how much has obamacare cost america ?

[deanthedream17]

I know the article that I linked to mentioned Republicans, but I'm not personally pointing the finger at either party because you are right: systematic underfunding of the VA also happened in the early 90s and 2006 - 2009, when Democrats were in control. But you claimed that the VA is an example of how the government cannot run an efficient healthcare system, and I am telling you that that is wrong. The VA's problems all stem from a chronic lack of funds. How does Obama factor into that?

It's hard to take someone seriously when their arguments use "Obama" almost as an insult. There was a time when the sitting president was treated with respect whether or not you agreed with him.

I have alot of respect for the president, but you still have to think with your brain. Whenever the government runs anything its always over budget and it misses it goals. Throwing more money at the VA would not solve the problem. What needed to happen was the vets should have been able to go private doctors and hospitals. The private sector always does things better because the free market and capitalism makes service better and drives prices down.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Flashfan]

The VA has numerous issues, and most of it comes from an antiquated computer system and systems that struggle to handle the volume that comes as a result of two wars. It is a bi-partisan issue, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Maybe making enormous tax cuts in war time was not a good idea, as those who sent our soldiers off to war knew the VA administration had already reported the need for a completely new computer system in reports since the 90s. Even now you are not hearing Congress trying to fix it with the dollars that they need.

 

[plumazul]

I have alot of respect for the president, but you still have to think with your brain. Whenever the government runs anything its always over budget and it misses it goals. Throwing more money at the VA would not solve the problem. What needed to happen was the vets should have been able to go private doctors and hospitals. The private sector always does things better because the free market and capitalism makes service better and drives prices down.

This is not economics, it's a (false) religion.

 

[el_duderino]

So what's the alternative? Single payer sucks and we can't continue on letting millions of people take their chances without insurance. What's the answer?

 

[deanthedream17]

This is not economics, it's a (false) religion.

healthcare is a business and thus is a part of the economic system. It is a service like anything else just much more sacred

 

[deanthedream17]

So what's the alternative? Single payer sucks and we can't continue on letting millions of people take their chances without insurance. What's the answer?

I think both sides can come to an agreement because that is the democratic way but the GOP had many good ideas that were essentially completely ignored.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf

 

[plumazul]

healthcare is a business and thus is a part of the economic system. It is a service like anything else just much more sacred

Healthcare is not ham & eggs or a pair of socks, it's your health, it's your life. Market rules do not apply.

 

[deanthedream17]

Healthcare is not ham & eggs or a pair of socks, it's your health, it's your life. Market rules do not apply.

Do people make a living from medicine? The answer is emphatically yes! Everywhere healthcare professionals, pharmaceuticals, computer systems, etc. If you look at medicine as something that must be run by govt because it is "different" than you will run into all the inefficiencies found in other govt run programs and miss all the great things found in private business/industry. Look at it this way, why do people go into medicine. Yes you are able to play a direct role in helping people live longer, but it also has been known as a field that pays well and is stable. Take that away and the smartest people will start going into other fields. Socialization will never work it never has.

 

[plumazul]

So what's the alternative? Single payer sucks and we can't continue on letting millions of people take their chances without insurance. What's the answer?

Bookmark this post. Single payer is where we are headed. There is no other viable option other then nationalization.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

healthcare is a business and thus is a part of the economic system. It is a service like anything else just much more sacred

So why were healthcare expenditures ridiculously high prior to Obamacare?
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/were-last-again-u-s-health-care-ranks-poorly-n132081

 

[plumazul]

Do people make a living from medicine? The answer is emphatically yes! Everywhere healthcare professionals, pharmaceuticals, computer systems, etc. If you look at medicine as something that must be run by govt because it is "different" than you will run into all the inefficiencies found in other govt run programs and miss all the great things found in private business/industry. Look at it this way, why do people go into medicine. Yes you are able to play a direct role in helping people live longer, but it also has been known as a field that pays well and is stable. Take that away and the smartest people will start going into other fields. Socialization will never work it never has.

Before we go any further, do you have any understanding of economics or markets? Have you at least taken micro/macro in college?

 

[Euxox]

I have alot of respect for the president, but you still have to think with your brain. Whenever the government runs anything its always over budget and it misses it goals. Throwing more money at the VA would not solve the problem. What needed to happen was the vets should have been able to go private doctors and hospitals. The private sector always does things better because the free market and capitalism makes service better and drives prices down.

Debate 101: Never speak in absolutes because it only takes one counterexample to be proven wrong. I could buy the idea that privatization is the right option 80% of the time, but if you are honestly claiming that privatization is better 100% of the time, you are speaking from ideology, not from levelheaded reasoning.

When has privatization failed? Well it failed with internet access. In South Korea, internet infrastructure was largely built by the government. In South Korea, the average broadband connection speed is 50 - 80 times that of the US and only costs about 60 - 80% of the most common US packages. In the US, Verizon and Comcast have entered into a tacit noncompete agreement where Verizon targets the high and low extremes of the market (FiOS and DSL) while Comcast targets the mid-tier. The result is a total lack of incentive to upgrade existing networks with higher capacity. There are plenty of other examples as well. (Each one of those words is its own link.)

Here is the thing: even if the private sector does a better job 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. All that is relevant to this discussion is whether the government does a better job specifically when providing healthcare, and all the evidence seems to indicate that it does. Sweden has been opening its health system to privatization since the mid-90s, for example, and in that time, 196 new private clinics were opened. Only one was located in a rural area. This might increase profit margins for the companies that own the clinics, but any decline in the health of rural Swedes will hurt the Swedish economy as a whole.

The principles of the free market assume that consumers will use the available information to make the most rational purchase. But health care is unusual in that there is virtually no information available. You don't know when you will get sick or with what. You probably won't have the proper amount of money saved up. So we've entered into an odd system where you don't purchase care, but insurance. It is your insurance company that purchases the care for you. And while a rational consumer tries to balance quality and price, the insurance company does not have any incentive to worry about quality of care. The free market simply doesn't work in this case.

 

[el_duderino]

Bookmark this post. Single payer is where we are headed. There is no other viable option other then nationalization.

It seems to work, more or less, a lot of other places. I jus don't see any viable long term alternatives. I don't think it's acceptable for us to allow people not to have insurance. I'm normally pretty libertarian about that sort of thing, but health care is just so... fundamental. I think we need to make sure everyone has access to care one way or another.

I see the ACA as the first stopgap to eventual single-payer. I don't like that but I like the alternatives even less.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Debate 101: Never speak in absolutes because it only takes one counterexample to be proven wrong.

 

[plumazul]

The principles of the free market assume that a consumer will use the available information to make the most rational purchase. But health care is unusual in that there is virtually no available information. You don't know when you will get sick or with what. You probably won't have the proper amount of money saved up. So we've entered into an odd system where you don't purchase care, but insurance. It is your insurance company that purchases the care for you. And while a rational consumer tries to balance quality and price, the insurance company really does not have any incentive to worry about quality of care. The free market simple doesn't work in this case.

In addition to everything you stated, there is another fundamental problem with "free markets" in a healthcare context. In order to have a truly free market, the participants must have the absolute right to walk away from the "table", at any time and for whatever reason. If you do not have this option because you are ill and need care, then there is no "free market". You are in effect, a hostage.

 

[mrh125]

Correct me if i'm wrong about this, but obamacare has a lot of negative consequences. First of all, when you lower the costs on something the costs go somewhere else, whether to doctors or insurance companies. Secondly, with medicare and medicaid the reimbursement is generally poor for doctors, so they're not given much incentive to accept those forms of insurance. If you're changing healthcare policy doctors need to be involved because when doctors aren't involved decisions are based on erroneous conclusions like "I got billed for $100,000. doctors are so greedy they're getting all the money", when the doctors only get a small amount of what they bill for. You can't constantly undercut people who are in charge of other's lives no matter how altruistic they are because they need a healthy bottom line as well, especially with all the extra years of school, debt and stress they undertake to be where they are. Not to mention medicaid insurances (e.g., mediCAL) can be very janky. On mine they won't cover brand name medicines and made up BS and led me on my doctor on a wild goose chase to find out why they don't cover it. It's great that they can cover low cost generic medicines, but what does that mean when they cant cover the real costs of expensive brand name medicines which may be more effective?!

Even if obama means well and does cut costs in some ways like in the controversial individual mandate, the costs do go somewhere so it's important to recognize that. Doctors should be involved way more in this process, bottom line. Also, I'd love the idea of everyone having healthcare and insurance, but if it's done at the expense of doctors that's just wrong.

 

[deanthedream17]

Debate 101: Never speak in absolutes because it only takes one counterexample to be proven wrong. I could buy the idea that privatization is the right option 80% of the time, but if you are honestly claiming that privatization is better 100% of the time, you are speaking from ideology, not from levelheaded reasoning.

When has privatization failed? Well it failed with internet access. In South Korea, internet infrastructure was largely built by the government. In South Korea, the average broadband connection speed is 50 - 80 times that of the US and only costs about 60 - 80% of the most common US packages. In the US, Verizon and Comcast have entered into a tacit noncompete agreement where Verizon targets the high and low extremes of the market (FiOS and DSL) while Comcast targets the mid-tier. The result is a total lack of incentive to upgrade existing networks with higher capacity. There are plenty of other examples as well. (Each one of those words is its own link.)

Here is the thing: even if the private sector does a better job 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. All that is relevant to this discussion is whether the government does a better job specifically when providing healthcare, and all the evidence seems to indicate that it does. Sweden has been opening its health system to privatization since the mid-90s, for example, and in that time, 196 new private clinics were opened. Only one was located in a rural area. This might increase profit margins for the companies that own the clinics, but any decline in the health of rural Swedes will hurt the Swedish economy as a whole.

The principles of the free market assume that consumers will use the available information to make the most rational purchase. But health care is unusual in that there is virtually no information available. You don't know when you will get sick or with what. You probably won't have the proper amount of money saved up. So we've entered into an odd system where you don't purchase care, but insurance. It is your insurance company that purchases the care for you. And while a rational consumer tries to balance quality and price, the insurance company does not have any incentive to worry about quality of care. The free market simply doesn't work in this case.

First off is my beloved STAR WARS being used against me?

There is a reason why the VAST Majority of Doctors hate ACA and are conservative. Most premeds are naive, but only when they get burnt by medicine whether it be the reimbursements, insurance, lawsuits, or the system in general do people change.

 

[mrh125]

This is true when you are talking about a zero-sum game, but health care is not a zero-sum game. Better primary care means fewer illnesses which means fewer return visits. This is why healthcare reform, if implemented properly, would greatly reduce costs.


True, but there are still many physicians who will take Medicare and Medicaid. In the handful of states that have already had expanded Medicaid for some time, low-income access to health care increased: being able to visit only some primary care physicians because you have Medicaid is better than not being able to visit any primary care physician because you don't have insurance.


I don't think you understand the difference between brand name and generic medicines. The FDA requires generics to be just as effective as the brand name version:

​

Also, Medicare will allow for discounts on certein brand name medicines under the ACA. Not sure about Medicaid.

Great post.
About the generics vs brand names I can assure that often isn't the case. I have ADHD, the generic medicines provided werent anywhere near as effective as the brand-name and have slightly different compositions which can make a definite difference which I can firsthand testify to. Generics have certain filler contents such as sucrose, galactose, and starches afaik. This is a common issue for medicines and generics may not be effective at all in the case of certain medicines, such as lamictal. There's a reason why people why are advised and learn to avoid certain generics of medicines.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

First off is my beloved STAR WARS being used against me?

There is a reason why the VAST Majority of Doctors hate ACA and are conservative. Most premeds are naive, but only when they get burnt by medicine whether it be the reimbursements, insurance, lawsuits, or the system in general do people change.

Well, as @Euxox pointed out, you are dealing in absolutes...

Also, do you have any data that supports the claim that the vast majority of doctors hate the ACA and are conservative?

 

[plumazul]

First off is my beloved STAR WARS being used against me?

There is a reason why the VAST Majority of Doctors hate ACA and are conservative. Most premeds are naive, but only when they get burnt by medicine whether it be the reimbursements, insurance, lawsuits, or the system in general do people change.

Where do you get this stuff from? Are you aware that the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology all work for and endorsed the ACA?

 

[el_duderino]

Doctors aren't exactly an unbiased source, mind you.

 

[deanthedream17]

Where do you get this stuff from? Are you aware that the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology all work for and endorsed the ACA?

The AMA is a puppet organization that got the ACA shoved down their throats. Doctors are definitely not for the bill and the AMA is seeing HUGE drops in membership. Doctors are not 50/50 it is far greater conservative:liberal ratio. I saw an article on yahoo that said differently its straight BS. Besides maybe pediatricians which are mainly women and thus more likely to be Democratic, physicians are still largely conservatives.

I am very tired of writing and you people need to start talking to doctors you shadow about these things instead of thinking you know best.

 

[chenzt]

There is a reason why the VAST Majority of Doctors hate ACA and are conservative. Most premeds are naive, but only when they get burnt by medicine whether it be the reimbursements, insurance, lawsuits, or the system in general do people change.

The AMA is a puppet organization that got the ACA shoved down their throats. Doctors are definitely not for the bill and the AMA is seeing HUGE drops in membership. Doctors are not 50/50 it is far greater conservative:liberal ratio. I saw an article on yahoo that said differently its straight BS. Besides maybe pediatricians which are mainly women and thus more likely to be Democratic, physicians are still largely conservatives.

I am very tired of writing and you people need to start talking to doctors you shadow about these things instead of thinking you know best.

That's quite a bit of accusations you made there. Care to back it up?

Besides maybe pediatricians which are mainly women and thus more likely to be Democratic, physicians are still largely conservatives.

So pediatricians aren't physicians anymore?

Physicians are largely conservative once you take out all the liberal ones. Okay, sound logic there... Can I say physicians are largely liberal once you remove all the surgeons?

 

[DermViser]

I have alot of respect for the president, but you still have to think with your brain. Whenever the government runs anything its always over budget and it misses it goals. Throwing more money at the VA would not solve the problem. What needed to happen was the vets should have been able to go private doctors and hospitals. The private sector always does things better because the free market and capitalism makes service better and drives prices down.

He's not stupid. He knows. But this is not his problem once he leaves office. It's more of setting a legacy of bringing universal healthcare (I'm referring to Obamacare here).

 

[DermViser]

View attachment 182307



That's quite a bit of accusations you made there. Care to back it up?



So pediatricians aren't physicians anymore?

Physicians are largely conservative once you take out all the liberal ones. Okay, sound logic there...

Instead of looking at all physicians - it makes more sense to split that graph between those who are specialists and those who are primary care.

 

[DermViser]

Bookmark this post. Single payer is where we are headed. There is no other viable option other then nationalization.

Yes, esp. people of your ideology, who are actively destroying it (Obamacare), to use it as an excuse to get to single payer: http://www.dailycal.org/2014/06/16/time-come-single-payer-healthcare/

 

[thesauce]

In theory, a robust legislative branch is a strength. But in reality, the opposite has been the case:
View attachment 182288

Your assumption being that the more laws enacted, the better? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Your assumption being that the more laws enacted, the better? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning.

Not necessarily, but this Congress has demonstrated difficulty passing straightforward stuff like farm bills. Not to mention its role in manufacturing multiple debt ceiling crises in order to appease fringe ideology. And there's no way healthcare legislation (or any other for that matter) can be improved with an inept legislative branch. Unfortunately, compromise, which is essential to the legislative process is anathema to many members of Congress. And it's particularly disturbing that they view this unwillingness to compromise as some sort of strength.

 

[Mad Jack]

Can you please explain how you lost your freedom @Lamel?

The only freedom I lost was the freedom to shop around from an unlimited variety of care providers, because when your insurance pays for virtually nothing, there's no point in staying within some network. Now I'm limited to a few hundred providers in my immediate area, only some of whom I was using already.

I guess if I'm being really picky, I also lost the ability to negotiate costs with the hospitals our family visited, because when you're starting from the charge list (Is that what they call their "nobody actually pays this" list?) there's lots of room to negotiate on price. But then, those are sacrifices I willingly chose to make for my $25 co-pay and 90% coverage.

I guess I also lost my handy excuse for neglecting important preventative tests, because now if they do discover a treatable cancer, I can afford to have it treated without bankrupting my family and precluding me from every securing insurance coverage again.

And again, if I'm being picky, I did lose a major source of cocktail party outrage. When it comes to healthcare, I no longer have anything to complain about... Rats!

You also lost the choice to not have health insurance at all. Which doesn't sound like a big deal, but it might very well turn out to be a serious PITA for me later. Let's say I plan on spending a good 6-8 months per year living overseas in my 50s. Despite having health insurance in my destination countries, I will be required to carry a US health plan that provides year-round coverage or face (at that point) steep financial penalties. That is a *big* deal, as those extra months of coverage can run an extra 10k or so per year on top of what I'd already be paying for my coverage abroad.

It is just one of many niche issues where the government taking away your choice to choose actually can have a big impact financially and on the way you live your life. I'll basically be forced to either buy insurance I don't need, spend greater than 9 months per year overseas, or take the financial hit. It's really going to suck.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I know the article that I linked to mentioned Republicans, but I'm not personally pointing the finger at either party because you are right: systematic underfunding of the VA also happened in the early 90s and 2006 - 2009, when Democrats were in control. But you claimed that the VA is an example of how the government cannot run an efficient healthcare system, and I am telling you that that is wrong. The VA's problems all stem from a chronic lack of funds. How does Obama factor into that?

Oh boy, Maddow....
Anyways, this claim is being challenged.
"Much has been said about how to fix the VA’s problems. Some say the department is underfunded. I disagree. The VA’s budget has more than tripled, to $154 billion in 2014 from $49 billion in 2001, the year I became secretary. In that time, the veteran population has declined to 21.9 million from 25.5 million."

"Despite liberal claims that VA needs more funding, based on a report from the labor union the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) that VA is underfunded, the scandal-plagued department actually has a surplus in medical-care funding."


VA expects to carry over $450 million in medical-care funding from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015. VA received its full requested medical care appropriation of $54.6 billion this fiscal year, which is more than $10 billion more than it received four years ago.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/0...accurately-blames-va-scandal-on-underfunding/
http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2015-FastFactsVAsBudgetHighlights.pdf

It's hard to take someone seriously when their arguments use "Obama" almost as an insult. There was a time when the sitting president was treated with respect regardless of what you thought of his policies.

Even if you still believe the VA has been underfunded, you're arguing that it's wrong to say the government cannot run an efficient health care, while that same government is responsible for the underfunding that you'r blaming the VA failures on ?

In other words: The government underfunded the VA, but the government is not to blame for the failures that resulted from underfunding?

It's hard to take this argument seriously.

 

[DokterMom]

You also lost the choice to not have health insurance at all. Which doesn't sound like a big deal, but it might very well turn out to be a serious PITA for me later. Let's say I plan on spending a good 6-8 months per year living overseas in my 50s. Despite having health insurance in my destination countries, I will be required to carry a US health plan that provides year-round coverage or face (at that point) steep financial penalties. That is a *big* deal, as those extra months of coverage can run an extra 10k or so per year on top of what I'd already be paying for my coverage abroad.

Are you saying your plan was to go uninsured for the 4-6 months you spend in the US?
Or would you just hop back overseas if you got sick?

 

[Mad Jack]

Are you saying your plan was to go uninsured for the 4-6 months you spend in the US?
Or would you just hop back overseas if you got sick?

I was going to carry a catastrophic plan in the US since I have enough cash to cover the 10k deductible and it wouldn't cost me a fortune to carry for the full year, so that, in the off chance I do need expensive care, I'm covered. But that isn't an option anymore since obamacare requires that you have a comprehensive plan to avoid penalties.

 

[plumazul]

Even if you still believe the VA has been underfunded, you're arguing that it's wrong to say the government cannot run an efficient health care, while that same government is responsible for the underfunding that you'r blaming the VA failures on ?

In other words: The government underfunded the VA, but the government is not to blame for the failures that resulted from underfunding?

It's hard to take this argument seriously.

Are you serious? The House is currently controlled by a political party that is doing everything they can to prove government doesn't work, by making sure it doesn't. And you draw what conclusion from this? Are you giving up on our democracy?

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Are you serious? The House is currently controlled by a political party that is doing everything they can to prove government doesn't work, by making sure it doesn't. And you draw what conclusion from this? Are you giving up on our democracy?

I can't even follow your line of questioning much less answer it.

 

[plumazul]

Discuss.

 

[plumazul]

I can't even follow your line of questioning much less answer it.

likewise,

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Discuss.

How about "start a new thread".

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

likewise,

Mine shouldn't be hard for a Ph.D student. Someone made a claim, I countered the claim by questioning the logic of said claim. It's not difficult, it's all quoted for you to be read in context. How you ended up with a series of seemingly disconnected and unrelated questions to the original claim is the confusing part.

Also, I had no line of questioning for you, so there is nothing for you to follow. Your response makes no sense, again.

 

[plumazul]

How about "start a new thread".

No thank you.

 

[el_duderino]

That graphic already has its own thread.

 

[plumazul]

Mine shouldn't be hard for a Ph.D student. Someone made a claim, I countered the claim by questioning the logic of said claim. It's not difficult, it's all quoted for you to be read in context. How you ended up with a series of seemingly disconnected and unrelated questions to the original claim is the confusing part.

Also, I had no line of questioning for you, so there is nothing for you to follow. Your response makes no sense, again.

try harder

 

[plumazul]

That graphic already has its own thread.

? Is there a one graphic per thread quota? The question the OP posed was what is "Obamacare costing America". The graphic makes it clear that the status quo was costing America dearly.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

The fault lies with the legislative branch in this case. If you reread deanthedream's post, he said that the government always overruns budgets because of inefficiencies.

Say what?

We are just not brainwashed into thinking that government does a good job at providing healthcare.

Please look at the VA hospitals if you really believe the govt does a good job.

You do realize this was going on for years through multiple administrations regardless of domestic spending. Govt can't handle things as complicated as healthcare. Maybe retirement checks, but not medicine. STOP Deceiving yourselves and drinking the OBAMA juice.

That's definitely not what he said. Half of the responses in pre-allo are due to not actually reading what people are saying.

That would be the fault of the executive branch, but (at least in the case of the VA) it hasn't happened. Veterans tend to get shafted politically because they are a relatively small group, but since healthcare law affects all Americans, Congress would be held answerable if they underfunded the system.

Haha, You really think anyone in government will ever actually agree on what is "underfunded", "adequately funded" or "over funded" for this national health care idea? That would have to be established long before there would be any reckoning by the people.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

The one you linked to, for example. Two problems: First, the vast majority of funding increases are in the 'mandatory' category, but VA medical funding comes from the 'discretionary' category. The mandatory category is all benefits payments, such as allowances for the families of deceased and disabled veterans, which understandably went up a lot after two wars. But they don't bother to explain that, do they?

Oh geez, that's not the chart I linked to, that's a chart from an article that I linked to.
The chart I linked to is here, see bottom right.

http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2015-FastFactsVAsBudgetHighlights.pdf

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

But that's not what you quoted when you made your claim, which is what I responded to.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

You do realize this was going on for years through multiple administrations regardless of domestic spending. Govt can't handle things as complicated as healthcare. Maybe retirement checks, but not medicine. STOP Deceiving yourselves and drinking the OBAMA juice.

I know the article that I linked to mentioned Republicans, but I'm not personally pointing the finger at either party because you are right: systematic underfunding of the VA also happened in the early 90s and 2006 - 2009, when Democrats were in control. But you claimed that the VA is an example of how the government cannot run an efficient healthcare system, and I am telling you that that is wrong. The VA's problems all stem from a chronic lack of funds. How does Obama factor into that?

It's hard to take someone seriously when their arguments use "Obama" almost as an insult. There was a time when the sitting president was treated with respect regardless of what you thought of his policies.

Chronology and context. They matter.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Try again, you linked to that article in your post. All you had to do was click the link to check.

Did you seriously just edit out the URL to the actual chart that I linked to? Hahaha, wtf.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

VA expects to carry over $450 million in medical-care funding from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015. VA received its full requested medical care appropriation of $54.6 billion this fiscal year, which is more than $10 billion more than it received four years ago.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/0...accurately-blames-va-scandal-on-underfunding/
http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2015-FastFactsVAsBudgetHighlights.pdf

My actual post. Vs your edited version. Notice, 2 links. One to an article, one to a chart. The article happens to contain charts. However, I linked to an actual chart.
What are you trying to do right now? This has got to be the silliest game of forum antics I've seen in a while.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

So I quoted three posts when I made my claim?

See #201, top of the page.
This is getting really silly.

 

[didymus]

It's hard to take someone seriously when their arguments use "Obama" almost as an insult. There was a time when the sitting president was treated with respect regardless of what you thought of his policies.

Right, because no one ever used "Bush" as an insult.

Anyway, treating the sitting president with respect despite policy disagreements, if it ever actually happened, went to hell with Clinton, who was an outright disgrace. The democrats swung the pendulum with Bush and hated on him so hard as an apparent attempt to soften the embarrassment that was Clinton. I guess to democrats it is better to be a pig and a liar (Clinton) than a doofus and a liar (Bush).

I digress.