?

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45419267)

This market based bullshit only reinforces the terrible system that we have had for decades

You are truly ignorant and naive if you think we had a market based system prior to ObamaCare.

Re:Meh (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45419605)

This market based bullshit only reinforces the terrible system that we have had for decades

You are truly ignorant and naive if you think we had a market based system prior to ObamaCare.

Any deviation of that system from being market based is the direct result of the industry players colluding with each other. It could never become any less - or more - market-based in this country. They have it dialed it to exactly where they want it, and they have all the power they need to ensure that never changes.

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45419739)

Any deviation of that system from being market based is the direct result of the industry players colluding with each other.

The same ignorance and naivete, and unsurprisingly, the same as Occupy Wall Street. They correctly identified Wall Street corruption but incorrectly laid all the blame on Wall Street and expected the government to rescue them, as if they were two distinct players.

Anybody who thinks Wall Street and Washington are distinct is willfully blind. You write as if industry players is Wall St alone. Look at all the cabinet secretaries, all the major appointed politicians, the Fed bankers -- Wall Street insiders, the lot of them.

There isn't even a revolving door between the regulated and the regulators. They are one and the same. To arbitrarily lay the blame on the name on one side of the badges while ignoring the other side is pathetic.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45419947)

To arbitrarily lay the blame on the name on one side of the badges while ignoring the other side is pathetic.

To read only one short comment of mine and arbitrarily assume that you know the full depth of my opinion is pathetic. Go back and read some of my other comments and you'll find that I dish out plenty of blame to the politicians as well. I am no fan of the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 (that some call "obamacre") which is feeding the very machine you describe earlier.

The insurance industry has owned Washington for some time. They got a huge payout on their investment in 2010.

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45420087)

Why read other comments when I'm responding to this one? Why do you try to change the subject by misdirection, then revert to the same argument I've already responded to?

You say the insurance industry has owned Washington, the third time you've said there's a distinction between the two. I respond again that there is no difference, that they are the same players. Google for "regulatory capture". Look at the list of high level government officials since the Constitution was adopted. As I said before, pretending they are different players is willful ignorance.

I've provided plenty of ways for you to refute me. You have provided none to buttress your claim, or to refute mine. Someone is stalling here, dodging the questions with repeated assertions without backing.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45421533)

Why read other comments when I'm responding to this one? Why do you try to change the subject by misdirection, then revert to the same argument I've already responded to?

I'm not changing the subject. I'm just pointing out that you are making yourself look foolish by making grand assumptions about me based on woefully incomplete information.

You say the insurance industry has owned Washington, the third time you've said there's a distinction between the two. I respond again that there is no difference, that they are the same players. Google for "regulatory capture". Look at the list of high level government officials since the Constitution was adopted. As I said before, pretending they are different players is willful ignorance.

Perhaps you should try to google "distinction without a difference".

I've provided plenty of ways for you to refute me. You have provided none to buttress your claim, or to refute mine.

I'm challenging you to think before you speak. You insist on acting otherwise.

Someone is stalling here, dodging the questions with repeated assertions without backing.

I'm not stalling anything. You are really good at pulling shit out of thin air and getting yourself whipped up into a frenzy over it though. Are you actually trying to make an argument or are you just trying to see if you can irritate me?

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45421667)

I'm not changing the subject. I'm just pointing out that you are making yourself look foolish by making grand assumptions about me based on woefully incomplete information.

You haven't done anything on this thread except (a) refuse to back up your bare assertions, (b) change the subject to your comment history when cornered, and (c) repeat the same bare assertions without backup.

Perhaps you should try to google "distinction without a difference".

Exactly what I have been saying about Washington and Wall St. Why you insist on singling out the insurance industry and claim they are distinct from Washington is a puzzle.

I'm challenging you to think before you speak. You insist on acting otherwise.

You're doing nothing of the sort. You're expecting me to blindly agree with you instead of thinking or requiring any proof, a typical statist attitude.

I'm not stalling anything. You are really good at pulling shit out of thin air and getting yourself whipped up into a frenzy over it though.

And the first cuss word comes from you! Who's in the frenzy here?

My argument is that differentiating Wall St and Washington is a distinction without a difference. Go back to your history. Look up Mayflower Compact. The indentured servants signed up for a Virginia destination, and threatened to free themselves when they were landed in Massachusetts instead. The Mayflower Compact was the fat cats' response to make sure there was some form of government at all times so they could maintain a facade of legality to keep the servants indentured even though the fat cats had broken their side of the contract.

George Washington and friends bought 200,000 acres in the Ohio Valley, a questionable deal with unsettled colony borders and agreements with the Indians, and then used their votes in the Virginia Legislature to give their deal some also questionable legal cover.

Later, as President and commander-in-chief, he led the army which put down the Whhiskey Rebellion of small farmers who couldn't manage to pay the whiskey tax. Was it a coincidence that Washington was a successful large scale whiskey farmer?

The revolution itself was co-opted by the merchants, sheriffs, judges, and other entrenched interests.

Not a single insurance company in the lot, not even John Hancock yet, but plenty of crony corruption. This corruption has been going on since the beginning of time. Your focus on the insurance companies in 2010, and your insistence that government is pure and should crack down on the insurance companies, is laughable.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45422469)

You haven't done anything on this thread except (a) refuse to back up your bare assertions

Where did I do such a thing? You are claiming it to have happened but I have seen myself to do no such thing in this thread.

(b) change the subject to your comment history when cornered

Cornered? Hardly. I was pointing out that you are making assumptions that you cannot back up with facts yourself. You are declaring your assumptions about me - which are easily proven to be counter to factual reality - to be god's own truth. I am simply directing you to where you can easily find your statements to be wrong. I'm not even accusing you of lying, just simply stating that you are uninformed. For some reason you appear to prefer to stay that way.

Why you insist on singling out the insurance industry and claim they are distinct from Washington is a puzzle.

Why you insist on continuing to write without reading is a much greater puzzle. The only reason why I mention the insurance industry in this thread is because this thread is about the insurance industry. There are other industries that have a great deal of influence in Washington but no other ones that influenced the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010.

You're expecting me to blindly agree with you instead of thinking or requiring any proof

I have done nothing of the sort. I have simply pointed out where you have taken very little information and incorrectly used it as the basis for some woefully inaccurate assumptions that you continue to declare about me.

I'm sorry that reading comprehension is so difficult for you.

I'm not stalling anything. You are really good at pulling shit out of thin air and getting yourself whipped up into a frenzy over it though.

And the first cuss word comes from you! Who's in the frenzy here?

Really? You're trying to accuse me of being in a frenzy because I used the word shit? The word wasn't even directed at you; I called your assumptions shit and not you. You keep trying to apply baseless assumptions as factual arguments, and you are apparently quite uncomfortable when presented with reality that counters those assumptions.

But you don't seem to want to actually discuss the matter. If you wanted to have a discussion you would have started by discussing facts instead of starting by trying so desperately to apply a label to me. What is it that you are trying to accomplish in this thread? You certainly aren't getting points across when you make yourself look this silly from the start.

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45422569)

You say this thread is about the insurance industry, but only in 2010, apparently. You also say I should read all your other comments to see what kind of a person you are. You also say many other things, but you also say you say only one thing. You say I don't back up my arguments, but I did, and you don't answer those. But you want me to go read other comments you have made which have nothing to do with this.

Why don't you settle down to one single argument? Why do you insist I narrow my discussion down to insurance companies in 2010 while you also tell me to read your other comments, and while you wander all over the place and talk about everything except what I have said concerning your arguments?

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45424464)

You say this thread is about the insurance industry, but only in 2010, apparently

For something to be a "serious proposals to replace obamace" - you know, as in what the title of this JE says, it needs to have been proposed since the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 was passed.

You also say I should read all your other comments to see what kind of a person you are

No, I did not. I merely said you could look back at some of my earlier comments to see what I have said on this, and you would then know that you are utterly and embarrassingly wrong on the accusations that you have laid against me.

You say I don't back up my arguments, but I did, and you don't answer those

First of all, you didn't back up your arguments. More critically in this thread though is the fact that you started attacking me in your very first comments with untrue allegations that are not rooted in reality. I kindly suggested that you read some of my earlier comments before making yourself look so silly with baseless assumptions and instead you took offense. I'm sorry that reason and fact are so difficult for you.

But you want me to go read other comments you have made which have nothing to do with this.

I have made many comments which do relate to this, but you aren't going to read them. It appears you are incapable of reading anything that would plainly prove your allegations to be 100% wrong.

Why don't you settle down to one single argument?

Being as much of your argument is based on nothing at all, and you refuse to look into where you started off so very very wrong, you have not provided a reason for me to expect a meaningful discussion from you.

Why do you insist I narrow my discussion down to insurance companies in 2010

If we are to talk about the law, we need to view what has happened since 2010 when it was passed. Proposals that came before it don't matter. It is, after all, the topic of this JE and this thread. I don't know why you have so much difficulty with that.

while you also tell me to read your other comments

I direct you to my other comments because you continue to throw around 100% fact-free and baseless allegations about me because ... well, there is really no valid reason to do that. I suggested you read some of my earlier comments to see where you were wrong, in the expectation that a mature and civilized person might follow that advice and then re-frame their argument with that knowledge. I don't expect you to be versed on every single comment I have ever written on slashdot, but I do expect you to be able to take in additional information and adapt to it when it is presented to you. Apparently I am expecting too much.

while you wander all over the place and talk about everything except what I have said concerning your arguments?

That is another rather lofty accusation coming from you. I have stayed on topic throughout this thread and anyone who reads it can see that. Being as you started off by making this personal, it is hard to see where you really leveled anything resembling a meaningful argument so far.

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45424598)

Your only limit on a conversation is refusal to take part. If you bring up corruption in a half-assed manner and I call you out and show how the problem is far wider than you are willing to admit, you don't get to call a foul on me for expanding the conversation. That's 3 year old behavior.

You especially don't get to try to limit the conversation to your original post on the one hand, and then widen it on the other hand by telling me to go read other comments of yours. That's admission that you wish to withdraw your original comment because it wasn't reflective of your rhoughts.

My opinions of you are necessarily as fact-free as your opinions of me. My facts showing the depth and breadth of crony corruption are sitting there waiting for you to answer with something other than "I was only talking about insurance since 2010" or more opinions on me, which apparently is ok for thee but not for me.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45425164)

I call you out and show how the problem is far wider than you are willing to admit, you don't get to call a foul on me for expanding the conversation

You did nothing to expand the conversation by throwing out nonsensical accusations at me.

You especially don't get to try to limit the conversation to your original post on the one hand, and then widen it on the other hand by telling me to go read other comments of yours.

That is not limiting the conversation; I was trying to actually stay with the topic at hand. My pointing out that your assumptions were baseless was not an attempt to widen the discussion either; I was simply pointing out that your statements about me were not accurate.

That's admission that you wish to withdraw your original comment because it wasn't reflective of your rhoughts.

Wrong. It is demonstration of you taking a short sound bite and trying to extrapolate that to be some great observation on me, which of course was inaccurate because you had nowhere near enough information to make such an accusation.

My opinions of you are necessarily as fact-free as your opinions of me.

I have demonstrated that you have attempted to place a label on me, while lacking facts. It is not an opinion, it is a demonstrated fact. Your writing demonstrates them to be fact.

Re:Meh (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 9 months ago | (#45428263)

1. That's the first time anyone has ever tried a reverse ad hominem attack on me. Yay!

2. A one-sided conversation is not a conversation. Once commenced, a conversation is not under control of any single party to it. This is not a panel discussion and you are not the moderator of one. if you don't like the path the conversation taken -- if you now wish you had not made that first post -- too bad. Drop out if you want.

You have argued nothing except that you are butt hurt over being called out on your attempts to artificially limit the definition of corruption and cronyism. Your subsequent attempts to pretend you didn't start the topic and switch horses in mid-stream is interesting. I can only guess your first post embarrasses you so much you want to disown it.

If, instead, all you want to do now is argue about what degree of butt hurt you are, find a mirror. But if you want to argue about what crony corruption is, feel free to respond again. I'm sure slashdot's servers can withstand your efforts.

Re:Meh (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45429583)

Even by slashdot standards - where all sorts of stupid somehow magically counts as a "response" - your writings are pitiful. It is amusing seeing you try to declare victory for yourself here when you started by making yourself look foolish, and then just ran with it in the same direction. I can't stop you from making yourself look like an idiot any more than I can force you to read the comments that plainly show your continued assumptions to be baseless. Now you're just throwing tired out memes at me as if they somehow support your twisted sense of victory.

I was going to click on your slashdot profile to see if you are trolling other people here at the same time or if the full capacity of your intellect is being consumed by this shameful effort that you are directing at me, except that the slashcode seems broken when I try to do that and you're not worth the effort to try to get around the new brokenness.

You haven't heard about other ideas (0)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45419169)

. . .because they haven't fit the preferred narrative of the codpiece media.

Re:You haven't heard about other ideas (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 9 months ago | (#45435333)

I'm not huge on trolling, but I am interested in hearing these ideas now that we've gone from the frying pan into the fire on obamacare. As long as the ideas aren't "gee, the frying pan was kind of cozy when you think about it, I kind of miss that place".

Re:You haven't heard about other ideas (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45440449)

We can continue to centralize power, and die, or re-distribute the power.

Try joining the civilized world (2)

qeveren (318805) | about 9 months ago | (#45419395)

You know, the whole government-run UHC thing that works literally everywhere else? The ones that provide universal coverage at massively lower costs and all that? I know it's a crazy idea but...

Re:Try joining the civilized world (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 9 months ago | (#45419539)

You mean like sane nations like Canada and the European and UK country have? This is America, that's crazy talk!

We LIKE our lowered life expectancy, high infant mortality, and (YAY 'MERICA) the HIGHEST COST! If it ain't expensive it ain't shit, right? Screw them damned liberals! Oh, and Obama suxxorz. YEE HAW!!!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>