After Dems lose Senate in Nov 2014, will they hastily repeal "Nuclear Option" before leaving office?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by bUU

Because we're well over thirty-five years into societal regression promulgated by very successful projection of egoistic right-wing perspective, and this year seems to be another year during which the nation will be set yet-again on a more prodigiously steep slope back down into barbarism and callous disregard for others.

No that isn't why but if it makes you feel better about it.

So let's fix that without throwing people you don't care about over a cliff or trying to insulate yourself the harm casual ignorance of the most likely impact of what you advocate would bring about.

Those that have routinely lied to us without even batting an eye can not be trusted to fix it.

Thanks for making clear that the regard for human beings, which I place in the highest priority, is at best in third place in your "morality".

Putting insurance.companies first and preaching on morals are mutually exclusive.

I'm all for that, again, as long as it is cost that we're addressing, not hiding a callous disregard for basic human decency toward those least fortunate in society behind claims of working on "costs". The minute your comments about cost go over the line into marginalization or disrespect for those less fortunate in society, I'll condemn your attempt to claim that you're addressing cost as a smokescreen for practicing the callous disregard that was your base intention. People having access to what is necessary to sustain their health is simply a non-negotiable quality of life for people with moral character. We're not talking about tattoo removal. We're not talking about Lasik surgery. We're talking sustaining health.

Maybe someday someone will actually do that. They haven't so far and no one seems to even have any desire to do it.

Yes, I can. The minute there is a proposal in Congress to replace ACA with something that provides all what ACA provides to those less fortunate in society, and at lower cost, I'll support that. If you want to proposal taking unilateral actions on windfall profits of insurance companies, I won't say Word One against that. And no, I don't have to support it either. I have my own perspective about what's important enough to waste time discussing - don't presume to dictate to me what I should consider important versus not. Human beings - that's important, even if you cannot bring yourself to respect such a moral prioritization in the context of this issue.

There is and will continue to be millions and millions uninsured so I take your claims with a grain of salt at best.

False. Until you're willing to be honest with yourself about the value of one person, I don't see how you're going to be able to even pretend to acknowledge the value of thousand of people or more.

Many lost their insurance that they were perfectly happy with despite promises to the contrary. Now they are losing their trusted doctors. Rushing people through some assembly line isn't how you take care of people.

If you believe that then have something better put in place without that throwing people you don't care about off a cliff.

Said despite not being able to disagree with what I said should have been done.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by pknopp

No that isn't why but if it makes you feel better about it.

Nonsense. It is the reality of the situation even though it ruins your silly narrative.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Those that have routinely lied to us without even batting an eye can not be trusted to fix it.

I'm okay with anyone "fixing" it, as long as they're moral people and "fixing" it in a moral manner. Why the insistence on arguing about things that aren't major sources of conflict? Can it be that you have no valid comments to make concerning the important stuff, so you figure you can save face by fixating on the matter of relatively little dispute?

Originally Posted by pknopp

Putting insurance.companies first and preaching on morals are mutually exclusive.

Which is why I advocate ACA on the basis of how it reduces the number of those less fortunate without affordable access to basic healthcare. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that already. I know you're reading my comments, so conveniently forgetting what you read shortly after reading it is a pretty silly way of trying to support your perspective.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Maybe someday someone will actually do that.

Like I said, I'd be all for it. I suspect we'll have to see a radical change in the passively obsequious attitude toward corporations in America before we can fully accomplish that goal.

Originally Posted by pknopp

There is and will continue to be millions and millions uninsured so I take your claims with a grain of salt at best.

Ah yes: The fallacy that if only a portion of those in need are addressed than no one in need has been addressed. I'm happy enough for you to implicitly acknowledge the failure of your perspective by stooping to engaging is such a ridiculous fallacy to try to have something to say in response to what I wrote.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by bUU

I'm okay with anyone "fixing" it, as long as they're moral people and "fixing" it in a moral manner. Why the insistence on arguing about things that aren't major sources of conflict? Can it be that you have no valid comments to make concerning the important stuff, so you figure you can save face by fixating on the matter of relatively little dispute?

Again you say this despite me explaining how we need to address the important stuff and you not having a single arguement to the contrary.

Which is why I advocate ACA on the basis of how it reduces the number of those less fortunate without affordable access to basic healthcare. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that already. I know you're reading my comments, so conveniently forgetting what you read shortly after reading it is a pretty silly way of trying to support your perspective.

Very few are covered today that werent two years ago.

Like I said, I'd be all for it. I suspect we'll have to see a radical change in the passively obsequious attitude toward corporations in America before we can fully accomplish that goal.

That is what Obamacare is. Insurance companies needs come first. It will never change as long as those who claim they want change continue to vote for the status quo.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Again you say this despite me explaining how we need to address the important stuff and you not having a single arguement to the contrary.

No, I say that because you expressed a corrupt prioritization, in response to my very substantive argument to the contrary. And now you're embarrassed by having the corruption you expressed preference for repudiated, prompting to start with another ridiculous tirade of vacuous denials.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Very few are covered today that werent two years ago.

Wrong. Let us know when you're willing to start admitting the truth.

Originally Posted by pknopp

That is what Obamacare is. Insurance companies needs come first.

Wrong. Let us know when you're willing to start admitting the truth.