Translation: damn that cut to the quick and I don't know how to hide my defensiveness.

You were the guy that said Roger Stone is a Zen Master. Yeah dog. Ok.

No, Obamacare screwed over young people, who statistically are much poorer than the older generation, even after adjusting for inflation. This bill is actually leveling the playing fields between a very wealthy generation and a relatively poor one.

I don't even know if that's what watevs thinks is terrible but yeah, it's a common trope:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicalNegro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

(Fly impression)

Oh look, someone is trying to play smart on the internet.

rtd,

What do you think happens when an uninsured twenty something gets cancer?

and the 3.8%?

100% lies

Lol.

But yeah, none of that is predicated on Jules et al being racist or even directly having race-based criticism of Obama, and ultimately it's not really even a joke at Jules' expense, more just general commentary about the slew of people coming in the windows talking about Obama promising hope and change but yada yada yada and I'm like, 'O snap homeboy, so Ol' Bagger Vance let you down, huh? Welcome to real life.'

I believe my initial reply was 'lol look at Shuffle letting the mask slip'.

I mean, I've seen actual rabid animals foaming at the mouth and have never seen one stroke its chinhairs and say 'hmm, very interesting.'

I'm basically doing armchair layperson's forensic linguistic analysis so take that FWIW but LOL I've never heard it put as 'sometimes there's just TOO MUCH DARN EQUALITY' from somebody of your alleged political ilk.

Shuffle, have you ever used, unironically, the phrase 'cut off/down the tall trees'?

I am not against the mandate, I think young people should be insured and pay their fair share. I am against the Obamacare 3:1 cap on the ratio of what insurers can charge older people.

lol

Fwiw I consider myself "bagger vanced" by Obama as well

Yes, of course real GDP. The claim of the Brookings report I cited which is consistent with Piketty's work is that there is no correlation between personal income tax rates and GDP growth. You imply that GDP growth is lower due to the lower tax rates of the past 30 years.

I don't see where it's lower, but you agree that lower taxes do *not* seem to increase GDP growth. I have only seen hand-waving to back up affirmative claims.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read

good post

This interview/podcast with Jonathan Chiat is probably the most perceptive analysis of current politics and the state of the republican party that I've heard or read. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcas..._s_future.html

I have a question for you.

When I was a baby, I was deathly ill from meningitis. I was given last rites 3x. As a result, I lost my hearing and I have neurological issues from time to time. As I get older, it gets worse.

Because of my hearing loss, it can be hard to find employment even though I have a college degree. (Why hire the Deaf guy when I can hire the hearing guy?)

Despite all this, I still manage to support myself and I get Medicare as health insurance.

Is it my fault that I didn't keep myself healthy as an infant? Was I not leading a good life? Am I mooching off the Government dole by getting Medicare? Have I not paid my fair share despite the fact I worked 40 full quarters and have maxed out on my benefits? Can you even comprehend the questions I'm asking or is this the first time it's even occurred to you?

But according to people like you, Paul Ryan, and Dickhead Trump, I need to take personal responsibilities for my actions.

But hey, congrats. Maybe when you are a millionaire, you'll see that sweet ass tax return. Yay you!

no transcript?

most republicans mentality is basically "if no one I know personally is affected negatively then this is great"


funny thing is this affects so many republican's lives and families that it might actually backfire for once

As I said previously, people were upset that Obamacare was not more subsidized. It was still too expensive. So they voted GOP. LOL.

What really worries me is the GOP knows that because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, it won't matter.

This upcoming vote in Georgia with the 6th district will be a microcosm of the upcoming 2018 elections. If the GOP is able to hang on to that, we are all ****ed, IMO.

I mean, there's actually room for reasonable people to disagree on this particular point, but if you think the AHCA is the best and most equitable way to rectify this, lol.

Let me give you another way of looking at this. Let's say the average young person pays around $4,800 a year under the ACA. I'm picking this because I'm 30 and that's roughly what I pay. You're opposed to capping it at about $14,400 per year for older people.

How much do you think the average person can afford at 50-65 years old? You're advocating for them to pay what, 25-30,000 a year? That's impossible for many of them.

But instead of looking at it like me paying for someone who's 60 now, look at it like me at 30 paying for myself at 60... As long as the system continues on the same track. Unfortunately it has to start somewhere, so some generation has to pay for a generation that didn't pay into it. But, that's the way it is.

Yes, millenials have been hit hard with policies like this, what with paying for social security that we likely won't get to collect. But, we also overwhelmingly support the left on these issues, so what's the problem?

Lastly, if you were thinking "Eff the olds, 25-30,000 sounds fine. They should pay what they cost, or they don't get healthcare," let me throw another wrench into your plan (or lack thereof). If they can't afford it (and many of them won't), they'll go to emergency rooms for treatment that is often more expensive, which they can't pay for. It must be provided, though, and the cost is then spread over the system. You can pay for it on the front end, when it's cheaper, or the backend when it's more expensive.

Unless you support a bill that actually has death panels, you've gotta take care of those costs somewhere.

You are right it should be 1:1. We shouldn't even have insurers. What about wealthy young people and poor old people? Why is age relevant at all? Shouldn't everybody kick in based on what they earn?

It's impossible to predict (ignoring pre existing conditions) who is going to suffer catastrophic illness. We all agree we should be treating everyone so isn't the only sensible thing to do is people contribute a percentage of their income to the government who then makes payments? We could call these collections AXES and we could call the system 'One Entity Purchasing'.

The percentages don't matter as long as well all agree the rich people keep their 3.8%, other than that, go for it.