# Newest Health Care Poll



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
This is another big government program and eventually all big government programs cost us all way to much money.
How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?
Huh? How about it people?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Feb 8, 2011)

I agree.  Let's band together and go to Washington, DC with pitchforks and torches and run those damned liberal Democrats out of the country.  Then we can demand fried chicken every Sunday for lunch.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
> How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
> ...



Ummm, this is what the legislation does. How would you like to see it done differently?


----------



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.



Does this mean we can't go to Washington, DC with torches and pitchforks and run the liberal Democrats out of the country?  What about our demands for fried chicken on Sundays??????


----------



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> ...



No there is no torte reform, it has a set age limit for children on parents plans, and it does not pool insurance together.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.



We've been paying too much for years, this legislation aims to correct how we pay which in turn will hopefully reduce the amount we pay.


----------



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> ...



Give it up Big Dog , just remember I'm used to extremely large black dogs


----------



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> ...



No, it does'nt ,that is why everyones insurance has gone up. If you read that bill (which I have) it is not set up at all to lower the cost. They hope it will ,but it won't.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



LOL, everyones insurance was already going up for years. The bill just passed. How did the bill cause your insurance to go up?


----------



## peach174 (Feb 8, 2011)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield has raised theirs to offset the cost of pre existing conditions , so they say. It went up by 50.00.
I have a friend in California who says it has gone way way to high for her and hubby to afford it  so they went with another one they could afford but it isn't as good of coverage. 
So far so good about (if you like the health care you have being able to keep the health care that you have).
That is just one of the many things that will be coming up with this bill.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions...





peach174 said:


> Blue Cross and Blue Shield has raised theirs [premiums] to offset the cost of pre existing conditions , so they say.



You're attacking your own idea? This is a pretty good microcosm of the larger reform debate, I suppose.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?  Huh? How about it people?



What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 8, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?



If you were to ask Judge Vinson (the federal judge in Florida who ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional) that question he might quote from his ruling:

In light of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944), the "end" of regulating the health care insurance industry (including preventing insurers from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions) is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the constitution."​
Short answer is that no one disputes that the feds can regulate interstate commerce and that regulating the health insurance industry qualifies.


----------



## peach174 (Feb 9, 2011)

My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.



You do realize that this bill is as far from government health care as you can get? Right? We are putting more people on Private insurance, not "another big government program".


----------



## peach174 (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.
> ...



Then you have not seen the chart of new government workers nor read the bill on how government will dictate the rules. It is government run and will tell the private companies how to enforce the rules.
http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I have seen that chart. What does this prove exactly? Setting standards and rules that private insurers need to follow is hardly government run healthcare. LOL.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
> How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
> ...



Excuse me? Even the Rasmussen (strongly Republican, by a Republican pollster) doesn't show a majority of Americans opposed to it), and neither do these polls:

Health Policy

Pooling insurance, by the way, is why the mandate even exists. Everybody in or the premiums WILL NOT come down.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Health care "exchanges" set up pools. Medical malpractice rates vary widely from vicinity to vicinity based on wealth risk, not to mention that nearly all malpractice cases are settled out of court. Tort reform needs to be a separate issue convering all sorts of lawsuits, including medical malpractice. It doesn't belong in the health bill.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Your suggestions would still require up-front government outlays to provide what you want anyway, but the alternative (doing nothing) looks bleak:

"Pulling it Together": Simple Arithmetic - Kaiser Family Foundation

I do not for a moment think the Republicans have any plan of their own to institute any kind of program that would decrease the cost of health care or the cost of health care insurance. They've promised in years past, and just sat there and let the entire issue get out of control.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.



The problem is a majority never will agree on health care. Those that can afford regular cost increases and insurance premium increases will be against it; those who can't afford to stay healthy by any means will be for it. Eventually, it comes down to a moral issue, frankly.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
> How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
> ...


Beeecause the radicals have discovered if you scream long and loud enough those without the moral, ethical and mental temerity to stand their ground against nutbags will give in to just shut them up.  The era of the fax machine, press release and calling lists have done great damage to all nations who don't bitchslap radical groups pushing for fundamental changes that are... well, crazy and self destructive.

Like gubmint healthcare.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

I think what galls me the most about the current Republicans intent on destroying the health care reform bill is that they are still LYING by omission. Just this morning, Senator Barrasso of Wyoming was on C-Span and made the same statement that never seems to get corrected, that "Medicare is being cut by $500 billion." The omission is that general Medicare funding and benefits *WILL NOT BE CUT*. The $500 billion represents the S.U.B.S.I.D.I.E.S now taken from the _general_ Medicare fund and given to those private insurers who cover _extra_ benefits for Medicare recipients in the Medicare ADVANTAGE program, such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, etc.

But did Barrasso say that? Of course not. His intent (like all the others) is to make seniors believe that their standard Medicare coverage is going to be cut, period. It's a goddamned lie.

His second huge embellishment was the oft-stated (by Republicans) remark that under the new health care reform, "...over 15,000 new IRS agents will be scanning tax returns to see if you should have enrolled..." 

The truth is there have been no new agents with that job description, and if and when any ARE hired for that job alone, the IRS has no idea how many. Fact-checkers galore verify that fact. 

Here:
PolitiFact | Michele Bachmann repeats claim that health care bill will require 16,500 new IRS agents

Here:
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin Assembly speaker Jeff Fitzgerald says the IRS has to add 15,000 employees to administer the new health care law

And a recap of the scare tactic being used by Republicans here:
Change of Subject: The big lie: The IRS will hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the insurance mandate in the new health-care reform law


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> ...




And that is the issue. It is hope without legs.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Actually, that is in fact incorrect. The theory has legs, now we get to see if it works.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> ...



Look who is here. The guy who doesn't have insurance and is actually a part of the problem in this country yet has no answers for real life questions. Please, share your wisdom with us.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Again, to see if... 

It is a sham that you hope will work. You said yourself it is an unsustainable system.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I never said such a thing. I said your dumb idea to have everyone pay exactly the same amount was unsustainable because it is an impossibility.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Hah... nice.  The asshole who wants people dependent on government and grateful to him for putting them there.

Nice way to lie about me though.  You're a real class(less) act.  Thanks for illustrating your wisdom, sanity and tolerance for those poorer than you, dick.

Maybe someday your dream will come true and you can have me shot for not being a grateful slave to your party.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The systems are the same. So long as you have some paying and others leaching, the system is unsustainable. You *hope* it will be different. You want to see *if *it works.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


and even after it fails, RDD and his ilk will blame something else for their failure.

Never take responsibility when there's an easy patsy to take your fall for you.

Way of life for socialists.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



No one can ever say with 100% guarantee about anything. Your idea was ridiculous and wouldn't work, your idea which has nothing to do with what this legislation does. Nice try though.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I'm lying about you? Do you have health insurance? 

I actually do care about those people less fortunate then me, hence why I want to see EVERYONE get access to healthcare regardless of their income. Is that what you want?


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
> How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
> ...



We should give them a new name, *THE DEAF LEFT*, sounds appropreaite....

It would be comical if it wasn't so true....

I was talking to one of my retired fire fighter clients a few weeks ago about their health insurance cost, their premiums are up $200 per month from '10 to '11, yeah big savings alright, this group is going to be forced out....


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




What a laugh! The legislation DOES make some pay and allow others not to pay. The exact same system we have now. Nothing is changing but allowing more to leach off of the ones who are paying. Its the same shell game, just different shells. 

The only difference is that they are going to FORCE more people to pay.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Umm, right. You suggested a system where everyone pays the same exact amount regardless of income. That's what I said was unsustainable, yet you felt the need to twist my words completely. Be proud of yourself. 

You are right though, this legislation does allow some people to continue to not pay, while others do. BUT, it changes how we pay so that we can pay less by making the system more efficient. So contrary to what you believe, A LOT is changing. But feel free to twist what I'm saying in to whatever you want.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




It is forcing everyone into a system they must pay for regardless if the ones paying into it use it or not.  It is giving more to those how already do not pay a cent. So long as some pay and some do not pay, it is the very same system. If everyone is forced to pay, should mean everyone. No more free rides.

It is the same shell game but on a grander scale.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Speaking of never taking responsibility. Why don't you take some responsibility and get health insurance. YOU are the reason why health insurance rates are high for the rest of us who do pay.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Everyone needs health care at some point. Let's not pretend this is some luxury service.

What exactly is "grander" about this legislation?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Why don't you take some responsibility and get health insurance.


You don't remember much of that conversation other than a little sliver of a supposed talking point.  You don't recall one instant where I explained I am paying for it myself, and instead focus on the conversation that never happened with your bullshit hypothetical situation.



> YOU are the reason why health insurance rates are high for the rest of  us who do pay.


You make the allegations, now prove it bitch.  Show how where I pay in payments increases your health insurance rates?  I want to see data Real Dumbass Dick, not propaganda and you running shit.

And why you're at it, explain why hospitals give discounts for paying in full by cash?

Oh, PS, didn't you pwn yourself that last time too by admitting gubmint helf kayre is not viable in the end but we need to do it anyway cause it's the nice thing to do?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

> I actually do care about those people less fortunate then me, hence why I  want to see EVERYONE get access to healthcare regardless of their  income. Is that what you want?



But you won't accept someone else refusing to buy it.  So you want to force your will on others and make them grateful for forcing your morality on them.  Seig fucking heil Real Dumbass Dick.

Should I grovel and be so thankful you have forced your will on me with your magnanimous gubmint charity I'm partially paying for?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Why don't you take some responsibility and get health insurance.
> 
> 
> You don't remember much of that conversation other than a little sliver of a supposed talking point.  You don't recall one instant where I explained I am paying for it myself, and instead focus on the conversation that never happened with your bullshit hypothetical situation.
> ...




I asked you how you would afford a 100k hospital bill which is VERY easy to rack up if you were hit with any sort of serious illness or injury. THIS is the very crux of the argument as to why people should be insured in our country. You didn't answer it then because you have no idea how you would pay it, much like millions of other Americans. In the end, you won't pay it, I and everyone else who do pay for their insurance will pay the bill. 

*So I'll ask again, tell me specifically how you will pay off a 100k bill. How many months will you pay it off in and how much will you pay per month. *This is FAR from a ridiculous hypothetical, this is the heart of the very issue which this legislation addresses.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > I actually do care about those people less fortunate then me, hence why I  want to see EVERYONE get access to healthcare regardless of their  income. Is that what you want?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I wont accept that, unless you're a multi millionaire you can't afford the risk. The risk the rest of us have to absorb should someone who doesn't have insurance get hit with an illness/injury. 

Partially paying for? Why don't you pay your own full way? You can call me all the names you want, doesn't change the fact that YOU are the problem with our health care system.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

> *So I'll ask again, tell me specifically how you will pay off a  100k bill.*


You want to attack me personally for real issues in a vain attempt to shame me into agreeing, I'm not going to let you mix in non-existent hypotheticals.



> THIS is the very crux of the argument as to why people should be insured  in our country


So anyone without health insurance, who can pay, even through payments is the problem.  You realize how fucking stupid you sound?  Of course you don't!

You're too focused on trying to be 'right' than to know truth.  It's all about winning, isn't it?

Now since you want to bring up the past to try and make personal attacks, let's illustrate how this turned out for you (for those who may not be aware of RealDumbassDick's destruction of his own point before running away in tears):  

My real world example to wit RealDumbassDick assumes then it's fair game to attack me personally starts here at post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3271896-post222.html

Post 222

As you read on you can see RDD has a contempt for people who believe in taking care of things on their own, aren't subject to him for any gratitude and really, doesn't want to help poor people except in a way of feeling like a big man because people 'owe' him their life in some abstract way.  Nice huh?

RealDumbassDick then shows his true desires here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3273792-post272.html

Post 272

And his true colors and Self-pwns right here (same link as above) and quickly runs away when this post is responded to:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3273843-post275.html

Post 275

I'd thank you for playing, but I wouldn't pick my nose for your sake at this point RealDumbassDick.

and to keep the meme alive:







Edit. the damn links aren't working for some reason.  But you can cut and paste them into your address bar.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




I have never said that you will never need care at some point. 


I am saying...pay for it. 


If _everyone_ is not paying into his new and great shell game...then its the same shell game, just different shells.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > *So I'll ask again, tell me specifically how you will pay off a  100k bill.*
> 
> 
> You want to attack me personally for real issues in a vain attempt to shame me into agreeing, I'm not going to let you mix in non-existent hypotheticals.



It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



And how do they pay for it, if they have no money? You need to think about real world application of your ideas.


----------



## peach174 (Feb 9, 2011)

You are not addressing the costs for each of us on premiums - it is not addressed in this bill, nor does it deal with it.Thirty three states have said the can't afford the cost and two of them are Dems, the Gov. of Calif. and the Gov. of N.Y.
So we must deal with the cost of this thing and can not ignore that there are more people against this bill than they are for it. You left keep arguing this, even if it was 50 - 50 you can't have half of this nation against a bill. This not what the nation is about.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > *So I'll ask again, tell me specifically how you will pay off a  100k bill.*
> ...




Does it really matter?  He at least at this time is paying his bills. 

I will say it. Either way, someone else will pay for it. So again, same shell game just different shells. Some will pay and others will not. 

What is so hard to understand about his situation. He IS paying for his care. That is the point. If he is paying why cant everyone who doesn't have insurance pay...just...like...him.  

He may not be able to afford insurance but he can afford to pay for care.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You are not addressing the costs for each of us on premiums - it is not addressed in this bill, nor does it deal with it.Thirty three states have said the can't afford the cost and two of them are Dems, the Gov. of Calif. and the Gov. of N.Y.
> So we must deal with the cost of this thing and can not ignore that there are more people against this bill than they are for it. You left keep arguing this, even if it was 50 - 50 you can't have half of this nation against a bill. This not what the nation is about.



Most people support most of the items that are actually in this bill, it's the misinformation and lies that are spread that give people a negative image of what this bill is. Look no further then this thread for examples of people who are against this bill but don't understand how it even works. 

And it does address costs, it can be better sure, but cost reduction is definitely addressed.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




 So again, it will be the SAME unsustainable shell game.


----------



## peach174 (Feb 9, 2011)

Then why are the states demanding that the gov. pay the unmandated fees?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You are not addressing the costs for each of us on premiums - it is not addressed in this bill, nor does it deal with it.Thirty three states have said the can't afford the cost and two of them are Dems, the Gov. of Calif. and the Gov. of N.Y.
> ...



What misinformation?

Some will pay and others will leach. Some will be forced to pay and others will leach. 

Or do i misunderstand that point?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


*
OF Course it matters! That's the issue!!!!* It's what I've been trying to explain to you all along. He is paying for it now, when the costs are $6000, but what does he do when its more, MUCH more which it easily can and will become. He can't afford it and that's why he doesn't answer my question. I've exposed the HUGE flaw in his master plan and he refuses to admit it.

If he has it all figured out, he should be able to easily say, "I will pay $xxxxx dollars per month for X months to be able to pay off that kind of bill." That would demonstrate that he has thought about planning ahead and how he would handle a situation that happens to millions of Americans. But while he continues to refuse to answer that question, he demonstrates he hasn't thought this completely through and has no plan.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So those who don't have the money and no way of making payments, should receive no care?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Then why are the states demanding that the gov. pay the unmandated fees?




And lets not forget all of thoes seeking waivers. 



http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ealthcare/152540-obamacare-waivers-729-a.html


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




*
RIGHT!* so under your pet he would still be paying. *GET IT? PAYING* What part of when i say that everyone needs to pay are you not understanding. 

You still think that it should be a free ride.

Not being able to afford insurance as it stands now does not mean they cannot pay for health care.  It may mean a few less beers and cigarettes. It may mean not getting a new cell phone or flat panel TV. It may mean not having designer hand bags and bing.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



They receive health care now....so again, what is the difference?

Same shell game, different shells.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



What?? *He wouldn't be paying* for it because it would be too expensive. I asked for him, you, or anyone to show me how he can afford it. He didn't, you didn't. Because he can't.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



How it is being paid for would be different. You're forcing me to have to stop replying to you, because you refuse to reply to what I am actually saying and repeat the same thing over and over again.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




 So what is he paying now? Cant everyone do the same thing he is doing now and paying? If he can so can everyone. 

Hello...paying?


Again what part of everyone pays into your pet  are you not understanding. Apply what he is doing to your pet. Paying.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Bingo...*there is no difference*. There is NO difference between obamacare and what we have now.  

So as i have said before and you don't seem to understand

Same shell game, just different shells. 


Follow the money and get off of the soap box.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Show me the math. C'mon....$100k into payments. How long will it take to pay? How much will he pay per month? 

Why do insist on avoiding this question that I've asked repeatedly? Do you not know how to do math?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



What do you do for a living?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





Apply it to your pet. You still say that some will not pay. What is the difference? Wont they all still be getting their 100k of care for free? PLUS the bonus years of what ever bullshit they want to show up for?


It is the same thing. Higlighting his situation is exactaly what is the core problem of obamacare

It is financially unsustainable.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I get it, you refuse to show me the math because you don't know how.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




The math is how much will the ones who are not going to pay into obamacare cost. There is your math.  How much will the payments for those who are forced to pay into your pet be, just to carry the ones who are not paying? 

The point is, YOU don't know the math.  You have "hope" and "if's"


----------



## R.D. (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.


Like every other bill that gets paid.  Monthly .

That would be those of us who_ do_ pay, but in this great county thousands don't pay and still get great care.  The point is moot.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.
> ...




He doesn't get that fine point. He doesnt understand that BF isn't skipping out on his bill.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.
> ...



Except its too much to pay monthly. And that's the point. We will all pay for him since it is too much for him to pay.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



How dense are you. Why can't you show me how the payments would work out??

How about I start, Would he pay $500 month over 16.5 years? Is that reasonable to ask of him? Do you think someone who can't afford health insurance now can afford to make that payment every month for the next 16.5 years?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Except its too much to pay monthly. And that's the point. We will all pay for him since it is too much for him to pay.



That's so silly I _almost_ don't know what to say.  

Hello?!?! - payment plan.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





And again....what is different about that as opposed to obamacare? Nothing. 


*NOTHING.*


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Except its too much to pay monthly. And that's the point. We will all pay for him since it is too much for him to pay.
> ...



LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Exactaly..how dense are you?

If his payments wont work out to pay for a 100k procedure, how will paying *nothing at all *work out?


----------



## peach174 (Feb 9, 2011)

Lower the cost of the health care system it's self. Get regulations to deal with the high price of drugs, this has gotten total out of control. Then look at what is really driving up hospital costs and regulate them.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Should he get the care he needs if he can't afford it. Yes or no?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




 He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life. 

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.



Believe it or not it's like any other agreement.  First everything is negotiable, your 100k is in all reality doesn't come close to the cost the dr's and the hosp will settle  for never - mind  once they know you're self insured you will be shocked at what does NOT need to be done.  

The question was posed to someone willing and self insured, right?  So why assume they can't afford the hefty payments.  All in all it will be probably be less than or equal to having had insurance all along


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I didn't ask about you or your situation. I asked a yes or no question. Why can't you give a simple yes or no response? 

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? *Yes or No*


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.
> ...




So we're calling people without insurance, "self insured" now? LOL.

How did you put it...."that's so silly, I almost don't even know what to say"

I notice you're another person who refuses to answer my question about what the payments will look like. You all are "experts" without any actual answers.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer.  The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays. 

The answer to your question is  that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime. 

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses?  I will be happy to send you the bill.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That question is as  trick of a loaded  question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit. 


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for?   see how that works?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



My Christianity? WTF.

My questions were simple and FAR from loaded. You're just afraid that answering will reveal your complete hypocrisy.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Correct me (with facts) if I'm wrong, but, everyones insurance has been going up for decades now and most of the new healthcare legislation hasn't even taken effect yet.  Methinks the Peach is blowing smoke (politely said, says I).


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




No hypocrisy at all. I maintain that everyone should pay.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Great.


----------



## Meister (Feb 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?
> ...



Isn't this one of the arguements?  The administration says it does, but it certainly isn't cut and dry.

A person would have to go back in time and see why there is even a regulation on interstate commerce.  It really did come down to each state taxing interstate commerce, which became a debacle and the feds solved it once and for all.  But I certainly don't get it with insurance.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok I'm catching on here.  You pick and choose what you want to answer and pretend others have done that.

I did answer your question and so did you.  You not understanding is not my problem.  If you're so sheltered that self insured goes over your head, there really is not much more to discuss.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



What question did you ask that I ignored? 

I asked to see the math. Link me to the post where you laid out how the math would work. I'll wait.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 9, 2011)

Meister said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



No, at least not in the two cases that ended up with a ruling against the mandate. The legitimacy of the insurance reforms themselves isn't being disputed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> ...



The premiums are up because the insurance companies are making damned sure they're going to bleed you dry before they can't anymore. It's a no-brainer. Ain't capitalism fun?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 9, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



It's designed so that people caught in the middle don't continue to get left out (earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to pay for exorbitant health costs and health insurance).


----------



## syrenn (Feb 9, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




I get that part... and they will still pay into it. That is not a problem.


----------



## rdean (Feb 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
> How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
> ...



The Rasmussen Problem

Rasmussen's role in the public debate is problematic for several reasons. It's not altogether clear what causes him to consistently project results so much at odds with those of the rest of the polling community. But if there is something problematic about his methods, he has little incentive to correct it, because *Rasmussen's business model increasingly relies upon maintaining the loyalty of staunch Republicans.*


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




I have to agree with Syrenn. The problem that comes with a system that covers everyone and all pre-existing conditions is *COST*.  Sure this "illusion" of such a new Health Care coverage sounds nice, but when you include the "reality" of cost, it's unsustainable. Massachusetts went with such a system, and now they are fighting a drastic cost increase of 52%, ER costs that went up by 17%, increased waiting times in the ER due to overcrowding, and less quality of care. Just as Massachusetts has already proven, this Health Care bill will NOT reduce cost. However "cost" is just one part of the many issues facing a government controlled Health Care, another big issue is addressed in the article below.

Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb




> In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
> *New York Times: By KEVIN SACK*
> 
> ...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 9, 2011)

rdean said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports
> ...




The problem with this argument, is the inability to provide any poll data that shows and overwhelming SUPPORT for this New Health Care Bill.




> CNN POLL:
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/
> A Quinnipiac University national poll that was also released Tuesday offered similar results. According to the survey, Americans by a 48 to 43 percent margin want Congress to repeal the health care reform.
> 
> People over the age of 50 favor repeal by a 57 to 37 percent margin. But those under the age of 50 are split.





> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, with 44% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed to repeal, including 26% who Strongly Oppose.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Once again, you prove you have no interest in what's really happening but your own hypothetical scenario.

Let's try one on you.  You say you have health insurance.  I take you at your word that you do (which i probably a mistake as you've proven no clue as to what goes into buying health insurance... probably on mommy's)

Now you get dinged for a series of 12 claims.  None of which reach your deductible of 5k and you rack up a hospital bill of over 55k that insurance won't cover AND now you have a pre-exsting condition that jacks up your premiums to double what they are now, or your coverage will be dropped.

How are you going to pay off THAT RealDumbassDick?

I see you are hoping your self pwnage won't continue to haunt your oh so superior theories, but even you yourself admitted that universal healthcare or public options are unsustainable for them to do what you want.  Keep running and trying to blow enough chaff and flares to get you out of trouble, but Syrenn keeps getting your number and handing it to you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

> You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too  stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and  have no answers as to what you would do



All this from not playing with hypotheticals. Since I don't NEED to see my options for paying off 100k, I am not going to RESEARCH my options.  If you want to find out how it works, call your own local hospital and be your own research monkey, bitch.



> Until you answer this VERY real world example,



Since I don't owe anyone 100k, it very well cannot BE a 'real world example'.  Of course I'm not surprised you don't get the concept of "real world".



> Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business  giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers  to the core question at hand.



Who died and appointed you the god of healthcare Real Dumbass DICK???  Your real example doesn't exist.  You're so focused on a fake scenario you are ignoring the basic fact that I am not impacting your costs one red cent because it fucks your entire argument off the map!  How is it, that me paying my REAL bills out of my own pocket, myself is a threat to your costs?  Prove that shit.



> You need to think about real world application of your ideas.



You mean like admitting this?



			
				RDD said:
			
		

> _Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too  expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest  to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system_.



You fully admit your concept is a FAILURE and yet you harp on oblivious to your own failed philosophy.  Life must suck that you have to edit your hypocrisy and insanity on the fly.  Must make it very hard to get through the day RealDumbassDICK.

Now, if you are done having a case of logical Tourette's the adults here have matters to discuss.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


The major reason insurance costs have increased is because medical costs have increased as well as legal costs incurred over claims.  Honestly, lawyers are potentially the number one factor as to why health care is so damn expensive.  The next or tied for first would be government intervention, mandates, and regulations on how medicine should be administered.

If you changed one aspect of law to "Loser Pays" on tort reforms, the effect on business would be incredible.  Entire useless lawfirms would go out of business as they could not afford to risk losing when suing for 'fun and profit' or blackmailing people into settling.  

Next, end government involvement in the operation and payment of medical care and relegate them strictly to their appropriate watchdog status to protect all parties involved and prices will drop again.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 10, 2011)

And RealDumbassDick disappears in a puff of logic.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Good thing, the new health care reform eliminates exclusion for pre-existing conditions so I'd have nothing to worry about under your scenario. Thanks for pointing that out! Was that the point you were trying to highlight?

Now will you answer my hypothetical situation? Of course you won't because you have no answer.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> You mean like admitting this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you even understand what that statement was in response to?? It was her proposed healthcare solution. Not to the system laid out in this legislation. I'd ask if you are really that slow, but I already know the answer.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 10, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like admitting this?
> ...


Spin Fail Spin Fail Spin Fail.

Your words are plain for everyone to see you know damn well YOUR desire for universal healthcare is a failure but you don't give a fuck.  It's about political power, and feeling like a big man that you're owed thanks from po' people for their very survival.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Seriously? Here's the full post and me replying to her idea that everyone should pay the same amount. 

Everyone should pay the same amount

So again, I was replying to her idea which is nothing like what this legislation actually is.

Why do you feel the need to lie about what I said? I'll just stop responding to you if you're just going to lie about what I said and ignore the stuff I ask you.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

And why can't you answer my hypothetical situation question, when I answered yours?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You are not addressing the costs for each of us on premiums - it is not addressed in this bill, nor does it deal with it.Thirty three states have said the can't afford the cost and two of them are Dems, the Gov. of Calif. and the Gov. of N.Y.
> So we must deal with the cost of this thing and can not ignore that there are more people against this bill than they are for it. You left keep arguing this, even if it was 50 - 50 you can't have half of this nation against a bill. This not what the nation is about.



The best conservatives/Republicans can hope for is a revision to the Health Care bill. There are too many provisions that Americans like.

The Health Care Reform Provisions Americans Like -- And Don't Like


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No, they will continue to receive care at hospital emergency rooms, which drives up the cost for those who CAN pay, and then they complain about how much their insurance premiums continue to go up, and 'round and 'round it goes. The ol' status quo.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Maybe you can explain this concept to them. I've tried but it's like talking to a brick wall.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool _(with set coverage for all)_, that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Some don't pay into Medicaid either, depending on income. I don't understand your point. The purpose is to get coverage for those people who fall between the cracks. Should they too just continue going to emergency rooms just because they can't afford $400-$700+ a month for health care insurance?

The bottom line is if we don't have a healthy (and educated, I might add) society, we will no longer be able to compete at all in the global market. We can't continue the downward spiral of generation after generation of sick and under-educated citizens.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it. 

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an attack to ask how you would pay off a 100k bill??? I don't think so. You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do. Until you answer this VERY real world example, you have no business giving your opinion since you are proving you in fact don't have answers to the core question at hand.
> ...



Not by comparison, we don't.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Except its too much to pay monthly. And that's the point. We will all pay for him since it is too much for him to pay.
> ...



Oh sure. Find some doctor's office where they're happy to offer payment plans, and I'll try to find an ad for you that says the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale.

If only...


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Lower the cost of the health care system it's self. Get regulations to deal with the high price of drugs, this has gotten total out of control. Then look at what is really driving up hospital costs and regulate them.



That, of course, is what REALLY should be done. But then we'd hear from the conservatives who would scream that regulation of the health care industry is unconstitutional and socialistic, which of course it is. It's really too bad that the industry didn't climb atop this problem long before they had to have ANY regulations slapped on them. I guess, like the housing industry, they all just blissfully went about their business thinking they were invincible _and could keep making enormous profits off the backs of those who can afford their services_.

Kudos for recognizing that major problem.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 10, 2011)

peach174 said:


> My whole point is we can not afford another big government program period. Get rid of this bill and do health care regulation that the majority of America can agree on.



Were you in a coma for the last two years?  The reason your health care has gone up recently is that the HMO's spent the difference paying off legislators, lobbyists and a very massive and EXPENSIVE media blitz to get the bill shaped towards their goals ..not yours.

Did you really think all that HMO propaganda was free? 

You are a Peach...A very stupid Peach.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...









  What if he was hit by a bus and had to have a leg amputated, a prothesis, and weeks of rehabilitation?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Exactly. They refuse to answer this apparently "unrealistic" hypothetical question.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

R.D. said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.
> ...



If BF can afford a Cadillac health plan, then by all means he should go for it, or if he can pay unlimited amounts out of pocket, more power to him. Nobody's arguing that point (I don't think), because that doesn't describe most people.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I *so* wish you hadn't used that word. With your attitude of what's mine is mine and screw everybody else is hardly the "Christian" way.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




Cant you read? I have answered that question many times.

First off you assume that he will not be paying into your pet project considering everyone will be FORCED to pay into it. (then again you also feel that some dont need to pay now dont you)

Running on the assumption he is paying into your pet......whats the problem?

If he is not paying into your pet, then you should have no problem with him getting care....for free. 

The bottom line is that he will get the care he needs and someone else will pay for it. Again...nothing changes. 

Same game different shells.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Again it will be the same thing as it is now. He will get the care he needs.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

Meister said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Because selling insurance is selling a commercial product.
*com·mer·cia*l  (k-mûrshl)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
b. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
c. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The remark is for his avatar. A very good indication of what he thinks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The shortage of doctors is indeed a concern. There are new education incentives in place for students who want to pursue a career in health care but heretofore have been unable to pay THOSE costs. Also, a lot of new grads find it will be more lucrative to pursue a specialty, instead of going into general practice along with that specialty. Still others are finding it SUPER lucrative to become consultants.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I posted this link, which keeps up with and reports on ALL the polls, and as you can see, the country is evenly split, and also includes a whole lot of "undecideds" which also have to be considered with regard to popularity.

Health Policy


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too  stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and  have no answers as to what you would do
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why is it the filthy rich (I assume you're one) are also such classless jackasses that they have to resort to fratboy namecalling?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> And RealDumbassDick disappears in a puff of logic.







OH NO!!!! I see you typing with face again!!!


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No explanation will do for people like Syrenn, Big Fitz and several others who post on USMB. They're from that mindset that they're shocked that there even _exists_ Americans who can't afford everything they themselves enjoy, and if they can't, well dogummit, they can just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or get stomped by somebody else's boots. Do they care? No. These are people who have no conscience, and it isn't restricted to just health care.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Except Big Fitz has told us in another thread that he can't afford health insurance. He's a part of the problem in this country and refuses to recognize it. Shame.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Cost sharing credits available to individuals/families with income between 133-400% of the federal poverty level (the poverty level is $18,310 for a family of three in 2009)


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




Some out of pocket should be required from everyone who participate in the program. THAT is my point, no one should be exempt from payment.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Well I'm getting the impression in this thread that he can afford anything he wants. He can also opt out of joining an exchange by choosing a Cadillac plan and paying for it himself. There is the provision, however, that he would have to start paying a tax on certain coverage amounts by 2018, which I'm sure he won't like. That's also a provision that I think will probably get struck down, however.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 10, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So how do you treat someone who lost her job, has to raise her three kids alone, lost her home to foreclosure, is now feeding her kids on food stamps and is camped out in somebody else's spare room? Send her a bill to throw in the hat with all the other bills she's unable to pay?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Ding! Ding! Ding! If you get a logical response to this, I'll be shocked.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 10, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



 Yes.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That's the problem with the left.  They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address  THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. *So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing?*  RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, *WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?* 




> *Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare*
> Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> *By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller*
> 
> ...





> *Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb*
> Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
> 
> More people are seeking care in Massachusetts hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17% over two years. This is despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. Visits to Massachusetts emergency rooms grew 7% between 2005 and 2007, to 2,469,295 visits. The estimated cost of treating those patients *jumped* from $826 million to $973 million.
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




You have addressed.. Hope and If. You have addressed pie in the sky. You have addressed nothing that is a_ sustainable system_ financially. 

You have _hopes_ for a sustainable system..._If _i works. 

So long as there are people who do not pay into the system and expect care for nothing..it will never work. 

Obamacare is the same game just different more expensive shells.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Yes, as I have stated you pawn it off to "someone else", but you have not addressed the increases of expense that THIS Health Care plan *will bring*.  Just your "need" to pawn off responsibility. I will state it again:


*WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient? *

*How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.* As I have already proven, such a government system will NOT reduce the COST of care in comparison to the private sector.

Will you dodge those issues yet again?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.

If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST.  Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague.  You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague.  You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.



Oh look who decided to show back up. Weird how you disappeared when you were shown how dumb you were being. Thanks for coming back to remind us.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague.  You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.
> ...


It's called having a life.  Unlike some, I have to earn a living, and not just play star trek in mommy's basement demanding more hot pockets.

You also don't debate with eggplants on topics as weighty as health insurance and medical care balanced with economic realities not fantasy desires.  Kinda pointless.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Oh you were earning a living, eh? Weird because a simple search shows you were on the site and posting, PLENTY, since you were last in this thread.

Let's take a look, you posted in all of the following threads last night, this morning and this afternoon before slinking back in here. 
*
- Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun
- Our new puppy
- Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats
- Mubarak out
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!
- WTF is a murkin ?
- Governor Brewer to sue Federal Government. It's on, bitches!
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!*

Seems you found a whole bunch of free time to make those posts, but odd, no response to your bullshit being called out here. 
Let's face it, you're a poor liar and aren't very bright. But keep it up, at least you're consistent.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Are you trying to say you know when I work and when I don't?

Keep it up laughing boy.  You're working your way to a harrassment ban.  Personal attacks and now stalking.  Nice.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



You have called me plenty of insults, so don't start crying now that I caught you in a flat out lie.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times.   All your dodging will not change that issue.  If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.  

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws.  We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


You've caught nothing.    I like how you ignore time stamps on when that happens.  Yet more of your intellectual disingenuous nature on display.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Really??? You want me to post Time Stamps for you? I'd be happy to if thats what you want.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Are you ignoring what I said on purpose? I told you I would be happy to talk with you about this, but I don't know your underlying position on the issue. So once we clear up your stance we can proceed, yet you don't even acknowledge what I asked. It's really a simple question, no tricks, just so I know if we are on the same page or not. 

So I'll ask one last time.

If someone can not afford to pay for their healthcare at all, should they be denied the ability to receive health care?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> If someone can not afford to pay for their healthcare at all, should they be denied the ability to receive health care?



Sigh....it just doesn't happen.

And just a heads up,  health care and health insurance are two separate things.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I know YOU are already ignoring my questions I've addressed on purpose!  You will dodge answering any questions that stands contrary to your position. 


According to Federal law: If someone comes into the ER he/she is automatically provided with a room.  Everyone has the right to a medical exam to determine the condition of a patient, NO ONE can be turned away based on no insurance. If a person is turned away from an illness that is life threatening, that's grounds for a lawsuit. Any bill that does arise can be negotiated, yes they HAVE to pay something. Your excuse of simply brushing off the costs issue simply doesn't work, THAT kind of system will eventually collapse on itself into providing lower quality of care for everyone, Massachusetts has already PROVEN that. You are simply blinded by "ideology" . . . over the reality of cost.


*Looking at our current Federal Budget:* the Social Security Program with Medicare/Medicaid make up 40.9% of the Federal budget, compared to the discretionary defense budget of 20.5%.  These figures are without the additional budget costs of including a Federal Government Health Care mandate.  If Massachusetts is any indicator, our Federal Budget will skyrocket with no concrete solutions on handling such "problems" a government healthcare system brings (COST, increased ER cost, and increase wait times).  
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Will you continue on with these games of yours? Do you have the capability of answering my questions, or are you simply motivated by blind ideology, that you can not handle someone addressing legitimate issues?

You can start by addressing these questions:
1) *WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?* 
You haven't provided me with ANY facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.  


2) *How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.*


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

*A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.*

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position and your inability to defend your argument.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> *A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
> B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.*



*AGAIN*... the answer is they already receive care they cannot pay for now. 

And per your obamacare....they will receive the same care and MORE that they cant  pay for. 

Should and should not's are a straw man. 


There is no difference.  Same thing different more expensive shells.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



You're ok with that?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




You CONTINUE to dodge my legitimate issues.  You don't want to address concerns if their position stands contrary to your "ideology".  Answer my issues I have brought before you, and we will discuss further YOUR additional questions.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all. 



ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> You can start by addressing these questions:
> 1) *WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?*


They don't have a great track record, I won't disagree with you. However, this legislation isn't about the government taking over. In fact all it is doing is setting guidelines for private insurance companies and providing more business for private insurance companies. 



> 2) *How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.*


The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So you think that if you can't afford to pay, you shouldn't be able to get care?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It doesn't matte what i think or want. It is happing now. Under obamacare it will happen again. Just _more_ people will be abusing the finances of others. 

Same game different more expensive shells. 


So again...how about i send you my medical bill and you can write a check.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Again, for some reason you refuse to tell us your thoughts. Are you ashamed or something?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Not all. You on the other hand should be ashamed for mocking the very people you claim you want to help.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I mock stupidity, nothing more.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be ashamed.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Not at all. I mock idiots of all walks of life.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Hell, you don't even deny it....


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Mocking all sorts of idiots? Of course not.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life. 

You mocked him for being poor.

And you should be ashamed. 

And if you dont believe me...ask him.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system. 

The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic. 

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category. 

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing. 

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot? 

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic. 

And you should be very ashamed.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Well it's not my fault you fail to see the hypocrisy in his viewpoint. Nor is it my fault that you are too ashamed to just come out and say that people who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive it. But it's ok, I can read between the lines. Have a good weekend!


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be very ashamed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:
			
		

> > CNN POLL:
> > CNN poll: Half favor repealing health care law  CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
> > A Quinnipiac University national poll that was also released Tuesday offered similar results. According to the survey, Americans by a 48 to 43 percent margin want Congress to repeal the health care reform.
> >
> > People over the age of 50 favor repeal by a 57 to 37 percent margin. But those under the age of 50 are split.



The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. *As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE.* Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.



I have, if you receive treatment you have to pay something for it.  Our current system allows you to negotiate for cost, but you should pay something.  Those who have NO means to make payments, the "medical system" covers such costs through "repricing".  Those added uninsured costs get shifted to what everyone else will now owe. The hospital will increase their costs, using Medicare / Medicaid and private insurance to cover the loss. Doctors who used to charge $50 for a visit, for example, must now charge $80 to make up the difference for those who can not afford it. When Medicare talks about cutting back on its costs, doctors will in turn cut back on services because they are not getting paid for it.  The cost of covering for the uninsured has to be paid for, otherwise they are operating under a loss. 

The new Health Care law doesn't offer anything different, it's still about the shift of cost so someone else has to pay for it. This is why insurance premiums go up and Medicaid has also *INCREASED* in Massachusetts under THEIR government program. 

Question RDD: How do you propose to control these runaway government costs, like those in Massachusetts?



> *Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare*
> Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> *By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller*
> 
> ...






RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > You can start by addressing these questions:
> ...



The new health Care law is PROVIDING for those who can't afford insurance, by having the Federal Government pay for it. Those who refuse to provide proof they have insurance, will have to pay a fine to the Federal Government. It's another "shift of cost shell game" to cover the uninsured, that already has existed in the private sector. Again, study Massachusetts' Heath Care system, which is the "model" for the national system. *Costs DIDN'T go down*, and you haven't provided any facts to a government system that has. 
*SOURCE:* Uninsured? What the New Bill Means for You - CBS Evening News - CBS News



RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > 2) *How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.*
> ...



Massachusetts has a government system and the costs DIDN'T go down.  Where are your FACTS to back your statement on the effective "decrease on rates"?

There is also the issue of increased wait times ( I have previously mentioned ) for appointments in Boston: cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.  How should the Federal Government handle those issues? Any answers?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Here's a shocking truth you need to digest. Just about every dime of taxes you pay into the system "goes to someone else." It's the reason we _have_ taxes, and not a system where you can pick and choose your favorite cause. I didn't "choose" to have some of my tax dollars go to support a $14 billion a week bill to fund two wars, either, but nobody asked me if I liked it.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Now your excuse is hypocrisy? 

Give up, you're out of your league....


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:
			
		

> > *Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb*
> > Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
> >
> >
> > ...



Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



But as you yourself say, they will get treatment anyway. And they'll do it the old-fashioned way of using hospital ERs which ultimately YOU pay for via the back door _because hospital fees are jacked up in order to cover those who cannot pay_. If you're the one with insurance, you're the one actually paying for those who cannot!!

Is all of this going to go smoothly right away? Of course not. Is it a costly program? Yes it is. But eventually it should be more cost-effective once people get used to what is covered, especially the preventive provisions which keep people healthy from the outset before they get expensively sick.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just an aside. Wait time for those who are not paying a dime is a non issue. Its free. 

Wait time for those of us who are paying and must wait for the heard to pass through is an issue. 


How many millions will be dumped into obama care that now have no health care? How many millions will that put into and already bursting system? 

Just something to think about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I think Shackles wants to hear the answer that the program isn't going to cost anything. So he wants you to lie, I guess. It depends on which "cost" he's referring to.

The "cost" of health insurance coverage definitely will go down, once there are insurance exchanges which must compete for clients, so that benefits the public. But the "cost" of waivers of the premiums for people who can't afford even a small amount will be born by the government, just as Medicaid is. 

I hope I'm around in a few years to see how the program shakes out, because no one can accurately predict how cost effective overall the health care reform policy will eventually be, and whether people ultimately will grow to like it and freak out if it's threatened (just as they do Medicare today, which was also thought at one time to be a program that would be the bane of our existence).


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





That is right..i pay. I dont want to pay for more people then i  already do now. 

The amount of people flooding into obamacare will out distance any cost that is being paid now. You are adding general health care for millions right along with the very same ER services. 

We will still be paying the ER bills of the ones who cant pay..._along with the day to day medical care for the all of the rest. _

It will never get any better so long as some pay and other don't. Everyone should pay for this. If that means deducting the full amount from someones welfare check or food stamps....fine. But everyone needs to pay.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Syrenn is correct, do you believe the Medicare Advantage crowd is getting a better deal on cost? Hell no, Obamacare does not address the problem. Where is the fixed income crowd going to get the difference? This is why the truth is very easy to understand, you will push (actually shove) the ones who can't afford the difference into Medicaid, is that your idea of a solution?

No one has claimed there is some easy solution, but this sure as hell is going in the wrong direction....

We drove our company to record profits this year in the home building industry thru through and honest evaluation of *cost*, but I know, you believe the Feds are going to do this with our Tax Dollars.....


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own. 

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



And that's okay with you?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here are two other different sources stating the SAME issue of wait times, one of them by *The New York Times*.  Perhaps you still believe they are making up an issue that doesn't exist?



> *In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
> *By KEVIN SACK &#8212; The New York Times*
> 
> ...






> *State's 'no diversion policy' is putting strain on Massachusetts hospitals*
> Massachusetts Nurses Association - News & Events - Archive - 2009 - State's 'no diversion policy' is putting strain on Massachusetts hospitals
> *From the Massachusetts Nurse Newsletter &#8212;  April 2009 Edition*
> 
> ...


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



By lowering idiot costs for one.

Cutting advertisement on every new drug that comes down the pipe to the public to ask for.
Stop giving cut rate drugs to OTHER countries. 
Limit government funding to only drugs that help diseases. We do not need research grants for drugs to grow hair on mens bald heads..nor do we need to fund drugs to keep their dicks up. 
Limit ALL non essential surgeries. Sorry if you want that sex change you come up with the money. Sorry if you want that breast enlargement, come up with the money...ect...ect.    
Limit how much law suits can get in malpractice claims from all those involved.
Turning away ALL non emergency patients from ER rooms! 
Turn away anyone who is not a legal citizen!
A system that *everyone *pays for.

How is that for a start?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Strange, isn't it. I guess her point is that either the government pays or she pays. And when the government pays, she's paying anyway (although by an imperceivably small percentage of some tax formula as opposed to ten dollar aspirin during her hospital stay).


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regarding #1, the government did have two consecutive years of a balanced budget all because "cost effective" procedures that were put in place.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Noooo...i am saying the system we have now that is killing health care, is not working. That system is the one that pays for the ones who don't. 

Why implement another one that is going to broaden the system to allow more into it, for more service's, that cant pay? It is financially irresponsible. It is financial suicide. So long as the money does not balance it is doomed to fail and take us down with it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for* his* nonstop insults.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Would you have everyone living in the same housing? How about driving the same cars? Eating the same food? NO, HELL NO, we live in a social economic world, the Brown's live in a $500K home, drive a Mercedes and eat at all the fine restaurants they want.....

Now the Jones live in a $100K home, drive a Chevy and eat at McDonald's once a month, so based on your theory Obamacare, Universal or Single Provider) we should make the Brown's pay for what the Jones can not afford, does that sum it up? 

The irony in all of this from the left is they want a perfect solution for a world they continuously point out as being flawed, all they want is perfection in an imperfect world.....

Dare I ask what is next on their agenda????


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




How do you know it is not going to cost more? 

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt. 

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who _are_ paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Did i now? I think you misunderstand. I don't believe you were in the thread we speak of.  He deserves the insults he gets for his mocking the poor.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



That about sum's it up. Except for the fact that the Jones _along with the Browns_ would  also be paying for the Johnsen's who live in public housing and get welfare and food stamps.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.
> ...



There are also two sides to the success of the Mass health care system.

Is Health Care Reform Working in Massachusetts? - DailyFinance

In that article, Blue Cross states that it has redefined its payment system to concentrate more on quality rather than quantity, one of the hallmark goals of Obamacare also.

And this, which explains cost overruns.

Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working - The Boston Globe

If you read only negative articles, you'll come away with only a negative view.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And if you only read the feel good ones you get the same results

the answer is in the middle.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.



Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Says he who thus far has contributed NOTHING substantive to the entire conversation.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.
> ...




That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered. 

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)
> ...



I think I've already mentioned that a shortage of doctors (GPs) is becoming a problem. But I also think that more and more clinics are being established in rural communities where basic preventive treatment is performed by Physicians Assistants, who can legally do just about everything an MD can except surgery, including dispensing prescription drugs. I see shortage of medical help as a temporary problem. After all, people all over the country are looking for new vocations, and medicine is a top employer.

That said, I think you're a very narcissistic and selfish person when you say insulting things like YOU (precious YOU) will have to wait for the herd to pass through. Just who the fuck made you a princess? My my my, how positively HORRIBLE it might be that YOU would have to wait in line with all the other peasants.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




Shhhhhhh! That's called "taking personal responsibility", a phrase they don't want to have mentioned here.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




Sorry you dont like the real life application of obamacare. 

I have no problem waiting with the "peasants" as _*you*_ call them. I actually like the peasants as opposed to gentry. If the peasants _expect and demand _the same care i do. I expect the peasants to paying the same thing that* i *do.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. *As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE.* Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.
> ...



Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized _FROM_ the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's _hearing aids_? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose _any_ of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than *five* years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





You have it a bit wrong. I dont say "why should i pay for everyone one else"  

I am saying if you want something pay for it. If you want to* be in* obamacare...then EVERYONE pay for into it. No exemptions. No free ride for anyone.  






MaggieMae said:


> Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than *five* years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.



Bingo...and obamacare will be bankrupt too. They are making provisions that they cannot pay for.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Not good. You need to do a LOT more homework, hon.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



You mean you haven't heard? They're gonna take yer guns away from ya.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I think you need to find a good website that explains it all to you, preferably one that doesn't have a bias and presents the facts in a negative way. I'll try to find a good one that you can trust. Basically, the cost of the program requiring subsidies will ultimately be paid for by reduced costs (and waste) in other programs. You apparently don't know anything about the projections and forecasts, so I'll try to help you out but I can't get back to this until tomorrow.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



See there's where you're dead wrong. I was right that you know nothing about any of these programs, so please please please stop trying to sound like an expert. The people in public housing, etc., are *ALREADY COVERED BY MEDICAID.*


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I've read the OBamacare bill, all 2100 pages of it, because I had to do an analysis of the highlights as a free-lance job recently. I *know* what I'm talking about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I know! How about we just shoot them? I'm sure that's one of your closeted wishes, you being such a patriotic capitalist and all.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




You still don't understand do you.

So long as exemptions are made NOT to pay into the system, it is doomed to fail. It will cost everyone more to carry the greater amount masses. 

This has nothing to do with lowering health care costs by competition. It has everything to do with paying your way, no free rides.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




 Not quite. I wont cry if they take it upon themselves, shoot themselves.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Medicare does not pay for hearing aids, but Medicaid does.....

Did you miss this too?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


mmm nice projection.  You should get together with RDD.  He wants em to beg first though.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


You lousy little shit.

You mean like the hypocrisy of attacking those who are being responsible  even though they are poor?  Having utter contempt for those you proclaim to want to help?  You sit here and claim to be 'mocking ignorance' and being sarcastic when it is plain to see for everyone that you really are a hateful prick.

How about the sheer arrogance then of playing games trying to drive home a political point off of my own personal situation, you fuck.  You want to score political points at my expense but when confronted  with the reality of your own desired solution's abject economic failure  that YOU EVEN ADMIT TO you suddenly blank out and duck the whole issue  going back to attack responsible people like myself, and imply we're  costing you money!

Not only that, you disregard all the factors affecting healthcare that  are GOVERNMENT SPAWNED as if ignoring them will take them out of the  equation.  you claim to want to discuss the issue of health care but you  dont' want to do it honestly.  I've tossed out in multiple threads many things that would truly help the poor while REDUCING the size of government.  Do you even HAVE any solutions that don't involve government growing?  I doubt it.

No.  Instead you want us to be 'grateful' for your magnanimous contribution to forestalling their death while hating them for needing saving.  Oh you poor put upon bastard.  How about instead you work to reduce the costs that make it all so difficult with out government interfering and controlling every aspect of their lives?  Because in all reality, as long as your bed is feathered, you couldn't give a flying fuck.

You're scum, and thank you for illustrating it once again to the entire board.

Prick.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Maggie, the issue between RDD and myself has been going on for two or three threads now.  At one point I used my own personal situation to illustrate how much of a problem government was in health care.  RDD then seized upon that opportunity to be intellectually disingenuous, personally demeaning and an all around prick about my life.  I made the mistake of putting it out there, and being the opportunistic fuck that he is, he attacked me on it.

Now, if he had been at least civil back then, I'd be treating him better now.  If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games.  But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.

So until such time that RDD is either capable or willing to participate in an adult conversation and actually bring reason to the table, (not to mention a shitload of apologies for his past attacks) all he's going to get from me are counter attacks and ridicule as well.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




I tell ya, that was pretty damn low and crule of him mocking you the way he did. I was actually amazed he attacked your situation in life, considering you are the very people he claims to want to help.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games.  But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.



Check and mate!


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 11, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


preeeeeeettty much.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


 
In case you didn't catch it Syrenn, she didn't provide you with a . . internet link . . to back her statement. The only FACTS you will find is in the form a YouTube video of Nancy Pelosi talking about "choice and competition".  Which only goes to prove, hear a lie long enough and people ( like MaggieMay ) are likely to believe it.  

Of course the closest government system we have is in the state of Massachusetts.  There is very little doubt the state is facing a lot of higher costs to contend with, to include Medicaid, and I have included plenty of "sources" including the New York Times.  Last I checked the New York Times is supported by the left for many of THEIR sources, so I don't see any "bias" there. Contrary to what Maggie and RDD would have you to believe, you simply can not *ignore* the increasing cost burden Massachusetts must bare.  They would much rather hold their heads in the clouds, and come up with an extensive Santa Clause type of "wish list", on the kind of coverage everyone ought to have. However, you must also face the "REALITY" of what such coverage will cost. Simply putting the truth about "cost" on the shelf, and saying it's the Federal Government's problem, is simply being irresponsible. This is the true cost of what government care brings, from a state that HAS taken the initiative:  

*Addressing the issue regarding the INCREASE COSTS of Health Care brought onto the state*
Illegals Drive Up Healthcare Costs for Taxpayers in Massachusetts
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment *( which sites the Boston Globe as it's source )*

*including two articles from left leaning newspapers:*
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html?_r=1





> *Firms cancel health coverage*
> *With cost rising, small companies turning to state*
> Firms cancel health coverage - The Boston Globe
> 
> ...





> *Rising Health Care Costs*
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts - Massachusetts Division of Insurance 2010 Rate Review - Rising Health Care Costs
> 
> In Massachusetts Health Care Cost Trends 2010 Final Report (April 2010), the *Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy wrote:*
> ...







MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who _are_ paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.
> ...



How has Massachusetts been successful in reducing the state's Health Care costs, or are we only dealing with hypotheticals? Do you have a link for these  PROVEN "reduction" in health care costs?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 12, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...





LOL. Do mean like nancy peolsi saying that the best stimulus is to have MORE people on welfare?   

The only poof there is that any of this will work, that any of this will lower costs *TO EVERYONE*, is feel good hope and change.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 12, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.



Health care already costs twice as much as it should.  We already do and have been paying  for emergency care for everyone that is not insured.  This thread is stupid.  If you want health care to be cheaper it must be taken out of the hands of the HMOs.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I don't know where you got that impression from what I said. There are PARTS of Obamacare that I don't think are workable. But rejection of the entire program is not an option.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



There are many parts of this bill that i like as well. There are many parts that are absolutely needed. But you cant pick the parts you like and don't like. You have to take it as a whole.

So since this little thing got slammed down our throats and got stuck, its getting the Heimlich now.

The main part that is not workable is the finances. It is an unsustainable system on a  much grander scale then the one we have now. 

So again, nothing changes with obamacare except it will cost us more. It is the same shell game only different more expensive shells.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



Well since you're still ignorant of what the bill actually contains, this is the best analysis (short of reading the entire bill). All you're doing is projecting based on what other opinionators are saying, and they don't know for a fact what the fiscal benefits will be either.

Obamacare Title I: Qualified Health Plans and Abortion Coverage

Or, for an expanded explanation (including the history of its passage) in lay terms, you can peruse the Wikipedia site, and if you question its veracity, click on the myriad hyperlinks therein for their sources:

Health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## syrenn (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





_
Affordable_ health care implies that EVERYONE pays for it.

Again. So long as there are exemptions...some that do not pay into the system, it is the SAME thing we have now.  It is the same shell game just different more expensive shell.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



I didn't miss anything because I already know that!!  It's you who just doesn't get it. 

The Medicare ADVANTAGE policies, which are totally separate from standard Medicare coverage, DO pay for hearing aids.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Seems to me it's people like you and Syrenn who are doing all the projecting. If my comment _above_ sounded snarky, it's because Syrenn is acting like some higher class snot who thinks people beneath her are unimportant. I've known the kind all my life. I've also known some who were shocked to find the dreaded day come when they, too, had to avail themselves of government social umbrellas. They wound up eating a lot of crow instead of steak and lobster.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I think it's on sale.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Well I've always heard there's two sides to every argument, and I've seen both sides, at least in this thread. I don't have any interest in your personal donnybrook with RDD, but I do think that in _any_ post where extensive ad hominem attacks and foul language are used throughout, the context of the point gets lost in translation. While I often use it as an exclamation point to a single reference, to use it throughout a long posting is counterproductive. Just my opinion.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Much too long. You ignore, of course, the fact that to just leave health care in this country as is, the status quo, even YOUR costs and rates will continue to climb on average of 7% annually. THAT is what has to stop. Since you have a proclivity to post tomes, why don't you suggest your *solution* to the problem, especially since as a percentage of GDP, health care has soared to over 17%?

Health Spending Hits 17.3 Percent of GDP In Largest Annual Jump | BNET


> ...the percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare jumped to 17.3 percent from 16.2 percent in 2008-the largest one-year increase since 1960. At the current rate of growth, *healthcare costs* are predicted to nearly double to $4.5 trillion in 2019. At that point, they will account for 19.3 percent-almost a fifth-of our GDP.
> 
> Before delving into the details, Id like to point out that if, theres one factor (aside from public ignorance) that is preventing healthcare reformers from restraining this cost growth, it is the very size of the healthcare sector. The bigger it grows, and the more people and capital it employs, the harder it is for anybody or any institution to rein it in. Its like the sorcerers apprentice, only the sorcerer is nowhere in sight.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Baloney. Bills are amended all the time, and this one is apt to have several before all's said and done. How do you think Medicare "Advantage" came about in the first place? BY AMENDMENT, in 1997, and adding the Prescription Drug Plan (Part D) BY AMENDMENT in 2003.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 12, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Well I see you zipped through those two links in record time!! And you're sounding like a broken record with the shell game nonsense. You need a new mantra.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Funny that. How is saying everyone should pay into the proposed "affordable" for everyone health care plan projecting anything? Why is saying needing a sustainable system snanky? That is real life.  

I too have known all kinds of people in my life who feel that _their_ life is one huge entitlement. The somehow i owe them more because they have less. I have also know people who don't care how much things cost others so long as they are not the ones paying for it. Steak and lobster taste great, especially when someone else is picking up the bill. 


BF, question for you. Do you as someone who is poor and uninsured fell that i make myself superior to you in any way? Do you feel that i think you are unimportant?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





Did something change? Find something in there where everyone must pay for obamacare...everyone with no exceptions or exemptions? If everyone is going to be forced to purchase insurance ...then that means everyone.  If not then it is the same things over and over.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Advantage does not pay for hearing aids either....

I just went through this with my 73 year old aunt and I was surprised at how expensive they are....

Medicaid on the other hand does pay for them....

Great system....


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 12, 2011)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Advantage does not pay for hearing aids either....



That depends on which MA plan you select; some do cover hearing aids.



> Medicaid on the other hand does pay for them....



That's a coverage decision that's made at the state program level.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 12, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Advantage does not pay for hearing aids either....
> ...



Try quoting the correct person first....

Which Advantage plan covers hearing aids?


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 12, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> Which Advantage plan covers hearing aids?



MA plans are private plans in an area that contract with CMS to offer coverage. That means you have to explore the specific offerings available in your area. Beyond federal baselines, it makes no sense to speak of what "Medicare Advantage offers" or what "Medicaid offers." Neither generally refers to a single benefit package; there's a great deal of variability from area to area or state to state.

Some state Medicaid programs choose to cover hearing aids. Some MA contractors choose to offer plans that have allowances for hearing aids. The exact situation in your backyard is something you have to explore for yourself.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 12, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



It's unfortunate that you're broke. It's sad that you can't afford healthcare. I have been broke myself and was even on food stamps when I was a kid. Life isn't always so easy. 

However....I NEVER made fun of you for being poor. What I did do was use the ridiculous right wing talking points that are absurd but are typically used to describe people who don't have insurance. People who don't have insurance such as yourself. Now, being that you are a conservative, I found it funny that I could use the very talking points I so commonly hear from your fellow conservatives against you. Just to illustrate how dumb that point of view is. I even made reference that these would be right wing talking points as evidenced here. <----Click me

So you see I actually do have A LOT of compassion for people who have fallen on hard times and I think I've evidenced that plenty through my willingness to support peoples health insurance through my tax subsidies. Something, I'll point out that NONE of you will be willing to come out and say you'd support. 

I think that's great that you are taking responsibility for your $6000 medical bills, but I just wonder how you would be able to pay off a larger bill. A question you continue to avoid. So don't pretend like you're open to discussion when you avoid my questions like the plague and have called me dozens of different names. You're no victim. 

So I don't mock you for being poor, I mock you for being too dumb to understand the situation and how your ridiculous viewpoint is only counter productive to your own situation.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 12, 2011)

syrenn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





			
				maggiemae said:
			
		

> it's because Syrenn is acting like some higher class snot who thinks  people beneath her are unimportant



This is the projection.  I have never seen this once the entire past few threads from her or a few others, unlike RDD, and unfortunately now you.  BUT, I do think this was more unintentional on your part as compared to RDD which seems to be habitual.



			
				Syrenn said:
			
		

> BF, question for you. Do you as someone who is poor  and uninsured fell that i make myself superior to you in any way? Do you  feel that i think you are unimportant?



Actually, because you have understood that I am doing the best under my circumstances to pay off what I owe, fairly and promptly, you have not made me feel less than you in any way, but rather an equal of those who could afford 3 MRIs a week and pay cash.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 12, 2011)

Oh SO understanding!  Giving me compliments from your left hand all the  while. Such  magnanimous bloke you are!

Never made fun of my current financial straits?  No... you haven't.   MOCKED them, yes.  Accused me of contributing to your increased cost of  living and equating me unfairly by proxy to emergency room clogging  illegal aliens that get care and run out on the bill just because I do  payment to be a responsible adult and NOT have to affect others.



			
				RDD said:
			
		

> Now, being that you are a conservative, I found it funny that  I could  use the very talking points I so commonly hear from your fellow  conservatives against you.



Oy... I'm a bit confused.  Every conservative I've seen post here has  agreed with me and had ZERO problems with the idea of payments or  anything I've been doing.  YOU have been playing 'what if' games that  are pointless for the discussion at hand, instead attempting to score  philosophically bankrupt political points, while debunking your own  theories as you go.

To illustrate my point that you don't even understand what conservatives have said, you spouted this shit:



			
				RDD said:
			
		

> Just to illustrate how dumb that point of view is. I even made reference  that these would be right wing talking points as evidenced here. <----Click me



Which linked to a statement of your belief what we conservatives have been saying like this:



			
				RDD said:
			
		

> <right wing talking point>LOL, freeloader. Please work harder and  stop being a leech on society. You could have insurance if you weren't  such a deadbeat and made some actual good decisions with you  life.</right wing talking point>





			
				RDD said:
			
		

> So don't pretend like you're open to discussion when you avoid my  questions like the plague and have called me dozens of different names.



And you earned them all with your personal attacks on me and attempt to avoid real questions on real issues by throwing in hypotheticals.  THAT is why I refuse to answer them.  You tried to start an intellectually dishonest discussion on my real life situation, and therefore, I'm not going to dignify your hypothetical situation with a response.  Note, most people are not playing with your hypothetical situations either.  Not to mention you debunked your own desired result.



			
				RDD said:
			
		

> So you see I actually do have A LOT of compassion for people who have  fallen on hard times and I think I've evidenced that plenty through my  willingness to support peoples health insurance through my tax  subsidies. Something, I'll point out that NONE of you will be willing to  come out and say you'd support.



Unless they're conservative too.  Not to mention if they prefer to find non-governmental solutions.  Then they deserve to be shut out.  That you've proven time and time again.  Let's face it.  Your professed compassion is underwhelming.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 12, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh SO understanding!  Giving me compliments from your left hand all the  while. Such  magnanimous bloke you are!
> 
> Never made fun of my current financial straits?  No... you haven't.   MOCKED them, yes.  Accused me of contributing to your increased cost of  living and equating me unfairly by proxy to emergency room clogging  illegal aliens that get care and run out on the bill just because I do  payment to be a responsible adult and NOT have to affect others.
> 
> ...



And not surprisingly EVERYTHING I said went right over your head. I'm guessing the reason you're broke isn't because you're unlucky, it's simply because you're flat out dumb. Good luck with life.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 12, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh SO understanding!  Giving me compliments from your left hand all the  while. Such  magnanimous bloke you are!
> ...


Thanks for proving my point of hatred for those poorer than you because they dare disagree with you and prove you wrong.

Again, your compassion is underwhelming as well as your attempt at claiming victim-hood from an party aggrieved by you and your shitty behavior.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 13, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
> ...



You better get in all that fried chicken now....that's the next thing on Michelle Obama'a list to be banned.


----------



## peach174 (Feb 13, 2011)

I watched the Committee meeting on the Health Care bill held on Thursday,and watched it on Sat. morning. One Dem brought up that the GOP was against the Medicare bill back in the 60's just as they are against the Health Care Bill now. Do the Dems really want to go down this road? I don't think so because the Repubs said that Medicare would eventually cost to much. They were right then just as they are right now. All of the large social programs are costing to much. 
When government gets involved in anything it brings up the price in everything.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 13, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I watched the Committee meeting on the Health Care bill held on Thursday,and watched it on Sat. morning. One Dem brought up that the GOP was against the Medicare bill back in the 60's just as they are against the Health Care Bill now. Do the Dems really want to go down this road? I don't think so because the Repubs said that Medicare would eventually cost to much. They were right then just as they are right now. All of the large social programs are costing to much.
> When government gets involved in anything it brings up the price in everything.



All of this health care mess was a kennedy pet then, and its a kennedy pet now. Just because he died does mean that this is not in large part his pet baby.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



It all depends on which Medicare Advantage policy your aunt bought. Maybe she has one that doesn't cover hearing aids, but most do, which is why the elderly even want the added coverage. I'd personally like eye care, but I'm not about to buy additional insurance just to cover new prescriptions when needed, even if my part of the premium is very low. OTC glasses work just fine for me. Hearing aids are another matter, though.

Also, with regard to Medi*caid* coverage, that too varies from state to state. States are given federal grant money and they determine what will be covered and the limits thereon.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



There used to be many, but the insurance companies have been dropping like flies in anticipation of their pork getting cut. Your aunt can contact Medicare for a list, or maybe even her state's senior care department has the information.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



If you saw the way chicken is prepared, from start to store, you wouldn't eat it _at all_. That said, Michelle Obama doesn't have any proposed "bans" at all. She has guidelines to prevent childhood obesity, period. And it's about time people started taking this seriously, because the next generation will be too fat to do anything but flop in their recliners and collect goverment checks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I watched the Committee meeting on the Health Care bill held on Thursday,and watched it on Sat. morning. One Dem brought up that the GOP was against the Medicare bill back in the 60's just as they are against the Health Care Bill now. Do the Dems really want to go down this road? I don't think so because the Repubs said that Medicare would eventually cost to much. They were right then just as they are right now. All of the large social programs are costing to much.
> When government gets involved in anything it brings up the price in everything.



Only because as the population increases, more people become eligible. Another problem, if you can call it that, is because of medical technology, older people aren't dying as early as they once did and therefore remaining on Medicare a lot longer than anticipated. So maybe we should at least in part blame the scientists.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 13, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I watched the Committee meeting on the Health Care bill held on Thursday,and watched it on Sat. morning. One Dem brought up that the GOP was against the Medicare bill back in the 60's just as they are against the Health Care Bill now. Do the Dems really want to go down this road? I don't think so because the Repubs said that Medicare would eventually cost to much. They were right then just as they are right now. All of the large social programs are costing to much.
> ...




Oh.  I get it.  It's the private sector's fault for daring to make investments that actually improve longevity.

Of course, the ObamaCare answer to that will be to ration such technology for the benefit of the politically connected and punishing the private sector with more taxes and regulations so it won't dare innovate further.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

syrenn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I watched the Committee meeting on the Health Care bill held on Thursday,and watched it on Sat. morning. One Dem brought up that the GOP was against the Medicare bill back in the 60's just as they are against the Health Care Bill now. Do the Dems really want to go down this road? I don't think so because the Repubs said that Medicare would eventually cost to much. They were right then just as they are right now. All of the large social programs are costing to much.
> ...



Insurance mandate originally a repub idea! LOL!!


> The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. *It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s.* These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
> 
> Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 13, 2011)

boedicca said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Over 265 postings in this thread, and you're just now joining the conversation? You wouldn't be stalking me would ya?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 13, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



She was proven to be completely wrong in the other thread about this bill being a "job killer" so she had to run somewhere.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

All these polls on the Bill are meaningless.

Because they ask you to accept the bill as a whole or not.

The fact is. Parts of the Bill are popular. Other parts are very unpopular.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 16, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> All these polls on the Bill are meaningless.
> 
> Because they ask you to accept the bill as a whole or not.
> 
> The fact is. Parts of the Bill are popular. Other parts are very unpopular.



And here's even more confusion:

The new CBS poll (today) shows 51% disapprove of the law, but 55% oppose efforts to cut funding for it. 

Polls Show Public Doesn't Know What It Wants on Health Care Law

CBS poll embedded^


----------



## LilOlLady (Mar 7, 2011)

Romneycare could not exist without taxpayers money from the federal Obama goverenment which are taxpayers who do not live in Mass, do not use Romneycare but still pay for it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 7, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> Romneycare could not exist without taxpayers money from the federal Obama goverenment which are taxpayers who do not live in Mass, do not use Romneycare but still pay for it.


If the people of Massatwoshits were smart, they'd force the end of Romneycare before it destroys their state.


----------

