OldGimletEye Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people just like him. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 @larrytheimp No the depiction is through 2010, so it doesnt show Obamas second term. Although the second graph of "Healthcare costs as a % of GDP, is meant to show under which administrations, you can see the Presidents (including Obama) pictued underneath each column. The caption reading healthcare costs flat through the 90's and then rising sharply beginning in 2000. The reason I posted it wasnt solely to show how shitty Reagan and the Bush's were (though they were quite shitty) . It's more of a reminder that this rising healthcare costs thingy is not something new that started with Obamacare (as apparently many new to the workforce seem to believe). The fact is healthcare costs have been rising dramatically for decades now. And unfortunately the media almost never shows the longer trend and act as if this trend began with Obamacare, it (the costs) have been out of control since Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 So will Obama make another nomination in place of the expired Garland one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Red Tiger said: So will Obama make another nomination in place of the expired Garland one? I suppose he could but it would be a symbolic act at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I suppose he could but it would be a symbolic act at best. It's that bad, huh? So much for congress taking their constitutional duties seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: The reason I posted it wasnt solely to show how shitty Reagan and the Bush's were (though they were quite shitty) . It's more of a reminder that this rising healthcare costs thingy is not something new that started with Obamacare (as apparently many new to the workforce seem to believe). The fact is healthcare costs have been rising dramatically for decades now. Strange how the Republican Party didn't know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Stego, Don't we need the Razing of Gaul before Mattis can attempt to claim to be Imperator? All Canada is divided into three parts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I suppose he could but it would be a symbolic act at best. I wonder, if Democrats had retaken the Senate; would Obama have tried to get Garland through in the short time frame he had between when Congress convened and Trump's inauguration? I suspect yes, and Republicans would've filibustered, and Democrats would've ended the filibuster for good to make sure Garland got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: @larrytheimp No the depiction is through 2010, so it doesnt show Obamas second term. Although the second graph of "Healthcare costs as a % of GDP, is meant to show under which administrations, you can see the Presidents (including Obama) pictued underneath each column. The caption reading healthcare costs flat through the 90's and then rising sharply beginning in 2000. The reason I posted it wasnt solely to show how shitty Reagan and the Bush's were (though they were quite shitty) . It's more of a reminder that this rising healthcare costs thingy is not something new that started with Obamacare (as apparently many new to the workforce seem to believe). The fact is healthcare costs have been rising dramatically for decades now. And unfortunately the media almost never shows the longer trend and act as if this trend began with Obamacare, it (the costs) have been out of control since Reagan. I dunno. I guess I'm looking at something different. The first two graphs terminate in 2008, the third goes through 2010. I see the picture of Obama but go back and look and tell me I'm crazy. Maybe nitpicking but that second plateau on the first two graphs is pretty clearly from 2004-2008. Eta: I think it's clear that republican administration's bear the brunt of the guilt on this, and agree that rising costs are nothing new. Just no need to try to stretch the data to fit that narrative more than it already does on its own, which the graphs seem to do with that Obama graphic. (The first two end with his election). Eta2: Guess my point is maybe not best to counter an untruth with a bent truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, larrytheimp said: I dunno. I guess I'm looking at something different. The first two graphs terminate in 2008, the third goes through 2010. I see the picture of Obama but go back and look and tell me I'm crazy. Maybe nitpicking but that second plateau on the first two graphs is pretty clearly from 2004-2008. No healthcare costs were skyrocketing during Bush's first term and half , in large part because he let the big pharma companies write legislation that barred the govt (medicare) from negotiating a lower price on prescription drugs. There was a slowdown in costs only when the recession kicked in towards the end of Bush's second term. W's policies were a disaster for healthcare costs, especially for prescription costs. Big Pharma was the fox guarding the hen house under Bush2. Also we had reached 35 to 40 million uninsured under Bush, the Affordable Care Act reversed that devestating trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 do these hearing protesters think they are helping? disruption is so annoying and childish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: The Sessions hearing is...something else. Franken is an exceptionally good attack dog. claiming credit for cases brought in your jurisdiction is standard practice for USAs/AGs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Quote Also we had reached 35 to 40 million uninsured under Bush, the Affordable Care Act reversed that devestating trend. Yep, and the ACA did this in addition to regulations that health plans be of a certain quality and a requirement to sell plans to those with pre-existing conditions. Pre ACA costs didn't factor these regulations in because they didn't exist. You can bring health care insurance costs way down. One way is to kick all the sick people out and force them into their own sick pools where they all pay huge costs. (Paul Ryan is still pushing this farce) Then everyone else gets lower costs. The only problem is you then destroy a bunch of American's lives. You can also let insurance companies charge old people a lot more. This makes insurance companies and young people happy. And fucks over 40 to 60 to year olds, in particular the sick. You can also allow insurance companies to sell really shitty plans for cheap. Again this makes young people happy as they get around the mandate,. assuming it still exists, and they have something for if they end up in the hospital. It's bad for a lot of older or sicker people though. These are the kind of solutions conservatives have for healthcare. But their leaders don't want to come out and admit it, thus making a repeal and replace plan even more complicated. So there is a lot of dancing around all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 they should be asking Sessions about civil asset forfeiture instead of these impotent attempts to paint him as a racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Minority Report was a fine film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 smdh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Oh for fucks sake, not that moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said: No healthcare costs were skyrocketing during Bush's first term and half , in large part because he let the big pharma companies write legislation that barred the govt (medicare) from negotiating a lower price on prescription drugs. There was a slowdown in costs only when the recession kicked in towards the end of Bush's second term. W's policies were a disaster for healthcare costs, especially for prescription costs. Big Pharma was the fox guarding the hen house under Bush2. Also we had reached 35 to 40 million uninsured under Bush, the Affordable Care Act reversed that devestating trend. I understand all that and I am not disputing it. But look at your fucking link and tell me that those graphs DO NOT terminate in 2008. Because they DO! So where is that second plateau in time? I know Obama's face is on that x axis but so is the date 2008. Am I not being clear here? Eta:. For clarity the first two graphs in your link show a plateau from 2004-2008. I am an ACA supporter and pretty much a full blown socialist but these graphs aren't showing what you say they are, either because they are poorly done or because of something else Eta2:. Not trying to come down hard on you, and I typically look forward to your posts, but look at the first two fucking graphs. They DO NOT show a plateau during Obama like you said in the initial post. Maybe accuracy doesn't matter anymore when dealing with trumpists but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially when the evidence is already damning enough on its own. Also I curse casually so dont take the profanity personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 29 minutes ago, Commodore said: smdh Nothing surprising here. One aspect of Trump that doesn't get enough coverage is that he's a conspiracy theory nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 35 minutes ago, Commodore said: smdh Just so long as they bring Jenny McCarthy onboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.