You just totally read my mind there. I love how some people feel the need to make predictions. It's even better when those people will say after an event has happened that, "I predicted X would happen."
Kilarney is right. Since this first attempt by the government in U.S. history to fix our busted health care system won't be one hundred percent perfect from the very instant of inception, we should just forget all about it.
And oh yeah - again with the predictions. I guess you acquire an obsession with predictions when the only people who will talk to you are the Psychic Friends.
Wrong. You're too concerned with proving me wrong. As I have consistently said, I will have no problem admitting I goofed. I don't care too much if I'm right. I just get sick of people hoping I'm wrong. Take a look at this thread to see who dragged this issue out. It wasn't me.
The public option is dead. Trust me. And feel free to call me on it if proven untrue.
...you should expect people to make a big deal out of it. You're issuing a challenge to everyone who disagrees with you. When you do that, you get called out when you're losing. This is basically trash talk.
When it comes to ignoring my advice I am reminded of a saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't get fooled again by ignoring my astute predictions. For a while I thought that the public option had a chance to make a comeback, but I pegged the end result.
Yeah, this is a guy who "doesn't care too much if he's right".
Wow.
Kilarney, take a moment to enlighten yourself to the fact that you are not the center of this issue, and consider that no one's goal is as much to "prove you wrong" as it is to actually support the public option that we all want. You know, the topic of the thread? The actual issue, involving our country's healthcare system rather than the impotent ego of some smarmy internet nerd?
Also, consider the fact that when you repeatedly present yourself as a self-glorifying jackass, you practically invite people to gleefully take an axe to you.
Yeah, this is a guy who "doesn't care too much if he's right".
Also, consider the fact that when you repeatedly present yourself as a self-glorifying jackass, you practically invite people to gleefully take an axe to you.
So many chickens being counted before they are hatched.
Being excited about the possibility of something happening that would make you happy and talking with other people who are excited about the same thing and hoping that said thing will happen =/= counting chickens before they are hatched.
Surely you must remember being excited about something you hoped would happen. Like, maybe when you hoped Charlotte would die in Charlotte's Web or when you were hoping all the puppies would die in 101 Dalmatians?
So many chickens being counted before they are hatched.
Being excited about the possibility of something happening that would make you happy and talking with other people who are excited about the same thing and hoping that said thing will happen =/= counting chickens before they are hatched.
Surely you must remember being excited about something you hoped would happen. Like, maybe when you hoped Charlotte would die inCharlotte's Webor when you were hoping all the puppies would die in101 Dalmatians?
Stupak sounds like it just throws red tape in to make it so federal funds won't be used for abortions. I think it's more to appease blue dogs and to make it so the Republicans can't say that the Democrats are mandating that every man, woman, and child has an abortion using federal money.
Even if it passes the house, it'll still take till 2013 to go into effect. Kind of a bummer because there is a slim chance that the GOP gets enough people elected to kill it before it starts.
That being said, I'm glad there's some progress after a decade of backsliding.
Read this about the Stupak Amendment. It contains a link to the actual amendment. What do you think about the conclusion that this could be used to discriminate against the poor?
It seems like a bit of a stretch as far as discriminating against the poor in general, but it's certainly a concern. We'll have to see what the house does with it, maybe the language can be improved.
It seems like a bit of a stretch as far as discriminating against the poor in general, but it's certainly a concern.
I don't think it's a stretch at all. All an insurance company would have to do is offer coverage for abortion. Then, no person could use public funds to get that insurance. So, the company has just immediately wiped out the ability of any needy person to afford insurance offered by that company. It would be too easy for someone not to try it.
Even if no insurance company tries this, the amendment is a de facto restriction on abortion rights. Only people wealthy enough to afford private plans receiving no federal funds would have plans covering abortion. What happens when a needy person needs an abortion? Is there a coat-hanger lobby that sponsored this amendment?
According to a 2002 Guttmacher Institute study, 87 percent of employment-based insured health plans offered coverage for abortions (though not all companies select it for their employees). A 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 46 percent of covered workers had coverage for abortions. The two surveys asked different questions, but the bottom line is that a significant percentage of women have health insurance that covers abortions.
Comments
I love how some people feel the need to make predictions. It's even better when those people will say after an event has happened that, "I predicted X would happen."
And more proof that my prediction has legs.
And if this is a "victory", stop drinking the Kool-Aid!
And oh yeah - again with the predictions. I guess you acquire an obsession with predictions when the only people who will talk to you are the Psychic Friends.
It'll solve a problem, that's for sure.
Kilarney "predicts" end to global warming.
Kilarney gives himself a pat on the back for his "prediction" about the death of the public option. Kilarney boasting about the earlier "death" of the public option and his "predictions" regarding same.
Kilarney's "prediction" about netbooks.
Kilarney engaging in calm, rational debate, showing that it doesn't matter too much to him if he's right.
Kilarney is "done with the podcast" because it doesn't meet his high standards.
Yeah, this is a guy who "doesn't care too much if he's right".
Kilarney, take a moment to enlighten yourself to the fact that you are not the center of this issue, and consider that no one's goal is as much to "prove you wrong" as it is to actually support the public option that we all want. You know, the topic of the thread? The actual issue, involving our country's healthcare system rather than the impotent ego of some smarmy internet nerd?
Also, consider the fact that when you repeatedly present yourself as a self-glorifying jackass, you practically invite people to gleefully take an axe to you.
John Boehner continues to be an idiot regarding healthcare.
Oh, and as a bonus, the Boehner pulled this little doosie:
GOP doesn't actually have an alternative plan.
Surely you must remember being excited about something you hoped would happen. Like, maybe when you hoped Charlotte would die in Charlotte's Web or when you were hoping all the puppies would die in 101 Dalmatians?
Even if it passes the house, it'll still take till 2013 to go into effect. Kind of a bummer because there is a slim chance that the GOP gets enough people elected to kill it before it starts.
That being said, I'm glad there's some progress after a decade of backsliding.
Even if no insurance company tries this, the amendment is a de facto restriction on abortion rights. Only people wealthy enough to afford private plans receiving no federal funds would have plans covering abortion. What happens when a needy person needs an abortion? Is there a coat-hanger lobby that sponsored this amendment? Source.
That's gone under Stupak. What will all those people do?
I'm happy about the passage of the Bill, but I'm concerned about this Amendment.