Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #62: Your reading comprehension approximates a 6th grader: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep-27-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. Your reading comprehension approximates a 6th grader:

Quoting from the OP



1) We all hate mandates. That is not however an excuse not to put in a little effort to understand why mandates have become an inherent part of health care reform

and

If you do not want mandates then you must allow the insurers (whether it is a public plan or a private plan) to charge different fees to different risk groups.




There is no aspersions to people who, understanding the principles involved prefer the current system to change to a system that is clearly going to bring some pain. This solution, as imperfect as it is, will also provide tremendous relief to people with chronic health conditions that cannot get care. They will be accepted without discrimination and will not pay a different fee.

In the thread you can read thoughtful discussions by Kim and Hunter, Prism, Boppers and Hello Kitty that all engage in a thoughtful discussion of issues.

But there is only one responder on this thread who has taken an intelligent discussion and launched a personal attack.

That is you. Somebody disagrees with you then they are a "cheerleader" and "haven't read the post".

You stand alone.

Everyone who reads the thread knows that I didn't compare people who don't like the mandate to freepers (I already admitted that I didn't like it,that it is a bitter medicine).

No those that act like Freepers are those that because they are ignorant of the basic workings of actuarial calculation (the key point that has not been seriously challenged) stoop so low that they accuse the President of accepting mandates for the prospect of future campaign contributions, or has taken direct bribes, or other criminal activity.

How small is the mind and how dark is the soul that could be so perversely motivated that they would take a such an attack against President Obama. It is the kind of mind that we see on Fox, it is the cartoon image known as Glenn Beck, it is the spirit of Freepers.

Rather than understand and have an intelligent conversation on a complex problem, one in which Paul Krugman warned candidate Obama about (see upthread) some would seek to go to the bottom rung of dignity and insult the President who has served so far with intelligence, humility and self restraint.

So please go on with your uninformed belligerent attacks on President Obama. They are not well grounded in fact, almost always devoid of logic, lack any sense of proportion, have no context and reveal an obsessive compulsion to try and tear down someone who is clearly, clearly, clearly way above your self appointed station. You dwell in the basement.

Do me this favor. Every time you engage in an attack on the President, mention me. For I stand with him.

Even when I disagree with him I have found his epistemology and rationale have always been instructive. So feel free on your next attack on the President to include the phrase "and some here at DU" so that you continue to narrowly stay within the rules. Let everyone understand that you are attacking me.

Your disparaging words to me I wear as a badge of honor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  A non hysterical explanation of mandates grantcart  Sep-26-09 03:58 PM   #0 
   Are you implying that Obama was hysterical during the campaign?  rmp yellow   Sep-26-09 04:03 PM   #1 
   Candidate Obama stated that he didn't think a mandate was  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:11 PM   #4 
   Do you think his campaign was hysterical using "Harry and Louis" ads to attack a mandate?  rmp yellow   Sep-26-09 04:16 PM   #8 
      It would have been "hysterical" if he had, like some DUers are today,  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:34 PM   #16 
         he did. nt  LaydeeBug   Sep-27-09 04:57 PM   #84 
   I think you know the OP is not implying Obama was  Cha   Sep-26-09 04:34 PM   #15 
      +1  Raine1967   Sep-26-09 04:41 PM   #19 
      I think you didn't see the Harry and Louis mailer in 2008 n/t  rmp yellow   Sep-26-09 05:04 PM   #27 
         Yeah, disingenuous.  Cha   Sep-26-09 05:11 PM   #31 
         So you are disingenuous about the mailer, I guess  rmp yellow   Sep-26-09 05:49 PM   #37 
         Criticism of the mailer is valid  grantcart   Sep-26-09 05:32 PM   #33 
            The ONLY reason Obama won my support over Hillary....  bvar22   Sep-27-09 02:37 PM   #77 
   K&R.  cliffordu   Sep-26-09 04:05 PM   #2 
   There's Another Option: Get Rid Of The Insurance Companies  Tace   Sep-26-09 04:08 PM   #3 
   Getting rid of the insurance companies (which I support) would not change  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:13 PM   #6 
      Yes, I'm Thinking Of A Taxpayer-Funded Single-Payer System  Tace   Sep-26-09 04:18 PM   #10 
      We are in agreement - my only point is that single payers are also mandated systems  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:31 PM   #14 
         Big difference having a mandate for a single payer system  dflprincess   Sep-26-09 11:35 PM   #59 
            Thank you... elegantly stated... without the profanity I'm on the verge of typing...  LooseWilly   Sep-28-09 04:21 AM   #98 
      Single payer has an individual mandate by definition.  backscatter712   Sep-27-09 04:39 PM   #82 
      self-delete  jeanpalmer   Sep-28-09 03:58 AM   #97 
   Which describes Obama during the primaries?  masuki bance   Sep-26-09 04:12 PM   #5 
   Neither  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 04:28 PM   #11 
   technically no  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:29 PM   #12 
      Isn't it funny how little that is discussed...  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 04:39 PM   #17 
      I still don't understand how they are going to common rate people  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:48 PM   #22 
         Ironically, pre-existing condition ban is some sort of national health-care  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 04:54 PM   #24 
      ...  masuki bance   Sep-26-09 04:40 PM   #18 
   Which is why it is a crime to profit from basic health care  Bluenorthwest   Sep-26-09 04:14 PM   #7 
   This is a superb thread, but will provoke some Orwellian comedy  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 04:17 PM   #9 
   At the time you were right and I was wrong  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:30 PM   #13 
      Whoops. I didn't mean anything personal at all.  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 04:47 PM   #21 
         Just business nothing personal taken  grantcart   Sep-26-09 04:56 PM   #25 
            One benefit of not putting forward a plan  Kurt_and_Hunter   Sep-26-09 05:05 PM   #28 
   Delete  TomCADem   Sep-26-09 04:42 PM   #20 
   Aren't Gas Guzzler Taxes A Similar Type Of Mandate?  TomCADem   Sep-26-09 04:52 PM   #23 
   My family mbr, who did risk assessment, statistics, actuarial, etc for ins companies, says it's BS  Justitia   Sep-26-09 04:58 PM   #26 
   Well I guess it would be interesting to actually hear from your family member  grantcart   Sep-26-09 05:06 PM   #29 
      We talked about that...he sees it as too many accepting "rec'd truth" from the ins industry.  Justitia   Sep-26-09 05:38 PM   #34 
         Now that I understand your point more clearly  grantcart   Sep-26-09 05:56 PM   #38 
         exactly! His empirical evidence showed a much larger correlation w/risk aversion  Justitia   Sep-26-09 06:13 PM   #40 
         Mandates are to a lot of Democrats what tort reform is to Republicans  Hello_Kitty   Sep-26-09 06:44 PM   #42 
   Why not subsidize pre-existing conditions?  Prism   Sep-26-09 05:10 PM   #30 
   what is your understanding of how high the highest income that will  grantcart   Sep-26-09 05:27 PM   #32 
      My understanding:  Prism   Sep-26-09 05:38 PM   #35 
         That's why I asked - I thought $ 88,000 for a family was pretty good  grantcart   Sep-26-09 05:49 PM   #36 
         The devil is very much in the details  Prism   Sep-26-09 07:13 PM   #44 
         I understand - right now that explains our situation  grantcart   Sep-26-09 07:19 PM   #45 
            Here's the table I'm looking at  Prism   Sep-26-09 07:25 PM   #46 
               You should make a seperate OP of it tomorrow  grantcart   Sep-26-09 10:48 PM   #53 
                  I mostly agree  Prism   Sep-27-09 04:46 PM   #83 
         I keep hearing 66,000. and thats only if you have 2 kids and 2 adults  quakerboy   Sep-27-09 03:40 AM   #65 
            It depends what goes into the final bill  Prism   Sep-27-09 02:11 PM   #75 
         HR3200 permits premiums of 11% of income  dflprincess   Sep-26-09 11:41 PM   #60 
   K&R for helping me to understand the issue better myself.  Greyskye   Sep-26-09 06:10 PM   #39 
   I reject a couple of your premises  Hello_Kitty   Sep-26-09 06:42 PM   #41 
   "From an actuarial standpoint you are correct"  grantcart   Sep-26-09 07:04 PM   #43 
   Fee differentiation *is allowed*, I thought?  boppers   Sep-26-09 07:43 PM   #47 
   I would be interested in any reference you have on it  grantcart   Sep-26-09 10:03 PM   #49 
   Looks like I was hearing about Baucus' version.  boppers   Sep-26-09 10:13 PM   #51 
      having only those three criteria for fee variation is quite strong  grantcart   Sep-26-09 10:18 PM   #52 
   Under the Baucus bill, older people, who must also save for retirement,  amandabeech   Sep-27-09 08:44 PM   #88 
   I agree with you, as long as we have a strong public option, to keep prices down...  backscatter712   Sep-26-09 08:14 PM   #48 
   agreed without the public option it would be a disaster.  grantcart   Sep-26-09 10:04 PM   #50 
   Mandates without cost controls are a disaster waiting to happen!  JCMach1   Sep-26-09 11:05 PM   #54 
   that is why without the Public Option this would be a mega disaster  grantcart   Sep-26-09 11:12 PM   #55 
      I fully agree...  JCMach1   Sep-27-09 03:48 PM   #80 
   You have a funny -- and predictable -- way of lying.and being disingenuous  brentspeak   Sep-26-09 11:30 PM   #56 
   Your reading comprehension approximates a 6th grader:  grantcart   Sep-27-09 12:14 AM   #62 
   Thank you Grantcart - you put my often knee-jerk reaction to BS into rational words!  kid a   Sep-27-09 01:01 PM   #74 
   I don't seek him out but if he comes he knows what is waiting for him.  grantcart   Sep-27-09 02:47 PM   #79 
   In short: Obama lied about the mandate, and you post long-winded, sychophantic apologetics  brentspeak   Sep-27-09 04:28 PM   #81 
   Blah de blah de blah de woof woof woof.  cliffordu   Sep-27-09 05:43 PM   #85 
   That you don't understand epistomology is not surprising.  grantcart   Sep-27-09 05:49 PM   #86 
      I understand what "epistomology" is  brentspeak   Sep-27-09 08:17 PM   #87 
         Again it is a problem with your ongoing ability to read and stay on point  grantcart   Sep-27-09 08:49 PM   #89 
            And, if I may be so bold.....  cliffordu   Sep-27-09 11:18 PM   #92 
               high school - didn't have it in college but there were other alternatives  grantcart   Sep-28-09 12:07 AM   #93 
                  I suspect you were a master at those pasttimes too.....  cliffordu   Sep-28-09 12:30 AM   #94 
   Those of us with pre-existing conditions will pay premiums based on age.  amandabeech   Sep-27-09 08:54 PM   #90 
   Now, now, big fella, what is it? Something stuck in the diaper there.....??  cliffordu   Sep-27-09 11:45 AM   #70 
   Oh, quit talking sense!  Odin2005   Sep-26-09 11:30 PM   #57 
   Why do I have the feeling you didn't understand a word the OP said  brentspeak   Sep-26-09 11:32 PM   #58 
      I comprehended the OP just fine thank you very much.  Odin2005   Sep-26-09 11:51 PM   #61 
      "Mindlessly cheerleading"? Is that all you got, brentspeak? Personal  Cha   Sep-27-09 12:03 PM   #72 
   Something is very wrong in this thread. There's too much actual discussion...  BlooInBloo   Sep-27-09 12:35 AM   #63 
   You are so right  goclark   Sep-27-09 11:40 AM   #69 
   Watch your fucking mouth or I'll publish those photos of you and Bekkerhead  cliffordu   Sep-27-09 11:50 AM   #71 
   Plainly put  quakerboy   Sep-27-09 02:52 AM   #64 
   I agree 100% except I expect that having gotten the public option in as a wedge  grantcart   Sep-27-09 04:35 AM   #66 
      I love this thread ~ thanks so much grantcart  goclark   Sep-27-09 11:23 AM   #68 
   The US will not have a fair an universally available health care system as long a private insurance  Monk06   Sep-27-09 05:27 AM   #67 
   It really is that simple.  ipaint   Sep-27-09 09:45 PM   #91 
      This part of your response is deserves to be highlighted ....  Monk06   Sep-28-09 04:54 AM   #100 
   krnt for serious discussion  HamdenRice   Sep-27-09 12:39 PM   #73 
   "People who are arguing against mandates either"  ZombieHorde   Sep-27-09 02:35 PM   #76 
   are you familiar with how Canada transitioned to single payer?  grantcart   Sep-27-09 02:47 PM   #78 
   I'd be happy to have a mandate IF there were a public option OPEN TO EVERYONE  Lydia Leftcoast   Sep-28-09 12:45 AM   #95 
   Wyden's ammendment would do that and it seems to be gaining steam.  grantcart   Sep-28-09 01:59 AM   #96 
   That's good news.  harun   Sep-28-09 12:34 PM   #102 
   100% CORRECT. If they want to make some one buy a plan  harun   Sep-28-09 12:33 PM   #101 
   It's not the mandate that's the problem  jeanpalmer   Sep-28-09 04:43 AM   #99 
      Ezra Klein and other economists disagree  grantcart   Sep-28-09 01:25 PM   #103 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC