McConnell: I'll repeal Obamacare as majority leader

[Charles_Main]

"By using a budget process called reconciliation, a theoretical Senate GOP majority could successfully vote to repeal the law with just 51 votes, rather than a filibuster-proof 60. Republicans need to pick up four seats to win control of the Senate, or three if Romney wins the White House."

McConnell: I'll repeal Obamacare as majority leader - POLITICO.com

If he wants to repeal it, He better damn well be prepared with some Alternatives.

Just sayin.

 

[Charles_Main]

Some issues are emotional and defy logic, others are based solely on ideology and border on the absurd. Both are flawed in terms of governance IMO, and subordinate to pragmatic leadership able to try, test and adjust as circumstances change.

You're the guy who was trying to make the absurd claim of the economic benefits of testing 100% of the population, to catch a few percent of the total that may have some sort of life threatening disease....Then, when you get your ass handed to you by someone using the most basic of logic, you try and squirm out of it by claiming that the issue defies logic.

Dude, you really suck at this.

Nice try, well not really - the straw you used won't burn. I never suggested, "testing 100% of the population" would be cost effective, that was your inference based on your prejudice. Try to be honest Odd-dude, of course it will make your ideological arguments much weaker - if that's possible - but at least you might be taken seriously.

Age appropriate preventative medicine would likely be cost-effective in terms of cost and human misery. That means, and I'll type slowly for you, that we don't give mammograms to teenage boys or CAT scans looking for cancers when no other symptoms of disease exist.

Yeah I am sure it will never cause someone to go undiagnosed for something it would have caught.

lol

 

[onecut39]

Yep, Ol' McConnel even looks like a Scrooge. Steal from the poor for the benefit of the rich. Kindly old fellow he is.

What? McConnel is NOT a mutant turtle?

 

[Plasmaball]

The "economic viability" of testing all people for the single-digit number of people who will be detected as having a life threatening malady is not economically viable....Anyone with a shred of common sense can recognize that.

No better evidence of this exists than your having to flaccidly try to change the argument, from one of economic common sense to appeals to emotion.

Staying healthy and going to your checkups will save you in the long run.

Hey if you don't want to go get checked up, that's your problem, but promoting that people should is a good thing.

Platitudes and truisms don't change the obviously flawed economic claims of the situation being discussed.

Its better in the long run to be healthy. Fat people have a harder economic impact than healthy people.

But hey whatever,**** it all right?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Staying healthy and going to your checkups will save you in the long run.

Hey if you don't want to go get checked up, that's your problem, but promoting that people should is a good thing.

Platitudes and truisms don't change the obviously flawed economic claims of the situation being discussed.

Its better in the long run to be healthy. Fat people have a harder economic impact than healthy people.

But hey whatever,**** it all right?

But if you follow the FDA guidelines for nutrition you will gain weight. Why is that?

 

[rightwinger]

The "economic viability" of testing all people for the single-digit number of people who will be detected as having a life threatening malady is not economically viable....Anyone with a shred of common sense can recognize that.

No better evidence of this exists than your having to flaccidly try to change the argument, from one of economic common sense to appeals to emotion.

Staying healthy and going to your checkups will save you in the long run.

Hey if you don't want to go get checked up, that's your problem, but promoting that people should is a good thing.

Platitudes and truisms don't change the obviously flawed economic claims of the situation being discussed.

Old people dying once they can no longer work makes good economic sense

Right Libertarian?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Staying healthy and going to your checkups will save you in the long run.

Hey if you don't want to go get checked up, that's your problem, but promoting that people should is a good thing.

Platitudes and truisms don't change the obviously flawed economic claims of the situation being discussed.

Old people dying once they can no longer work makes good economic sense

Right Libertarian?

It seems Odd-dude has gone. Never fear, he will appear anew posting the same silly crap.

 

[Plasmaball]

Platitudes and truisms don't change the obviously flawed economic claims of the situation being discussed.

Its better in the long run to be healthy. Fat people have a harder economic impact than healthy people.

But hey whatever,**** it all right?

But if you follow the FDA guidelines for nutrition you will gain weight. Why is that?

What are the guidelines?

 

[onecut39]

Yep, Ol' McConnel even looks like a Scrooge. Steal from the poor for the benefit of the rich. Kindly old fellow he is.

There never used to be much profit in stealing from the poor. Then the GOP brought in the "economy of scale" procedures.

 

[onecut39]

No one knows if the costs to provide actual medical care will go up or down. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Many serious medical conditions diagnosed early can be treated successfully and at less cost - both in terms of dollars spent and human misery.

So we'll test 100% (or close to it) of the people for serious medical conditions, to screen out the scant few percent who may have said nondescript maladies ?

Yeah...That'll save heaps of dough!

No silly. You simply treat the infection before it becomes gangrene.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No one knows if the costs to provide actual medical care will go up or down. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Many serious medical conditions diagnosed early can be treated successfully and at less cost - both in terms of dollars spent and human misery.

So we'll test 100% (or close to it) of the people for serious medical conditions, to screen out the scant few percent who may have said nondescript maladies ?

Yeah...That'll save heaps of dough!

No silly. You simply treat the infection before it becomes gangrene.

Clearly a better explanation than I offered - too bad Odd-dude has cut and run. The debate was quite fun until he took his ball and went home (actually, he's posting his usual crap elsewhere right now and will until another call his bluff).

 

[Listening]

You're the guy who was trying to make the absurd claim of the economic benefits of testing 100% of the population, to catch a few percent of the total that may have some sort of life threatening disease....Then, when you get your ass handed to you by someone using the most basic of logic, you try and squirm out of it by claiming that the issue defies logic.

Dude, you really suck at this.

Nice try, well not really - the straw you used won't burn. I never suggested, "testing 100% of the population" would be cost effective, that was your inference based on your prejudice. Try to be honest Odd-dude, of course it will make your ideological arguments much weaker - if that's possible - but at least you might be taken seriously.

Age appropriate preventative medicine would likely be cost-effective in terms of cost and human misery. That means, and I'll type slowly for you, that we don't give mammograms to teenage boys or CAT scans looking for cancers when no other symptoms of disease exist.

Yeah I am sure it will never cause someone to go undiagnosed for something it would have caught.

lol

To be sure....I know men with insurance who are 56/57 who still have never gotten a cholonoscopy. Not because of the cost. And I know plenty of other folks who don't do preventative work.

I await the day when you will get taxed because you didn't get an exam.

Of course, lefties are always signing up for procedures if it involves getting something stuck up their backsides.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nice try, well not really - the straw you used won't burn. I never suggested, "testing 100% of the population" would be cost effective, that was your inference based on your prejudice. Try to be honest Odd-dude, of course it will make your ideological arguments much weaker - if that's possible - but at least you might be taken seriously.

Age appropriate preventative medicine would likely be cost-effective in terms of cost and human misery. That means, and I'll type slowly for you, that we don't give mammograms to teenage boys or CAT scans looking for cancers when no other symptoms of disease exist.

Yeah I am sure it will never cause someone to go undiagnosed for something it would have caught.

lol

To be sure....I know men with insurance who are 56/57 who still have never gotten a cholonoscopy. Not because of the cost. And I know plenty of other folks who don't do preventative work.

I await the day when you will get taxed because you didn't get an exam.

Of course, lefties are always signing up for procedures if it involves getting something stuck up their backsides.

Oh what a very clever post, you must be so proud.