Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

Thank you. He'll go on like this for hours and days unless I just roll my eyes and walk away which I did initially but apparently he valued my opinion enough to specifically ask me again. Apparently he doesn’t value it enough to actually clarify the question he is asking but enough to argue endlessly about asking the question. Whenever this happens, and it happens a lot, he will eventually begrudgingly and always condescendingly look down his nose and blame me for his inability to formulate a coherent question. I can't wait.

 

See, HM, you just set the pick moen was hoping for.....now he has slithered away without answering again.
Here's how he works: moen posts someone elses words, without question, as he is told to do. When we start questioning him, he's unable to defend what he copied & pasted. Then we watch him come unglued. First with insults, then (when cornered) he acts like he doesn't understand the question. Usually it just makes him look foolish (which is where this thread was headed) but you ran interference for him.

 

rolling eyes

 

When we start questioning him, he's unable to defend ..............

 

On the contrary. A poorly-framed question is a poorly-framed question, no matter who wrote it. Your question, "When you consider how many people are exempted from the clutches of Obamacare (based on where they live or what organizations they belonged to) or aren't in dire financial straights or get a $9.00 prescription or don't take any medication at all, is it worth ruining the entire healthcare system?" is a poorly framed question. The ideal length for a sentence, in terms of reading ease, is 17 words or fewer. You have combined three sentences into one, at least. You have your main question, "When you consider how many people are exempted from the clutches of Obamacare, is it worth ruining the entire healthcare system?" separated by all manner of parenthetical statements which lead down tangential paths. I challenge Moen to answer the questions as stated thus:

1) When you consider how many people are exempted from the Affordable Healthcare Act , is it worth ruining the entire healthcare system?

2) How do you justify people who are exempted by where they live or by the organizations to which they belong being forced to buy into this program?

3) Should people who can afford healthcare or those who don't take prescriptions at all be required to be part of this program?

4) How will people who already get low-cost prescriptions through their current insurance benefit?

If I've missed anything that you had intended to ask or if I've framed the questions contrary to what you had intended to ask, please feel free to cut in. Moen, do you have any answers to these questions?

 

Gee, as poorly as you seem to think my post was written, you sure managed to understand it, didn't you. So, what purpose did your critique really serve?

Oh yeah, moen, you still aren't off the hook. We await your answer to either my post or HM's re-written version of the same questions.

 

I am a professional writer and I also do some editing. I have a master's degree in professional writing. I have been writing freelance/writing under contract for may years. I hope to heck that I could make sense of it. I'm sorry if I bruised your ego. However, if you're going to communicate in a written context then you need to be able to frame your questions and statements in a manner that doesn't require the reader to parse your writing for your meaning. It is too easy for readers to skip over your comments and questions entirely when they are written, especially when your intent is unclear. In addition, unclear written content often causes unnecessary negative emotional responses, particularly in an asynchronous format in which follow-up questions/statements may take a while to clarify issues of concern.

 

Don't worry, my ego is intact....I simply find it odd you would take so much time critiquing my post (especially when you obviously understood the questions). Perhaps taking someone to task for writing, in a manner you would not, feeds your ego to some degree?

 

....and how's that working out for you?

 

Or maybe, just perhaps, she is merely trying to help you along.

 

I thought you wanted your question(s) answered. My mistake.

My personal life is none of your concern.

 

I think you are catching on to what this place is typically about. Or at least what it is not about.

 

I don't blame either HollysMom or David for sniping at each other... as Stujoe implied, we're all guilty of it from time to time ...and it's easy to be defensive and see any comment as an attack ...especially with people like me an' Moen around , not to mention tom. But, once things settle down between them, I bet they'll get along well enough... they really are not that different politically.

So hug already ...so we can get back to bickering along partisan lines ...as it should be!

 

I'm still waiting for David's/HollysMom's questions to be answered.... Anyone?

 

LOL

 

Are you scoffing at moen's record of dodging & hiding? I think you're catching on.

 

I think that my favorite part of this thread so far is... "you still aren't off the hook." and "We await your answer...." He is definitely correct about his ego being intact, and his arrogance, and his bravado, and his sense of self-importance, and his.... Well you get the idea.

I can just hear him saying to himself, "I can't formulate a coherent question but I, no WE, demand an answer. It's like watching the Republican debates only funnier.

 

But he is most right about your "record of dodging & hiding"!

 

And yet, 12 posts after clearly stated questions based on David's original inquiry were posted, you still have not answered any of them.

 

If he can't even coherently form his own question and it takes a professional writer to reword what he is trying to ask, what chance is there that he is actually going to understand the answer? And to be perfectly honest, my answer is irrelevant to him anyway, he already has his mind made up on the health care law.

Here is a concrete example of a positive aspect of the new law that will help millions of people that fall into the donut hole and save them real money but he has to search for some kind of negative. What is any answer I give going to mean for someone like that? He could research the answer and post if he was really interested. He won't.