While he went on ab bit of a rant there, he is correct. Don't use a work knowing full well how people will take it due to its connotation if that's not what you meant. If that is what you meant then by all means use it, but then for back off when called on it. Grow a pair and defend your own statements.

Speaking of both connotation and backing up your statements, YJ: when you say "what I won't let you get away with" it implies i have a scheme that I am trying to slip past the average reader and it connotes that said scheme is dirty, bad, or anti-everything any sane person stands for. Just because we have differing views doesn't mean either of us is bad so don't spin it that way.

Also, did I say anything about "removing social programs"? No, I did not. We were discussing the efficiency, constitutionality, and necessity of the ACA which is only now being implemented after being passed 3 years ago.

Furthermore, you say my personal experiences and logic that lead me to believe that ACA isn't addressing the issues properly is invalid because I didn't bother to spend hours looking for surveys and statistics that are bound to be biased anyway. So where are your statistics supporting ACA actually helping the 40+ million uninsured Americans? I don't really think you need any because this is an ideological discussion hence why my thoughts are still valid, unsubstantiated or not, and I'm not "getting away with" anything. However, feel free to support your claims and if you do maybe then I'll support mine.

@draug, the use of the prefix "ex" doesn't imply lack of followthrough. For instance, I am an ex husband to my first wife because I had the followthrough to divorce the crazy bitch and get on with my life!

No offense meant here Phil, but I don't know if a bad marriage that you then have to back out of is the best example of followthrough...

Sorry for all they typos in that last message. Distracted by college football right now haha lots of upsets today.

@Kyler, its all a matter of perspective.

Hi Kyler.

No, you didn't come right out and say anything about removing social programs, but the implication is there. Why else would you repeatedly be asserting that the poor are all these bad things in this context unless it was a pretext for labeling the programs as undesirable or "unfair" to the "real contributors" like yourself? So yes, that seems to me to absolutely be an implied message you are trying to advance.

You would be able to ask for me to back up my claim that the ACA is helping millions of people, if I had actually ever claimed that. I did not ever say this - what I did say (long before you chimed in) in response to OP is that it's too soon to know how much real good it's doing, and certainly too soon to call it a failure. I don't need support to call bullshit on a claim. It's your job to show that your claim is more than just Rupert Murdoch's opinion delivered through your mouth.

If that's what you chose to read, then let me be clear. What I said was some people choose to be "poor" and they get by just fine by taking advantage of current entitlement and welfare programs. Notice the word "some" that you chose to ignore in earlier statements. The poor are not bad, and the lethargy, laziness, and greed I referred to is restricted to a minorirty of poor. I myself am currently considered poor. I do not support removing current social welfare or entitlement programs. What I do support is a bit more regulation in the distribution from such programs go ensure they aren't being exploited.

Also, I worded the claim I thought you had made poorly. The ACA will help millions and is good legislation* should have been what I said. Not a final judgement, but what I read to be your opinion of ACA and it's implementation. And I don't recall ever saying it had failed. What I suggested was that it is poorly planned and will not actually help Still not a final judgement, just my current opinion on the bill. But if you think it will work or that it's well planned, that is a claim as sure as mine that it won't work. So if you think you can not show any support and push me to support my views and show no support yourself. Think again. Either we both need to support our views and you should hold yourself as accountable as you're trying to hold me, or not. This is not one sided.

Ahh well fine. If the only claims you are making are that:

1) your current feeling is that the ACA is poorly planned and will not help.
2) social programs could stand a bit more regulation to ensure they aren't taken advantage of.

I will take no issue with either of those.

I don't care one way or the other what your personal feelings on whether the ACA will be successful are.

I don't care if a vaguely defined "some people" take advantage of social programs, since you apparently aren't going to use that fact as a premise for any greater argument. I agree with #2 in principle, even if I haven't yet been convinced that it's practical to do so.

I have never asserted the claim you are attributing to me, so I will of course shrug off your request that I support it.

May I just say--

I think it's premature to call the Affordable Care Act a success OR failure yet...

And to laud or denounce it this early in the game is partisan idiocy?

You can't judge a program designed to operate over years by, oh, the first weeks or even months of its implementation.

Otherwise, you may, in decades to come, sound as foolish as those who denounced Social Security for fear that this evil wicked socialist action would corrupt the good, pure United States democracy--bribery and Indian extermination, we're for THAT kind of corruption here, damn it!

So, krelin, his cronies at FOX, and the equally-silly folks at MSNBC--

Cool your jets.

We'll see. I know it sucks to not have a clear cut villain and take the stance that things are complex and will unfold complexly over time rather than EVIL EVIL I PRONOUNCE THEE EVIL WITHIN A MONTH OF IMPLEMENTATION!

Just saying.

Fin.

Obiwan that was very... concise? Be still my heart!