HorrorMovieFans.com

Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.

I am dying to know what Seb thinks about this, because he has practically praised her to be the GOAT woman and compared other world leaders to her by saying she isn't a homophobic bigot or some shit. lol

Jason wrote:Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.

I am dying to know what Seb thinks about this, because he has practically praised her to be the GOAT woman and compared other world leaders to her by saying she isn't a homophobic bigot or some shit. lol

She's the new world leader. And she got gay marriage legalized in Germany by putting country before cult of personality. Solid win.

lol. Holy shit.

She voted AGAINST IT, Seb. AGAINST. Not FOR gay marriage. AGAINST. For someone who is the co-champion (along with Jig) of progressiveness on HMF, to see you still defend her is pretty remarkable in that regard. When I saw that she voted against it, I wasn't sure if you were going to stay the course of progressiveness and turn on Merkel, or stick with her because she is still regarded as a liberal world leader. I thought you'd probably defend her. I was right, but LOL. I wasn't expecting to be this amused. She voted against it for her own political career. It is more than obvious, broski. Ditch Merkel.

Jason wrote:lol. Holy shit.

She voted AGAINST IT, Seb. AGAINST. Not FOR gay marriage. AGAINST. For someone who is the co-champion (along with Jig) of progressiveness on HMF, to see you still defend her is pretty remarkable in that regard. When I saw that she voted against it, I wasn't sure if you were going to stay the course of progressiveness and turn on Merkel, or stick with her because she is still regarded as a liberal world leader. I thought you'd probably defend her. I was right, but LOL. I wasn't expecting to be this amused. She voted against it for her own political career. It is more than obvious, broski. Ditch Merkel.

She got it passed by specifically removing any party line votes. Principles strong leadership. That's what the world needs. She knows it's what Germany wants, and she didn't let petty personal politics get in the way. Her, Corbyn, Löfvén, Trudeau, Macron, these are leaders who are determined to make the world a better fairer place. They stand in stark contrast with the Jong-un'sand Trumps of this world.

The new plan, repeal now, replace later.

Can't wait for the CBO score on that one.

This is such a terrible idea for the very obvious reason that the idea of Obamacare is such a good one. To repeal it is to do evil.

Whether you agree with it or think it's a well-crafted piece of legislation, in pure"what is the objective" terms it reads like an act of goodness and so the alternative reads like an act of evil.

Obamacare sought to increase healthcare coverage to many poor and middle-income families by taxing the rich and companies.

This, repealing it means you remove healthcare coverage for the poor to give tax breaks to the rich.

That's not going to get much popular support anywhere.

A complete and total replacement isn't exactly necessary. Keep the one or two small elements that are actually good and do a total recall ( ) on the rest of the garbage and fill it in.

Jason wrote:A complete and total replacement isn't exactly necessary. Keep the one or two small elements that are actually good and do a total recall ( ) on the rest of the garbage and fill it in.

It's not going to get support. It only works as a package as Republicans are finding. There does need to be a replacement and it will either be a better Obamacare or it won't get any traction.

Obamacare is gone, Seb. There is no "better" Obamacare. It's shit.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:lol. Holy shit.

She voted AGAINST IT, Seb. AGAINST. Not FOR gay marriage. AGAINST. For someone who is the co-champion (along with Jig) of progressiveness on HMF, to see you still defend her is pretty remarkable in that regard. When I saw that she voted against it, I wasn't sure if you were going to stay the course of progressiveness and turn on Merkel, or stick with her because she is still regarded as a liberal world leader. I thought you'd probably defend her. I was right, but LOL. I wasn't expecting to be this amused. She voted against it for her own political career. It is more than obvious, broski. Ditch Merkel.

She got it passed by specifically removing any party line votes. Principles strong leadership. That's what the world needs. She knows it's what Germany wants, and she didn't let petty personal politics get in the way. Her, Corbyn, Löfvén, Trudeau, Macron, these are leaders who are determined to make the world a better fairer place. They stand in stark contrast with the Jong-un'sand Trumps of this world.

Don't know how I missed this post. This is great shit.

We'll bring you to the good side some day, Seb.

Jason wrote:Obamacare is gone, Seb. There is no "better" Obamacare. It's shit.

At which point you have to get rid of all of it and kick everyone off their insurance. Those are the options. Enjoy the extra dead people.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:lol. Holy shit.

She voted AGAINST IT, Seb. AGAINST. Not FOR gay marriage. AGAINST. For someone who is the co-champion (along with Jig) of progressiveness on HMF, to see you still defend her is pretty remarkable in that regard. When I saw that she voted against it, I wasn't sure if you were going to stay the course of progressiveness and turn on Merkel, or stick with her because she is still regarded as a liberal world leader. I thought you'd probably defend her. I was right, but LOL. I wasn't expecting to be this amused. She voted against it for her own political career. It is more than obvious, broski. Ditch Merkel.

She got it passed by specifically removing any party line votes. Principles strong leadership. That's what the world needs. She knows it's what Germany wants, and she didn't let petty personal politics get in the way. Her, Corbyn, Löfvén, Trudeau, Macron, these are leaders who are determined to make the world a better fairer place. They stand in stark contrast with the Jong-un'sand Trumps of this world.

Don't know how I missed this post. This is great shit.

We'll bring you to the good side some day, Seb.

No, you won't. I'm now firmly in the part of life where you establish your political views. I'm unlikely to change.

But you hate gays now.

Jason wrote:But you hate gays now.

Your father smells of elderberries


Assuming we're just throwing out random words now, judging by your post.

getting back to, what I think was the original topic, I'm one of the people who will be affected by losing the ACA. With it my insurance rates are (without any subsidies) around $400 a month to cover me and Mark, dr. visit is 15 bucks and specialist is 22. out of pocket max is 750 for meds and i think 3000 for other services, it covers everything I need and then some.

I'm honestly not too worried though cause Mass has its own law about healthcare in place and I'm pretty sure things would just revert back to where they were pre-ACA where I would still be able to get coverage through the MA exchange at a reasonable rate. At worst, fewer things would be covered and the price would stay about the same for less services, but still significantly cheaper than the joke insurance where I work used to offer us. (600 a month for our half of the premium, my work paid the other half and the rates to see a doctor, i think was 30, meds ranged from 25 to they would cover 20% of the cost, depending on the type of meds. And that was before the ACA was implemented. I think I looked into in 07-08 or so.)

That being said, health-insurance is a scam and healthcare costs need to come down overall. This may just be my opinion,but no one's life should have a dollar amount hanging over them, no one should go into bankruptcy or lose everything they worked for because they get cancer or have a heart attack. I don't know what the solution is, but turning our backs on people when their health benefits us as well. I mean, healthy citizens are productive citizens and we should encourage that as much as possible, I think.

Fixing healthcare begins with honesty. The nutless republicans have a problem just giving the truth. Here are some of the truths:

- being born does not entitle you to be subsidized by society
- too many people are able to work but not working enough
- too many are people are on unnecessary meds
- cost of care is intentionally bloated by the industry to fit whatever government is willing to pay
- end of life care is too expensive and unsustainable

Foo wrote:Fixing healthcare begins with honesty. The nutless republicans have a problem just giving the truth. Here are some of the truths:

- being born does not entitle you to be subsidized by society
- too many people are able to work but not working enough
- too many are people are on unnecessary meds
- cost of care is intentionally bloated by the industry to fit whatever government is willing to pay
- end of life care is too expensive and unsustainable

- Being a member of society entitles you to benefits of the society which in western society includes basic things like healthcare, education, roads and rail, police & fire department cover, street lights, benefit of a national defense, and laws and regulations.

- Too many people work and cannot make ends meet, and cannot afford additional things if they are not provided "free of charge" by society, hence the number of people in the US who work fulltime but are on Medicaid.

- True, the US needs to get away from a pharma-culture. But there are still needs, medically, that are based on medication and drugs. A proper reassessment of mental health in the US would be welcome though.

- True, industry should be more clearly regulated and value for money be introduced as a key principle. Insurance should be removed, and for-profit medicine.

-End of life care is required, and will be used by most everyone at some point. It is not something that should be done away with.

showa58taro wrote:
- True, the US needs to get away from a pharma-culture. But there are still needs, medically, that are based on medication and drugs. A proper reassessment of mental health in the US would be welcome though.

is that something that is limited to america, really? i'm not trying to be dismissive. it feels like it's bigger than that though?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
- True, the US needs to get away from a pharma-culture. But there are still needs, medically, that are based on medication and drugs. A proper reassessment of mental health in the US would be welcome though.

is that something that is limited to america, really? i'm not trying to be dismissive. it feels like it's bigger than that though?

I think it is much much worse in the US than in Sweden or the UK or Japan. That's all I can speak to really. Because you guys will get prescribed a lot more things (including things like Ritalin for ADHD, for example) than I'm aware here. Which makes sense, here it's all publically funded and you try not to give too much stuff. There, you paid top dollar for insurance, you want all the good stuff...

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
- True, the US needs to get away from a pharma-culture. But there are still needs, medically, that are based on medication and drugs. A proper reassessment of mental health in the US would be welcome though.

is that something that is limited to america, really? i'm not trying to be dismissive. it feels like it's bigger than that though?

I think it is much much worse in the US than in Sweden or the UK or Japan. That's all I can speak to really. Because you guys will get prescribed a lot more things (including things like Ritalin for ADHD, for example) than I'm aware here. Which makes sense, here it's all publically funded and you try not to give too much stuff. There, you paid top dollar for insurance, you want all the good stuff...

you don't have your drug companies pushing for antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs onto everyone? so, it's just a symptom of our system in this country, then? or at least as far as you can tell. obviously you can't speak for everywhere.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
- True, the US needs to get away from a pharma-culture. But there are still needs, medically, that are based on medication and drugs. A proper reassessment of mental health in the US would be welcome though.

is that something that is limited to america, really? i'm not trying to be dismissive. it feels like it's bigger than that though?

I think it is much much worse in the US than in Sweden or the UK or Japan. That's all I can speak to really. Because you guys will get prescribed a lot more things (including things like Ritalin for ADHD, for example) than I'm aware here. Which makes sense, here it's all publically funded and you try not to give too much stuff. There, you paid top dollar for insurance, you want all the good stuff...

you don't have your drug companies pushing for antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs onto everyone? so, it's just a symptom of our system in this country, then? or at least as far as you can tell. obviously you can't speak for everywhere.

I don't think they can do. I think there are some pretty good rules against these kind of payments. At the very least, it is not something that seems to affect the society, as I don't know that these things happen in any degree of regularity over here. it does happen though. I am sure about 2-3 years ago there was some kind of finding that doctors and nurses had links to pharmaceutical companies. Something like £200M or something like that, so not insignificant. But the system remains in place with restrictions on what you can be prescribed and how you are prescribed it. There is just no scope for people to just prescribe endless doses without it being absolutely necessary. That's what I've seen so far.