WSJ article on how screwed up our health care system is

[carlfense]

BUT THE WAIT TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111ONEone

Seriously! The WAIT TIMES!!!!!

[Junior]

BUT THE WAIT TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111ONEone

Seriously! The WAIT TIMES!!!!!

 

So you guys are just going to continue to try and change the subject? Tsk tsk.

[Mavric]

carlfense - I can understand your confusion. That's the train Junior has led us on:

. . . no . . . I'm looking for what you're talking about with this:

. . . ObamaCare being severely handicapped because the GOPS "falis to understand basic logic"?

I fali to see where you're quoting this from.

I guess that was a slight paraphrase. I was going from memory because it was on the previous page:

 

Luke, man, you can just google Obamacare and learn all about it and what it's *supposed* to do. It's not inherently broken; however it is severely handicapped because the GOP doesn't understand basic logic. Like I said, it's step one towards a more comprehensive and effective plan. This isn't going to happen overnight.

[BigRedBuster]

I always get a good laugh when one political party accuses the other one of not understanding basic logic no matter what direction the accusation is flying.

[carlfense]

carlfense - I can understand your confusion. That's the train Junior has led us on:

. . . no . . . I'm looking for what you're talking about with this:

. . . ObamaCare being severely handicapped because the GOPS "falis to understand basic logic"?

I fali to see where you're quoting this from.

I guess that was a slight paraphrase. I was going from memory because it was on the previous page:

 

Luke, man, you can just google Obamacare and learn all about it and what it's *supposed* to do. It's not inherently broken; however it is severely handicapped because the GOP doesn't understand basic logic. Like I said, it's step one towards a more comprehensive and effective plan. This isn't going to happen overnight.

Looks like that was posted by tshu . . .

 

(If possible, reference that confusion train that Junior is leading us on.)

[Mavric]

Looks like that was posted by tshu . . .

 

(If possible, reference that confusion train that Junior is leading us on.)

Yes it was. And I asked the question back to tshu. But Junior jumped in and went down a rabbit trail. That's why I posted the entire sequence above.

[carlfense]

Yes it was. And I asked the question back to tshu. But Junior jumped in and went down a rabbit trail. That's why I posted the entire sequence above.

Perhaps I can jump in, too.

And what does any of that have to do with the law as passed?

Are you really trying to argue that actively trying to sabotage a law doesn't have anything to do with the law?

[Mavric]

Yes it was. And I asked the question back to tshu. But Junior jumped in and went down a rabbit trail. That's why I posted the entire sequence above.

Perhaps I can jump in, too.

And what does any of that have to do with the law as passed?

Are you really trying to argue that actively trying to sabotage a law doesn't have anything to do with the law?

So you're conceding my point, or changing the subject as well?

 

To answer your question, it has something to do with the law. But it has nothing to do with the language of the law as passed.

[Junior]

[To answer your question, it has something to do with the law.

 

 

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

[Mavric]

[To answer your question, it has something to do with the law.

 

 

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

You do realize this isn't the out of context quote thread, right?

[Mavric]

[To answer your question, it has something to do with the law.

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

I'd ask you to show me where you were trying to make this point but that's a fool's errand.

[Junior]

[To answer your question, it has something to do with the law.

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

I'd ask you to show me where you were trying to make this point but that's a fool's errand.

 

You're right about that. Because I'll show you and you'll ignore it anyway.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/66030-wsj-article-on-how-screwed-up-our-health-care-system-is/page__view__findpost__p__1200494

[Junior]

[To answer your question, it has something to do with the law.

 

 

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

You do realize this isn't the out of context quote thread, right?

 

I would comment on that, but I'm afraid I'd be chided for being off the subject.

[carlfense]

So you're conceding my point, or changing the subject as well?

No . . . I'm realizing that you don't seem to have a point at all (or at least that I have no idea what that point is) so I'm trying to steer this somewhere more productive. If that's changing the subject . . . guilty.

 

To answer your question, it has something to do with the law. But it has nothing to do with the language of the law as passed.

You must think that this distinction is important. Why?

[carlfense]

And this is the point I was making in the first place. Congrats, you finally got there. There's more to enacting a law than simply writing it.

No!