The Homosexual Dilemma

[Lilah]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask Where how many times he has been divorced.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is not telling us the whole story, and part of it is that he still does not believe he is not at the center of the world.

 

[bodecea]

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

How presumptuous of you to think you can tell other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens whether they have a real marriage or not.

 

[GreenBean]

Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000 jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.

The irony is just too rich here.

That took a lot of thought - Is that the best you can do dumbass ?

 

[GreenBean]

You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law?

Failure to comply is known as Civil disobedience - the first step towards Revolution. When the law doesn't respect the people how can you expect the people to respect the law ?

 

[GreenBean]

hink you can tell other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens whether they have a real marriage or not.

A real marriage in the eyes of the Law doe not make it a real marriage in the eyes of the people - it always has been and always will be a Joke

 

[GreenBean]

1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.

2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.

you and wytch just don't get it. Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.

there is no anti-gay "movement". GRow the fuck up.

If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.

Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services. You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.

If you stop reading right wing whacko news sources you could avoid them altogether.

Have you been sued for not following State or local laws?

Anyone forced you to go to a 'f*g' or 'n*gger' or k*ke wedding?

Conservatives are so very offended by lawsuits- until they think that their rights are being violated, and then suddenly they are all for filing lawsuits.

You are so pathetic - it's truly sickening - you just can't break away from that bigoted racist anti-Semitic skinhead mentality can you ?

So how long you been a faggot anyway? - did some grownup queer f*ck you up the ass when you were a little kid or did he just dick you in the face - is that how you were traumatized and psychologically damaged ?

You know homosexuality is generally the product of early childhood trauma-sometimes even pre-cognizant childhood trauma . There are professionals who can help you get to the bottom of your problem.

You know they say that most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by close family friends or family members -so I can understand if you don't want to talk about it - but I'm sure you are aware of client-patient confidentiality - anyway think about what said - open your mind and think about what happened to you all those years ago - regards and sweet dreams

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law?

Failure to comply is known as Civil disobedience - the first step towards Revolution. When the law doesn't respect the people how can you expect the people to respect the law ?

The People no longer agree with you little faggot-hater. You no longer matter. Suck on that bitch.

 

[GreenBean]

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

A serious drug addict can not envision life without his "precious" be it Crack, Heroine ,Meth etc.... that is all they live for - BUT many are cured it's known as substance abuse treatment .

And many wiser and more intelligent Homosexuals - be they male or female can see through the smoke screen that the liberal elite have created -they are aware that they have serious problems and seek help - it's known as conversion therapy or reperative therapy

Success rates for both branches of mental hygiene are comparable. Seriously -Syriusly - There's hope - even for the seemingly hopeless turd burglar such as yourself .

Masters and Johnson - 2 respected researchers in sexual research [ Unlike Alfred Kinsey, a darling of the LGBT and leftist elite - whose work has long since been dumped into the trash bin of irrelevance ] did a study project -Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

A serious drug addict can not envision life without his "precious" be it Crack, Heroine ,Meth etc.... that is all they live for - BUT many are cured it's known as substance abuse treatment .

And many wiser and more intelligent Homosexuals - be they male or female can see through the smoke screen that the liberal elite have created -they are aware that they have serious problems and seek help - it's known as conversion therapy or reperative therapy

Success rates for both branches of mental hygiene are comparable. Seriously -Syriusly - There's hope - even for the seemingly hopeless turd burglar such as yourself .

Masters and Johnson - 2 respected researchers in sexual research [ Unlike Alfred Kinsey, a darling of the LGBT and leftist elite - whose work has long since been dumped into the trash bin of irrelevance ] did a study project -Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.

Say goodbye GB. What you think no longer matters, and never should have. You are pissing into the wind little man, without unzipping you pants.

 

[Seawytch]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

Oh, but for Fishy it IS about a word. It's about a word he doesn't want gays to use, but is unwilling to change the word for everyone. Fishy likes feeling special and if gays also have marriage, he won't feel special anymore.

 

[Seawytch]

race and sex are not analogous

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....

When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile." The chamber erupted in laughter. "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said, and the chamber filled with laughter again. Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."
​

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing

 

[Seawytch]

It already has.

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

Interesting that you think so.

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

Then the mandate is safe. If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.

obamacare is terrible legislation. it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help. it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine. It must be repealed or drastically changed.

Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.

7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working

More people have insurance:

People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.

The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin

 

[GreenBean]

People who never had health insurance now have it.

And people who had health insurance got dropped or can't afford it - it's about taking from those who produce and giving to those who don't produce ... note that there is a big difference between those who don't and those who can't

Those who can't produce - due to either physical or mental disability have medicaid and other Public assistance to fall back on - those who can produce and contribute to society but don't are among the parasites that are the minions of the leftist Liberal elite .

 

[GreenBean]

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

Interesting that you think so.

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

Then the mandate is safe. If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.

obamacare is terrible legislation. it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help. it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine. It must be repealed or drastically changed.

Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.

7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working

More people have insurance:

People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.

The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin

• There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
• Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
• Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”

Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at Slateas “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in The New Yorker. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Over at Business Insider, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.” This assessment echoed the conclusionof Washington Post‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers. In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.

And even though I believe that as of mid-January, chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:

The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes

 

[bodecea]

Interesting that you think so.

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

Then the mandate is safe. If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.

obamacare is terrible legislation. it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help. it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine. It must be repealed or drastically changed.

Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.

7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working

More people have insurance:

People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.

The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin

• There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
• Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
• Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”

Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at Slateas “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in The New Yorker. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Over at Business Insider, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.” This assessment echoed the conclusionof Washington Post‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers. In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.

And even though I believe that as of mid-January, chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:

The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes

Your chart doesn't make your case, you know.

 

[Seawytch]

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

Then the mandate is safe. If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.

obamacare is terrible legislation. it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help. it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine. It must be repealed or drastically changed.

Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.

7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working

More people have insurance:

People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.

The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin

• There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
• Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
• Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”

Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at Slateas “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in The New Yorker. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Over at Business Insider, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.” This assessment echoed the conclusionof Washington Post‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers. In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.

And even though I believe that as of mid-January, chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:

The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes

Your chart doesn't make your case, you know.

This one makes the case for "Obamacare":