# BREAKING:Obama says he would veto bill letting you keep your present health care plan



## Little-Acorn (Nov 15, 2013)

One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.

Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.

------------------------------------------

Obama Issues Veto Threat for "Keep Your Plan" Legislation - Katie Pavlich

If you want your plan, you can keep....veto! 

The House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on legislation today legalizing the reinstatement of lost insurance plans thanks to Obamacare. Essentially, the Keep Your Plan Act does exactly what President Obama administratively (and probably illegally) declared as a "fix" for mass insurance cancellations. Late last night GOP Leader Eric Cantor revealed President Obama intends to veto the legislation should it pass and reach his desk for a signature.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

Congress passing a bill is part of the Constitutional process.  Obama can't allow that.

In actuality the bill differs from Obama's actions.  The move to allow old plans would destroy Obamacare, which rests on destroying the individual market for insurance in favor of exchanges.  This is why he is threatening a veto.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 15, 2013)

Congressman Upton's Niece







And people wonder why I'm a Republican


----------



## Kosh (Nov 15, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...



He does not want Congress to do this, Obama (the dictator) wants to issue executive orders to do this.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 15, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Congressman Upton's Niece
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

She looks like a Libertarian to me.

.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 15, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Congressman Upton's Niece
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first post of yours I've ever "liked".


----------



## PredFan (Nov 15, 2013)

Worst......President......Ever


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 15, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Congressman Upton's Niece
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4F4qzPbcFiA]Admiral Ackbar - "It's A Trap!" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 15, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> ...



Hopefully the tide has turned - if enough Democrats join the Republicans then they can override a veto.

.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 15, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



C'mon now! Two in a row now. This doesn't feel right.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 15, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



Not gonna happen.

Besides, it's stupid of Upton to do this.  

dimocraps got themselves into this mess and now he's giving them something to hide behind.

They can vote for it, watch it go down in flames in the Senate and then go home and lie (they ARE dimocraps) about how much they care and how they didn't know and how they voted to help their people out and....  Just fucking lie because -- That's what dimocraps do.

This is a mistake on the part of Republicans.

I think Boehner should kill the bill.  RIGHT NOW!!

But he won't.  He's not smart enough


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

Oh Ho!  This is hilarious!  Actually, the Republicans shouldn't be interfering with Obama's "fix" anyway!  It's a bust!    Let him veto the bill!  And the fix will not fix anything, but cause the Obamacare to spiral down to a natural death.

Now, the Republicans are out of the way and Obama can hang himself by the rope he just gave himself.


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

Now , this bill will not fix all of the cancellations.  It can't Obamacare would crash, so Obama does not want all policies to come back. Nor does he want new policies to be bought at sub par coverage.  The insurance companies are not happy with Obama.  Or the Republicans now, since the Upton bill came out.  

Some state insurance regulators are not going to go along with these plans whether it's a law or not.  It is just too much of a change to take place in one month when it took them three years to put the present changes in effect now.  It just can't be done.

Look at what your lies wrought, Obama!  Oh, when we first deceive... what a web we weave!


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 15, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



* 39 Dems vote with GOP on 'Keep Your Plan' bill*

.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 15, 2013)

This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.

Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



It's the Democrats pushing it and voting for it.
And how dare insurance companies be allowed to sell policies people want to buy?  It's an outrage!


----------



## paperview (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.


Yup.


----------



## paperview (Nov 15, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> ...


Nearly 100 dems were threatening to go with the Upton plan before Obama's fix.

And only 39 voted to do so.

So, there's that...


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



Cancelled and uninsured people would like that but it will be unsustainable for Obamacare.


They should have just stayed out of the way of Obama and let him hang on his own.  But no problem, if Obama is not lying this time, he will veto this bill and it will be squarely on his shoulders again.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 15, 2013)

As best I can tell, the screwup was in all the conditions, and limits, and loopholes in the grandfather clause;

they should just clean that up, say happy now?, and move on.


----------



## ba1614 (Nov 15, 2013)

Make him veto it


----------



## oreo (Nov 15, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...




Of course he will.  No surprise here.  The Republican house just passed a bill with bi-partisan support that would allow Americans to keep their insurance as was promised by Obama more than 40 times.  You can bet that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.  The Senate has introduced a similar bill--that may be tabled or if it comes to the floor will be voted upon and passed, *AND THEN if Republicans are smart in the house*--they should approve the Senate bill--which bounces this hot potato right back in Obama's lap--and everyone in America--can watch him VETO the fix bill--

Otherwise if the Senate passes their own version and the house doesn't go along--*Republicans will be blamed from here to eternity for not passing the Senate's version of the keep your insurance plan bill.*  IOW--the Dog and Pony show for who gets the blame is on the agenda.

Liar--Liar pants on fire.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Nov 15, 2013)

So in less than 24 hours after telling the nation he will let us keep our policies, he now will veto legislation that allows us to keep it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> As best I can tell, the screwup was in all the conditions, and limits, and loopholes in the grandfather clause;
> 
> they should just clean that up, say happy now?, and move on.



The screw up was in conceiving, writing, and passing the ACA to begin with.  They need to clean that up by repealing it and putting in actual reform that helps people.


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > As best I can tell, the screwup was in all the conditions, and limits, and loopholes in the grandfather clause;
> ...



Amen!


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...


The question I would ask is WHAT ELSE would the House try to sneak into their bill?  You can be absolutely, positively sure that any bill the House would put up would have absolutely zero to do with making ACA work.  We are speaking of the gop which has voted to repeal ACA 41 times and now we are supposed to believe they want to pass a bill that would help ACA succeed.  I'm sorry, I was never raised to be an idiot.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 15, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > As best I can tell, the screwup was in all the conditions, and limits, and loopholes in the grandfather clause;
> ...



You have to take several million people off the insurance they've gotten on ACA in order to repeal it,

and nobody has a better plan that will ever pass.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 15, 2013)

The Republicans in the House are now going to prevent Obama from fixing the bill by refusing to pass any bill that can pass the Senate or get the president to sign.

If the ACA isn't fixed, it will be 100% the GOP's fault.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



There aren't "several million people" on insurance through ACA, numbnuts.  There are only 150,000 who signed up.  And even that figure is grossly inflated.  There are however over 5M who have already lost coverage.
The GOP has a much better plan but since it's the GOP and it empowers people instead of making them dependent on gov't handouts the Dems will oppose it tooth and nail.


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > As best I can tell, the screwup was in all the conditions, and limits, and loopholes in the grandfather clause;
> ...


You are saying that we should trash ACA and accept the republican plan for health care.  The problem with this is that in the 3+ years that have elapsed since ACA was passed the republicans have done absolutely nothing to make ACA better or to develop and propose an alternate plan.
Currently the only organized plan the republicans seem to have is to do nothing about everything.
Oh, and by the way, republicans were giving ample opportunity to help write and tailor the bill to make it better.  They wasted their opportunity and now all they can do is bitch about the bill.


----------



## ba1614 (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Republicans in the House are now going to prevent Obama from fixing the bill by refusing to pass any bill that can pass the Senate or get the president to sign.
> 
> If the ACA isn't fixed, it will be 100% the GOP's fault.



The entire congress should be stopping him from playing dictator and making whatever changes he wants, when he wants. It's indefensible they are allowing him to do this.


----------



## Zander (Nov 15, 2013)

The Upton bill has passed the house with bi-partisan support. Now it will go and die a quiet death in the Harry Reid Senate.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The Republicans have had zero opportunity to do anything, numb nuts, since the Dems control the Senate and the White House.
The GOP doesnt need to do anything.  When your enemy is self destructing the best thing is to sit back and watch.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2013)

Zander said:


> The Upton bill has passed the house with bi-partisan support. Now it will go and die a quiet death in the Harry Reid Senate.....



At least we see what "bipartisan" looks like.  A bill written by a Republican with consultation from Democrats.  that's how legislation is supposed to happen in this country.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Nov 15, 2013)

So what is Sen. Mary Landrieu's move now?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Nov 15, 2013)

Harry Reid & Obama hate people keeping the insurance plan they like! Spread the news!


----------



## Politico (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> You have to take several million people off the insurance they've gotten on ACA in order to repeal it,
> 
> and nobody has a better plan that will ever pass.



Are you on crack?


----------



## paperview (Nov 15, 2013)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Harry Reid & Obama hate people keeping the insurance plan they like! Spread the news!


The GOP Bill on ACA removed core consumer protections.

That's why realistic people don't like it.

And why the bill will go No Where.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2013)

A sitting president who has the votes apparently is going to do this his way.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2013)

paperview said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Reid & Obama hate people keeping the insurance plan they like! Spread the news!
> ...



If the core consumer protections are not in the GOP bill, let the Senate pass it and then send it to Obama.

He will veto it.

Then he will go on TV that night on all major stations and explain why the far reactionary right of 20% hates the other 80% of America.


----------



## paperview (Nov 15, 2013)

Why would the senate pass that piece of shit?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Nov 15, 2013)

Mortally ill people whove lost their insurance and their doctors will soon be dying because of Obamacare. Ted Cruz (who is not a natural born Citizen) and Sarah Palin needs to gather a couple of dozen of these poor souls from around the nation, and hold a press conference with them surrounding him, and declare: Mr. President, tear down this Obamacare now! Its time to repeal this monstrosity. Too many innocent people are dying already. Lets stop the horror before more are killed by it.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 15, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



 a glimpse of hope...............

.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 15, 2013)




----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 15, 2013)

paperview said:


> Why would the senate pass that piece of shit?



Why did they pass the ACA? It's a piece of shit. If they'd pass more shit we'd get more shit done.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2013)

TK, we are not going back to the way it was.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 15, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> TK, we are not going back to the way it was.



Son-of-a- bitch it looks like we are going back to the way it was.

However, you can go back to your homeland and enjoy Putin Care.

.


----------



## Zander (Nov 15, 2013)

Liberals don't care what happens with healthcare, as long as it's mandatory.


----------



## RoadVirus (Nov 15, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...



The man is schizophrenic. That's the only thing i can figure.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 15, 2013)

We can now let people keep their plans after all...Obama says that's fine.
Obama now decrees these plans as acceptable.
But then says Republicans pushing to allow people to get these same plans are not acceptable.

Can someone explain just what the fuck Obama is doing?


----------



## Rozman (Nov 15, 2013)

I guess it depends on what time of the month it is...


----------



## Rozman (Nov 15, 2013)

Obama says you can keep your plan because I the great and powerful and magnificent and all knowing and all kind and benevolent decreed it.

I will however not allow anyone else to do that....


----------



## Dante (Nov 15, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...



Another partisan political move by rightwing world?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 15, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> TK, we are not going back to the way it was.



Your logic, and Obama's logic:


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

This bill also says anyone can buy junk plans, not just people cancelled. Total BS, hater dupes lol...


----------



## tyroneweaver (Nov 15, 2013)

all obama has to do is veto 1 bill and that will give him 1 more than bush.   LOL


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



Leave it to you to show your blind loyalty to the Chosen One.
Obamacare is an absolute disaster.
Obama 'decided' suddenly it was ok for people to keep their insurance. He even is 'allowing' them to get their policies back.
The problem is the policies are in violation of federal law. And will have to be cancelled within a year anyway. Insurers will not write illegal policies. But Obama and the democrats will report that the insurance companies are screwing their customers by not offering pre Obamacare policies.
What a bunch of political nonsense.
Obama may have gone to the well one too many times here. it has become painfully obvious this 'decree' by Obama is politically motivated.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

This bill is just propaganda for Rush and the hater dupes, like those Pub ''job bills''...you're pathetic...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

paperview said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


There's WHAT?!
The other 61 wussed out not wanting to defy 'their' president. Yeah, right.


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.


I said it before and I will say it again:  The republican House voted 41 times to repeal ACA and now, SUDDENLY, they are coming up with a plan to save ACA.  Does that make even the tiniest bit of sense?  
Plleeeaaaasssssseeeee!!!!!!!  Anyone who believes the republican plan is a serious plan that will benefit ACA and President Obama has a serious problem with reality!!!!!  Further, anyone who believes the republican plan has a chance of passing should start looking out for men in white uniforms who are carrying big butterfly nets.  No one, and I mean NO ONE, tries to kill a bill for 3 1/2 years and then suddenly decides to come to the rescue and save what they have been trying to kill.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> ...



Just what the hell do you think happened when Congress wrote a 2500 page bill?
Is it free of stuff 'snuck in there'?


----------



## Fang (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



Oh shit! Insurance companies selling plans people want. The horror of it! 

Anyone against that is a communist POS.


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

tyroneweaver said:


> all obama has to do is veto 1 bill and that will give him 1 more than bush. LOL


If I am not mistaken for most of the bush years both the Houses of Congress were controlled by republicans. Those same republicans were lined up to kiss bush's ass so it was unnecessary for bush to veto any bills. He was getting everything he wanted. It was only during the last couple of years that Democrats were able to get bills to the presidents desk for signing. The bottom line is this, it took Obama almost 5 years to get to the same number of veto's that took bush 2 years. The way bush piled up veto's is certainly nothing to be proud of.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Republicans in the House are now going to prevent Obama from fixing the bill by refusing to pass any bill that can pass the Senate or get the president to sign.
> 
> If the ACA isn't fixed, it will be 100% the GOP's fault.



Well that would be the democrat spin version. And you may believe that might work, but this is the end of the line. No more spin. No more political games.
This is Obama's signature piece of legislation. It is hi legacy. he OWNS it. And so does every democrat that supports it.
The ACA law is flawed to its core. And was created and marketed to the American people based on disinformation and what we now know were outright lies.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Nov 15, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > TK, we are not going back to the way it was.
> ...



Well, Obamacare isn't the answer, but then neither is going back the way it was.  America can't afford to go back to a healthcare system that increases in cost 4 times the inflation rate, which means 4 times the annual increase of household incomes.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 15, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> ...



I don't think many of you appreciate the one most important reason to oppose ACA.

*The Affordable Care Act is about government control over, WE THE PEOPLE.*



> July 08, 2012 12:00 am    By Doug Ross,
> 
> The Affordable Care Act consists primarily of taking away many of our liberties by advocating health care for the less fortunate.
> 
> ...



Affordable Care Act is about government control


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > all obama has to do is veto 1 bill and that will give him 1 more than bush. LOL
> ...



I didn't read your post, ron.  I didn't have to.  I saw it....

*BUSH!​*
Deflection is the answer when there is no answer.​


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

This is a crappe bill, the Pubs are trying to repeal O-CARE IN A HUGE PILE OF STEAMING BS PROPAGANDA, JUST LIKE iRAQ...A DISGRACE. 

Dems are bad at this corrupt, money talks, DEMAGOGGING capitalist running dog, BULLSHYTTE. LIBERAL media my ass, hater dupes...maybe the journalists, CERTAINLY NOT the guys who run it...


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

Fang said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> ...


Yes, there is a horror to it.  The insurance companies are selling people junk insurance.  People buy this insurance thinking they are covered when in fact these plans will do nothing to protect the buyer.  For example, some of the plans offer $2000 for stays in the hospital.  That sounds pretty great except for the fact that the average cost of a one day stay in the hospital is around $1850 per day.
What a terrific policy.  You get involved in a serious car crash and are in the hospital for 21 days.  That wonderful insurance will pay for ONE (1) day and the buyer of the insurance will be responsible for the other 20 days ($39,000).  Note, I did not cover costs for X-rays, MRI's or CAT scans.  If surgery was required add on another $50K to $100K which is also not covered by the policy.
Still want one of those junk policies?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

paperview said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Reid & Obama hate people keeping the insurance plan they like! Spread the news!
> ...



Which protections might those be? Care to post them here?
Christ. When will people like you learn you cannot simply post unsubstantiated things and not be challenged to show proof....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

Rozman said:


> We can now let people keep their plans after all...Obama says that's fine.
> Obama now decrees these plans as acceptable.
> But then says Republicans pushing to allow people to get these same plans are not acceptable.
> 
> Can someone explain just what the fuck Obama is doing?



Obama is letting his ego run the country.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> This bill is just propaganda for Rush and the hater dupes, like those Pub ''job bills''...you're pathetic...



Shouldn't you be buried under 4 feet of snow by now?


----------



## ron4342 (Nov 15, 2013)

Jackson said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...


 I could give a shit whether your read my post or not.  There is absolutely nothing that I or any thinking person could say on this board that would make it's way into your cement head.
Oh, and for your information it was tyroneweaver who brought up the name of bush.  I merely reminded him of why bush had so few vetoes.  Posting history you wish to forget or ignore is NOT deflection.


----------



## oreo (Nov 15, 2013)

This is no surprise.   Obama  knows that if he signs off on the bill that the Republican house voted and approved  today- to keep the promise of keeping your insurance and-or the dog and pony show that's going on in the Democrat Senate that had the opportunity to fix this in _2010 and btw voted AGAINST a fix-_-that Obamacare will collapse under it's own weight.

Of course, Obama is going to VETO any bill that would allow Americans to keep their insurance plans--even though he promised over 40 times that they would be able to keep their plans.

*Obama is just looking for someone to blame right now.  *  I suspect it will be G.W. Bush fairly soon, because he is cornered--lol-- He really can't blame Republicans because not a single one of them voted for Obamacare--and they were even blocked from attending committee hearings on it.  *Remember Nancy Pelosi's comment? * You need to vote for this bill before you know what's in it.  That's exactly what Democrats did.







_You voted for it, You got it!_


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Nope....This episode in US history is a great learning experience. That lesson is that government cannot manipulate the marketplace without creating catastrophe.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> This bill is just propaganda for Rush and the hater dupes, like those Pub ''job bills''...you're pathetic...



In every one of your posts appear the words "pub" "hater" and "dupes".
Your originality is astounding!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



The lesson is the marketplace will not be allowed to create a four-fold crippler on the economy.

A reformed ACA is here to stay, the stockholders are going to have accept that, and the mainstream of both parties are going to learn to work together.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



ACA is NOT the answer. The law is a pile of garbage. The results have proved this out.
Government must NOT interfere beyond its obligation to regulate from the outside looking in.


----------



## oreo (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You'll never convince a liberal of that--ha.ha.

In 2008 they watched the near collapse of our banking system through Federal Government mismanagement of--Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac--along with the federal government's mis-management of the derivities markets--that all lead to the collapse.

Social Security--Medicare--Medicade and the US post office is considered bankrupt.  We owe the bank of China 17+ trillion dollars--and all a liberal can think of--is how they're going to rip off the Federal Government and all of us cough-cough rich people more, or should I say those that work and pay taxes?  IOW--_What's in it for them._

Obamacare was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for them--and they're watching it explode right before their eyes.  Like a drug addict to government spending, they're in complete denial.  They want more--more--more and can't understand and or have no conception what-so-ever of what is actually happening.  The word *not affordable* is not their dictionary.






The worst part is---Instead of believing in their fellow Americans they chose their politicians.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



It's really too bad neither party has done anything to at least keep our healthcare/prescription drug costs on par to what the rest of the wealthy nations pay.  I've read articles by a wide spectrum of economist that predict that the healthcare costs will soon trigger an economic crisis in the US.  American companies have been complaining for at least a decade about the cost of healthcare in America is a disadvantage for US businesses.
This is a serious and highly potential explosive issue that needs to be addressed.
America just can't afford this trend much longer.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > This bill is just propaganda for Rush and the hater dupes, like those Pub ''job bills''...you're pathetic...
> ...


Not since global warming- Buffalo has gotten less than NYC and Baltimore the last 3 years...Pub dupes- wrong 100 per cent lol...


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 15, 2013)

Uh yes, he will veto the Republican plan.  He's already gone too far telling them they actually can keep their old crappy junk policies.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 15, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



"Reformed"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



The role out has been terrible but the concept is not bad at all, and the narrative so far has proved this out.

We have had social market regulatory democracy for more than 100 years, and a small bunch of TeaPs are not going to change that at all.

The health care fact of our lives is here to stay.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

oreo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Everything you know is pure Pubcrappe- change the channel...lol


----------



## Jackson (Nov 15, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Well, Kormac, I could see that that could be the upshot of this but not with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.  They just would not allow any Republican compromise or help in rewriting of the ACA and that is exactly what has to be done.  It has to be simplified, and made sense to people. Elders should not be getting coverage for maternity and singles shouldn't be getting family packages.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > This bill is just propaganda for Rush and the hater dupes, like those Pub ''job bills''...you're pathetic...
> ...


You're right- they're also in the title of the book, and are the disgraceful story of our time- greedy megarich idiot un-American Pubs and their brainwashed, ignorant, racist ugly American hater dupes...They've ruined the country since 1985-


----------



## Politico (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> TK, we are not going back to the way it was.



Yes it is thanks  to you boneheads not being able to do simple thing. I cannot fathom how you could have everything going your way and still manage to fuck it up this bad.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> Uh yes, he will veto the Republican plan.  He's already gone too far telling them they actually can keep their old crappy junk policies.



Crap? You don't what the hell you're talking about. Most people were perfectly content with their policies. The purchase is THEIR choice.
Of course you frigging flaming libs HATE choice. 
Now, what would you say to a health insurance policy that has no deductible, but covers only 60% of your total medical expenses?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



You've read ONE book in 28 years and you have been convinced of the wisdom in this literary masterpiece so much so that you feel the urge to parrot THREE terms used by the author?
You are one angry individual. To the point where you've apparently lost what little capacity you once had for independent thought.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yes. What could possibly be more important than the "narrative".
I googled "social market regulatory democracy".....You made that up...
When market based concepts and the open marketplace are mentioned, why is ti you get so frightened?
Fear of the unknown? Fear of not having someone there to explain it you? Fear of making the wrong choice? The need to have an overlord take care of you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You are afraid of the unknown.  "social market regulatory democracy" is an excellent descriptor of the developing market system in the last hundred years, one responsible to the American consumer.  ACA, no matter how modified, is not going away.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 16, 2013)

It would be great to see both Parties get together to do something that helps the People, rather than their Political Parties. It would be so refreshing. It is time to scrap this thing. And i think even most Democrats understand that. I really do hope they step up and do what's right.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

paulitician said:


> It would be great to see both Parties get together to do something that helps the People, rather than their Political Parties. It would be so refreshing. It is time to scrap this thing. And i think even most Democrats understand that. I really do hope they step up and do what's right.



I suppose it could happen. Out of fear for their jobs if nothing else. 

... until we consider who they really work for.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 16, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Congress passing a bill is part of the Constitutional process.  Obama can't allow that.
> 
> In actuality the bill differs from Obama's actions.  The move to allow old plans would destroy Obamacare, which rests on destroying the individual market for insurance in favor of exchanges.  This is why he is threatening a veto.



Of course it would.  The money wouldn't be there to drive it forward.


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 16, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No matter how often you polish a turd, it still remains a turd.

One thing is for certain.  NOTHING introduced or passed by the Senate can be trusted to be in the peoples interest.  Nothing..  That would 100% of anything they propose.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 16, 2013)

Jackson said:


> Now , this bill will not fix all of the cancellations.  It can't Obamacare would crash, so Obama does not want all policies to come back. Nor does he want new policies to be bought at sub par coverage.  The insurance companies are not happy with Obama.  Or the Republicans now, since the Upton bill came out.
> 
> Some state insurance regulators are not going to go along with these plans whether it's a law or not.  It is just too much of a change to take place in one month when it took them three years to put the present changes in effect now.  It just can't be done.
> 
> Look at what your lies wrought, Obama!  Oh, when we first deceive... what a web we weave!



It would not fix the ones that were lost due to companies changing their business model to prevent having to provide insurance at all.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> So in less than 24 hours after telling the nation he will let us keep our policies, he now will veto legislation that allows us to keep it.



Obama doesn't need a bill to change the expiry date for the non compliant ACA policies. He just issues an EO instead. Problem punted to next year.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

ba1614 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans in the House are now going to prevent Obama from fixing the bill by refusing to pass any bill that can pass the Senate or get the president to sign.
> ...



Legislation only covers what becomes law. The timeline of when it becomes law is left up the the Executive branch. That is how it works and every POTUS has issued EO's defining timelines, priorities and deadlines.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Rozman said:


> We can now let people keep their plans after all...Obama says that's fine.
> Obama now decrees these plans as acceptable.
> But then says Republicans pushing to allow people to get these same plans are not acceptable.
> 
> Can someone explain just what the fuck Obama is doing?



Obama hasn't vetoed anything so what needs to be explained?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > We can now let people keep their plans after all...Obama says that's fine.
> ...



Obama hasn't vetoed because he just promoted what he said he would veto.

Leadership at its finest


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



Right, how awful of congress to do something that the people need and want.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yes..I fear the black hole of financial and economic instability which is the byproduct of Obamacare.
Hang it up jake. This thing is a piece of shit. It's so bad all but the most staunch Obama supporters are running from it.
BTW...."excellent descriptor"?....Stop patting yourself on the back.
Nobody cares. Just print it out and hang it on your wall.
I must know..What is your interest here? Why are you so entrenched with ACA?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...




its been explained probably 100 times.   but in simple terms:   ACA was not BY the people or FOR the people and its vote was not OF the people.

ACA was passed by one party with no discussion, debate, review, public chance to read, or any open discussion.   It was BY the dems, FOR the dems, and OF the dems.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



The 'extreme right' is not speaking here. This is the majority of Americans who are doing the talking.
Of course to people like you, anything not liberal is viewed as 'the extreme right'...it's how you get through your cornflakes without throwing up.
I would be willing to wager you believe cars should no longer be equipped with right turn signals.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Jake is on this message board for one purpose,  to repeat dem/lib talking points 24/7/365.  He is not worth your typing effort.   Ignore him.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Come on now...I have had the hook in that fish's mouth for quite some time. I have no intention of boating the jake. Just waiting for his swim bladder to explode.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



The exchanges are the government regulating from the outside looking in to use your cliche.  Private insurance companies remain the primary vehicle for the payment of healthcare.

That is in fact the reason ACA was not the answer.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...


...and the 2012 elections didn't happen either.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> [
> Jake is on this message board for one purpose,  to repeat dem/lib talking points 24/7/365.  He is not worth your typing effort.   Ignore him.



As opposed to what?  You?  You who are here primarily to make comments like the above in lieu of cogent arguments?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I am on this board to clean up my GOP of those with far right radical reactionary agendas.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



So if the Republicans won the presidency and the Senate and held the House in the future,

and then repealed Obamacare with a straight party line vote...

...you'd be on here saying that such a repeal would just be BY the GOP, FOR the GOP, and OF the GOP?

That would be your condemnation of that repeal, and argument as to why it shouldn't have happened?

lol, no it wouldn't.  You're full of shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Redfish simply cannot affirmatively defend his radical reactionary agenda.  He is fun to toy with.


----------



## Dude111 (Nov 16, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:
			
		

> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that


Of course he is!!!

He is having a tantrum like 5yos do when they dont get thier way...... HE WANTS TO FORCE EVERYONE INTO HIS PLAN!! (Its the start of the NWO)


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



The extreme right does not speak for a majority of the people.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



sure they did,  so did 2010.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nor does the extreme left,  whats your point?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How can this be 'arms length' regulation when the terms and conditions of the law are mandatory participation, price and rate setting BY the government's decree?
And actually the majority of the 106,000 enrolled in the plan most have signed up through Medicaid. Not the market place exchange of health insurance.
Why is it you so vehemently defend Obamacare? What's in it for you?
Everyone has an ulterior motive for something they want. It's in our genetic code.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



...and Progressive morons like yourself will believe him, the rest of American's are onto the nonsense of this asshole.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



My point is that you still haven't answered my original question.



> Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!



I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually. Tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simple as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!
> ...



If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority? 

Are the minority not just as likely to become ill and have crippling medical bills, pre-existing conditions and be forced to pay exorbitant premiums as was the case prior to the ACA being enacted into law? 

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 16, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



*They can vote for it, watch it go down in flames in the Senate and then go home and lie (they ARE dimocraps) about how much they care*

dont think that will matter much 

the worse obamacare gets the wider the swath will cut


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!
> ...



not to mention that when Congress undertakes major legislation like the ACA it should have some bipartisan support...and there should also be lots of open public discussion before voting on it.....and the vote should never be held right b4 Christmas in the 'dark of night'....


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people is somehow in control "*over*" the people!
> ...



One is "extreme" if one doesn't worship Obama.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?



> As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?



The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.



> Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?



No. No reason that needs to be the case.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

ScreamingEagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yeah... and it's not a matter of a 'higher purpose' - it's just common sense. When you pass laws that are bitterly contested on a slim partisan majority, they're sure to be attacked down the road. It just sets up pointless thrashing.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The unfunded mandate of EMTALA, signed by  St. Ronnie of Raygun, brought socialized care here, making us all with  insurance have to   subsidized the rest.  That's part of what sent our  costs skyrocketing.

How did you feel about government forcing medical professionals to treat individuals who showed up in their emergency rooms?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That's definitely part of the problem, and should be repealed or funded legitimately via taxes. But I think it's a bit of a ruse when it comes to the reason for the mandate. The mandate exists to reduce insurance premiums for people who have insurance - people who have too much insurance, in my view. It's forcing the preferences of the majority on everyone else merely for their convenience.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 16, 2013)

The latest fix for obamacare is to get millions of illegal immigrants on subsidized plans.

Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat - Washington Times

I sincerely hope that Americans can see through this nonsense.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The latest fix for obamacare is to get millions of illegal immigrants on subsidized plans.
> 
> Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat - Washington Times
> 
> I sincerely hope that Americans can see through this nonsense.



Americans are already paying through the nose for illegals.....this would just add millions more to the Medicaid welfare program...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.


> > As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?
> 
> 
> 
> The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.



The government mandates that if you don't put down a 20% deposit on a home you are required to buy insurance that has no value to yourself since it only covers the lender. You cannot refuse to buy that insurance either.



> > Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?
> 
> 
> 
> No. No reason that needs to be the case.



That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.



> > > Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?
> >
> >
> >
> ...



I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


EMTALA is over 25 years old. It's still the law.

A "fix" back then was what prompted the Clintons once in office to change the system.  Then the pubs responded with what is now the framework for Obamacare. In 1993.

Nothing much  happened in the following 15 years, until people agreed: SOMETHING had to be done (with pubs proudly announcing "hey, they uninsured have emergency rooms!"  Great fix.)

So, tell me grasshopper - It most definitely was the bugaboo - and just HOW would you propose to fix it?

Going back to patient dumping?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



To start with, just fund the damn thing. This idea that we can avoid the taxes associated with running a welfare state is delusional.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm so glad Schadenfreude is not fattening!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXxy8cjZQA].[/ame]


Watching the ObamaCare disaster crash down around the Dems is absolutely DELISH!


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Oh, you're serious.



Raising taxes.  Winning republican argument.

Winning!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 16, 2013)

Obama cannot resist playing politics.

His rationale is that the bill allows men to be charged less than women. 

What about the ACA which bills you according to your age, place of residence, and income.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The "fix" for EMTALA was the basis for the ACA that the Heritage Foundation provided when it first came up with the current healthcare system that has now been enacted nationwide. 

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Furthermore it is not "another unfunded mandate" either. It is expected to generate revenues of about $1.2 trillion over the next decade.



> The CBO letter to Boehner shows about $318 billion  a third of the $1 trillion in net revenues  would come from tax increases on upper-income taxpayers to help fund Medicare. (See Table 2, Additional Hospital Insurance Tax.) Beginning Jan. 1, taxpayers started paying an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on income above $200,000 (for individuals) and $250,000 (for families), and a 3.8 percent tax on investment earnings above those thresholds.
> In addition to upper-income taxpayers, the law will impose new taxes and fees on businesses  particularly in the health care field. Another $165 billion in new revenue would come from an annual fee on drug manufacturers ($34.2 billion), a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of some medical devices ($29.1 billion), and an annual fee on health insurance providers ($101.7 billion). (The revenue estimates for each industry come from a June 2012 JCT report used by the CBO for its report.)
> In addition, the CBO says businesses that do not offer health insurance for their employees are expected to pay $106 billion in penalties over the 10-year period.
> Those six provisions total $589 billion over 10 years. Two other changes in the business tax code push the total to more than $600 billion  about half of the $1.2 trillion in total new revenues.
> ...



GOP Budget Revives ?Obamacare? Claims


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Obama cannot resist playing politics.
> 
> His rationale is that the bill allows men to be charged less than women.
> 
> What about the ACA which bills you according to your age, place of residence, and income.



Neither can the GOP and the Tea Party.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Obama cannot resist playing politics.
> ...



which party passed it on a totally one party vote before anyone had read it?
which party lied about being able to keep your policy, period?
which party is lying about it today?
which party is pelosi a member of?
which party is reid a member of?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

The TeaPs shut down govt and tried to default on the debt.

That is why they are at the bottom of the pile, below Obama and the Dems and the GOP.

America does not trust the TeaPs.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The TeaPs shut down govt and tried to default on the debt.
> 
> That is why they are at the bottom of the pile, below Obama and the Dems and the GOP.
> 
> America does not trust the TeaPs.



Not true, but you knew that.  

Your biased continuous lying has rendered you the joke of USMB


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The Heritage Foundation created the proposal for the ACA back in 1989. The GOP was touting it as the alternative to "Hilarycare" in the early 1990's! It was enacted as RomneyCare in MA. So can you explain why your party was touting it and enacting it if they hadn't read it for themselves?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I don't care who may have proposed a similar healthcare plan.   Its wrong for the country no matter who suggested it.

Thats what you libtards don't get,  conservatives actually think for themselves, they do not blindly follow any leaders or groups the way you fools follow and worship all things obama.

Socialized medicine would destroy our economy and the best medical system in the history of the world.   There was NO CRISIS in medical care before ACA.  It was a fix for an imaginery problem.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



and for the record,  obamacare is NOT the same as what Heritage proposed or what Romney did in Mass.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

For anyone interested a table out  comparison of the GOP 1993 plan and the 2009 plan.


and Romneycare...
*RomneyCare & ObamaCare: Can you tell the difference?*



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...eycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/

*Related rulings:*




*     "Barack Obama's health care bill is nothing new. Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before."*

                                      Howard Dean, Friday, November 12th, 2010.                 
                 Ruling: Mostly True | Details



*The Senate-passed health care bill "is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan -- the same thing."*

                                      Paul Krugman, Sunday, January 31st, 2010.                 
                 Ruling: Mostly True | Details


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The HF plan was not and still is not "socialized medicine" by any stretch of the imagination. You have become desperate and are just flinging around catch phrases because you cannot refute the facts.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Obama cannot resist playing politics.
> ...




That's the Pee Wee Herman defense.

I can't speak for the GOP but the Tea Party just wants accountability in government. Right now there is none. On both sides.


----------



## Zander (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## Mertex (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Just because there are problems with the website does not translate into the law being bad.

It is definitely better than what we had before....and it can be made better, in time, once it's up and running and determinations can be made about what needs tweeking.....but being negative without providing something better to take it's place is just GOP same old same old.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Both sides play politics. It isn't news and it would only be news if it didn't happen. 

As far as wanting "accountability in government" the Tea Party is going about it assbackwards in my opinion. You don't demand accountability by threatening to destroy the government. Instead you tell your own political leadership that if they want your votes on the house floor there had better be items included in the bills that will result in accountability in government. That is how the system works.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Of course I'm serious. Does the idea of actually paying for government really seem preposterous? How have we come to accept such idiocy?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yep. Not sure what they hell they were thinking.



> Furthermore it is not "another unfunded mandate" either. It is expected to generate revenues of about $1.2 trillion over the next decade.



It's very definitely an unfunded mandate. It mandates that people buy insurance, and (except for those getting subsidies) doesn't supply the funds to purchase it. Not sure how you wiggle out of that fact.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Nothing to "wiggle out of". People are already buying health insurance. Those that weren't were not doing so because they couldn't afford it. The ACA makes sure that now they can. 

Remember that this is a Republican healthcare plan. It has the expectation that all households will carry health insurance. The only difference being that the households that previously could not afford it would be able to do so with the aid of subsidies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

let him veto it let obamcare  move forward 
I wished the republicans would stop trying to bail this one out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

Mertex said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



the law was built on a lie and yes it is a bad law.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Then why is it called a 'mandate'? You're simply denying the obvious, which sort of stymies discussion. The mandate is forcing people to buy more insurance than many of them want, and not funding the purchase. I'm not sure why it even matters to you enough to make a fuss over, but it very definitely is an unfunded mandate.



> Remember that this is a Republican healthcare plan. It has the expectation that all households will carry health insurance. The only difference being that the households that previously could not afford it would be able to do so with the aid of subsidies.



OK. So what? Republicans come up with bad ideas too? Yep.

Anyway, the point is, if we want to have welfare state policies, like EMTALA, we should pay for them honestly with taxes. Then, when we see the price tag in straightforward terms, we can decide, as a nation, if it's worth it. Playing all the shell games just keeps us chasing our tails.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 16, 2013)

Mertex said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Just because the law caused over 5 million and counting to lose their insurance it doesn't mean it's bad.......


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 16, 2013)

Obama is insulting our intelligence.

He calls insurance that doesn't cover sex-changes and birth control pills lousy insurance sold by bad-apple insurance companies. 

He's lying!!!!!

The same type of lies that the Democrats used to tell everyone the Bush Tax cuts were only for the rich when in fact they covered everyone one of us.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Nov 16, 2013)

OH NO!!! Say it isn't so! I'm just shocked.......shocked, I tell ya!!!!!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So to cut to the chase you are endorsing Single-Payer as the solution?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



first of all, there was no healthcare crisis before ACA.  NO ONE in the USA was being denied medical treatment,  NO ONE,  even those here illegally were receiving first class treatment.

The poor were on medicaid,  those with insurance were paying for those who did not have it.  Nothing will change under ACA.  The poor will not have to pay for their coverage and the rest of us will have higher premiums to cover those who do not pay-------exactly like we have now.

BUT, and its a big But,  now we also have to pay for a huge new govt beaurocracy that will be created by ACA.   It will suck up bilions and will slow everything down and set up all kinds of opportunities for fraud and abuse, not to mention waste.

The whole idea is lunacy.   It will never work, and its already falling apart as obama tells one lie on top of the previous lies.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





getting a subsidy = getting it free.    the problem is that someone has to pay.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Do you really want a 18 year old sitting at a phone bank in pakistan making your healthcare decisions for you and your doctor? 

don't laugh,  your govt outsourced the website creation to Canada and look at the mess that turned out to be.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No. I'd prefer government stay out of health care altogether. But I wouldn't be raising hell about single payer. It would be a far better approach then the current boondoggle.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



It means their insurance was not good in the first place and that they can get better insurance now.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, it really would not be better.   It would complete the bankruptcy of this nation.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



1. what if they were happy with their old policies?
2. obama promised them they could keep them, period
3. why is it better to force a 60 year old to pay for maternity and birth control?
4. who gave the govt the right to mandate the terms of a medical policy?
5. do you know what the word "freedom" means?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually the website was an unbid contract with one of the Moo Sow's college buddies.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Define 'good insurance.'


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



This was decided in 2010, upheld in 2012 by SCOTUS and the general election.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I doubt it. Because, compared to the shell games we're playing with ACA, it would be above board and we could see clearly what it was costing us. We'd scale back our expectations to match what we could afford. It would be much better than setting the insane precedent of, essentially, granting corporations the right to levy and collect taxes.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



which means it probably violated the buy american act and the procurement provisions of the FAR (federal acquisition regulations).   it is probably an illegal contract.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Too funny ")

Look at this self proclaimed pubby spouting bammy jizz.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No it wasn't.   they voted that the law was constitutional, not that it was a good law.

a biased media and black pride gave obama a second term-------oh, and some voter fraud in a couple of counties in Ohio and florida.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I want obamacare to move forward let's get this free healthcare start everybody have some.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



ask the canadians who are moving away from socialized medicine as a failed experiment.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Does your planet have any oxygen at all?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



They voted that it was a tax which made it constitutional something it was not supposed to be.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Actually what was decided was that it WAS a Tax despite the Amins claims that it WASN'T a Tax.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 16, 2013)

rozman said:


> we can now let people keep their plans after all...obama says that's fine.
> Obama now decrees these plans as acceptable.
> But then says republicans pushing to allow people to get these same plans are not acceptable.
> 
> Can someone explain just what the fuck obama is doing?



lsd.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I suspect, I'd hope, that we'd 'move away' from it as well. I think I've been clear, I'm no fan of socialism. But corporatism is worse.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


I wondered the same thing myself.  Just about every post I read from him is either absurd, completely wrong or downright gibberish.

Sometimes  a combination of all three.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It is what it is never mind how many times obama denied that it was a tax.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I have to agree. On the upside the conversion of the ACA into Single-payer takes nothing more than a simple amendment to allow anyone to purchase Medicare on the exchanges.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I feel the same way about you.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



yep,  plants produce it and animals consume it.

But, since you disagree, tell us who in the USA was being denied medical treatment before ACA.   Give us a list by category, age, race, location, nationality, or any grouping you choose.    WHO was denied medical care in the USA?


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Feel whatever you want.

You've yet to prove me wrong. Ever.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Ok, dingleberry, same question for you.   before ACA who in the USA was being denied medical care?    list em, name em, categorize em,   tell us who they were.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Voter "fraud" is allowed in red states? Got any actual indictments to substantiate those allegations?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And don't forget, those are on his good days too!


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Here's some:

*Twelve-Year-Old Died In 2007 From Abscessed Tooth After His Family'**s **Medicaid Lapsed.* In 2007, as _The Washington Post_ reported:Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old homeless child, died Sunday in a  District hospital after an infection from a molar spread to his brain.
 At the time he fell ill, his family's Medicaid coverage had lapsed.  Even on the state plan, his mother said, the children lacked regular  dental care and she had great difficulty finding a dentist. [_The Washington Post_, 3/3/07]​*Seventeen-Year-Old's Insurance Revoked After He Tests HIV Positive. *According to Huffington Post, in 2009:The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to  pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a  17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court  called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
 [...]
 Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he  donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned  out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that  indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his  insurance policy.
 Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for  Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his  policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This  is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it  sufficient?" The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission  went forward. [Huffington Post, 9/17/09]​*Woman* *Denied Coverage For Breast Cancer Because She Wasn't Diagnosed At Correct Clinic.* From _The Wall Street Journal_:In June 2003, Shirley Loewe went to Good Shepherd Medical Center here  with a softball-size lump in her breast and was diagnosed with a rare  form of breast cancer. She didn't know it, but she had just made a big  mistake.
 Ms. Loewe was uninsured. Under federal law, she could have gotten  Medicaid coverage -- and saved herself a lot of hardship -- if she'd  gone to a different clinic less than a half-mile away. But by walking  through Good Shepherd's doors, Ms. Loewe unwittingly let that  opportunity slip and embarked on a four-year journey through the  Byzantine U.S. health-care system.
 It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics,  two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She  was denied assistance or care at least six times along the way, for  reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.
 Ms. Loewe eventually got treatment, but at personal cost and great aggravation. [_The_ _Wall Street Journal_, 9/13/07]​*Woman's* *Double Mastectomy Denied Over Disputed Acne Treatment. *CNN reported that in 2009:Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.
 Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and  hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance  company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would  not be able to have her surgery.
 The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne.  A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so  the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her  medical history.
 Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go ahead with the surgery.
 [...]
 Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage. The  company said it had reviewed her medical records and found out that she  had misinformed them about some of her medical history.
 Beaton had listed her weight incorrectly. She also didn't disclose  medication she had taken for a pre-existing heart condition -- medicine  she wasn't taking when she originally applied for coverage. [CNN, 6/16/09]​*9/11 Responders Without Insurance Face Inferior Coverage For Sustained Injuries. *From _The New York Times_:The largest health study yet of the thousands of workers who labored  at ground zero shows that the impact of the rescue and recovery effort  on their health has been more widespread and persistent than previously  thought, and is likely to linger far into the future.
 The study, released yesterday by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical  Center, is expected to erase any lingering doubts about the connection  between dust from the trade center and numerous diseases that the  workers have reported suffering. It is also expected to increase  pressure on the federal government to provide health care for sick  workers who do not have health insurance.
 [...]
 There should no longer be any doubt about the health effects of the  World Trade Center disaster," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of  Mount Sinai's World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening  Program. "Our patients are sick, and they will need ongoing care for the  rest of their lives."
 Dr. Herbert called the findings, which will be published tomorrow in  Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute  of Environmental Health Sciences, "very worrisome," especially because  40 percent of those who went to Mount Sinai for medical screening did  not have health insurance, and will thus not get proper medical care. [_The __New York Times_, 9/6/06] ​*Thousands Of Americans Have Been Denied Health Coverage And Care*

*Twenty-Five Percent Of Adults Under 65 Say They Or A Family Member  Have Been Denied Coverage Or Charged More For Having Pre-existing  Condition. *According to a June 2013 survey from the Kaiser  Foundation, one quarter of respondents under 65 "say that they or a  family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium  increased because of their pre-existing condition":Americans with pre-existing medical conditions often face problems in  getting and retaining good health insurance coverage, an issue dealt  with directly by ACA in its "guaranteed issue" provision, which  prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals on  the basis of health status or pre-existing medical conditions beginning  in 2014. The June survey finds that roughly half (49 percent) of adults  under age 65 say they or someone in their household has a pre-existing  condition, and many of them report problems related to getting and  keeping insurance.
 One quarter (25 percent) of these individuals (14 percent of all  non-elderly adults) say that they or a family member has ever been  denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their  pre-existing condition. Further, nearly one in ten (9 percent) of these  individuals say that in the past year, they or someone in their  household has passed up a job opportunity, stayed at a job they would  have quit otherwise, or decided not to retire in order to maintain their  health coverage. [Kaiser Foundation, 6/19/13]​*Forty-Five Thousand Americans** Die**Every** Year** Due To Lack Of Insurance**. *In September  2009, a Harvard Medical School study found that a "lack of coverage can  be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States," _The New York Times_ reported. The paper explained:Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can  be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States -- a toll  that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney  disease.
 [...]
 The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40  percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance  -- as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The  risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found  the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.
 The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a  result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the  uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or  cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for  insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood  pressure. [_The __New York Times_, 9/17/09]​*Study Found That In 2010, Three Americans Died Every Hour From **Lack Of Coverage**. *According  to a June 2012 report from Families USA, "Across the nation, 26,100  people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of  health coverage in 2010," which works out to "three every hour." The  report also found:Between 2005 and 2010, the number of people who died prematurely each  year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.
 Between 2005 and 2010, the total number of people who died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage was 134,120.
 Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. [Families USA, June 2012]​*Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care** By Health Plans In First Six Months Of Bush's First Term.*According  to data from the Census Bureau and a report from the Henry J. Kaiser  Family Foundation analyzed by Families USA, "[M]ore than 7.5 million  people experienced a problem with their health plan that resulted in a  denial or delay of health care" in the month from President George W.  Bush's inauguration to June 2001. Families USA wrote:[A]pproximately 18.1 million Americans per year between 18 and 64  years of age experience a problem with their health plan that results in  a denial or delay of medical care. [Families USA, 6/21/01]

Because Fox Asked, Here Are Examples Of People Who Were Denied Health Care | Research ​


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



medicare is for people over 65 who have had money taken from their paychecks to pay for it.  

you may mean medicaid, which is free to the poor, no one purchases it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



that's not hard to do until you runaway.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



those two states were blue in 2012,  blue because of voter fraud.


----------



## Dante (Nov 16, 2013)

keeping the wingnut base pumped up and motivated, but is it enough?


this line of attack will fade as time goes by...


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Um....may I point out that the question was not about isurance but care?

Nobody gets denied "care" it is illegal to do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What the radical reactionaries on the far right think does not matter.

They cannot ignore constitutional, electoral process and SCOTUS opinion, all of which negates their disagreement.

The constitutionality of this issue is over unless SCOTUS otherwise opines in the future.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So according to you there were no lifetime limits or pre-existing conditions that were used to deny care? And that not a single person was denied care because they couldn't afford the premiums? No one was restricted to "in-network" coverage even if it didn't provide the care necessary? None of these things were happening on a daily basis to millions of hardworking Americans.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Try going to the emergency room to have your cancer treated.

Tell us what happens.

EMTALA was signed by Ronald Reagan - as an unfunded mandate, and no, they Emergency Rooms do not have to treat everyone who walks in their doors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


jakes among the minority shut your trap up.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I mean removing the age limit from Medicare and allowing anyone of any age to purchase it!


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



C'mon Jizz Boy, prove what I said was wrong.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...





"died in hospital"   

insurance screw up, not denial of care

went to wrong hospital, could have gone to correct one

lied on entry form

those same kinds of things WILL occur under ACA or any form of one-payer socialized medicine.  

shit happens,  we are imperfect human beings,  we are not owed anything but a chance to live

I could give you several examples of friends and relatives who had no money, no insurance and still got lung transplants, cancer surgeries, heart transplants, kidney dialysis, tooth extractions, and every other form of medical treatment.

Your left wing agenda of socialized govt run medicine will make the things like you listed more common, not less.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Who knew that Scott and Kasich were Dems in 2012? But your failure to provide any actual evidence means that your credibility is suspect.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I would like to find out how it feels for a supporter of obamacare to know that they support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and poor? They'll never answer that question.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



they already are purchasing it at all ages,  you just have to be 65 to collect it.  

what you libs refuse to get it that someone has to pay for medical.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Which part of the term "denied medical care" do you need some help with?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The thing is, it's sort of a bullshit concept. Everybody is 'denied health care' at some point. No one gets everything they want.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Voter Fraud Charges Begin in Ohio


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


  Because of difficulties in obtaining health insurance  that wasn't ridiculously high, (something like 1800.00 a month) my  self-employed older brother went without the last few years. He'd never been without it his whole life.

No check ups / doctor visits the last few years, generally healthy, a  one-time sciatica problem years ago put him in the pre-existing  condition category. Well, he _thought_ he was generally healthy anyway.

He put off getting tests for a bowel irritation that had been bugging him lately.

Rushed to the hospital a month ago.

He died a week ago today.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



As I stated above they would be* purchasing *Medicare when they sign up through the exchanges.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I have NEVER been denied health care, ever.
Period.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



03 Nov 2012 ?

What subsequently happened to those alleged charges?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



of course,  but the dems want to paint a picture of a little girl with cancer being turned away from the hospital door by jack booted thugs because her father let his policy lapse.

that never happens.   Look at St Judes, they take every kid regardless of money or insurance.   But I guess to the dems its funded by evil charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes by the evil rich.

libs are sick people, mentally sick.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



My condolences on the loss of your brother! That must have been a shock.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



you are advocating for single payer govt run medicine,  call it whatever you want.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


He didn't bother to look at the date it seems.

As to the charges: Nothing.  Nothing happened.  Like most all the goofy overblown claims of voter fraud.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Thank you.  It is.  We're still reeling from the loss.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



you claimed that there was no evidence.   those cases are still in the legal process.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes, that is what I posted originally! Converting the ACA into a Single-payer system would take a simple amendment to enable people to purchase Medicare on the exchanges. 

Was the term "slow" something that appeared frequently on your permanent school record?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Fraud Map :: Rotten Acorn ::


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If they are still in the legal process there would have been filings. Please provide the links to the filings.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, but I am sure the term "idiot" showed up on most of yours.

for the record I have an MBA from Harvard and survived that educational experience without becoming a liberal.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The ONLY need for the Exchanges are the Subsidies, take away the subsidies and the exchanges are no longer needed.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



so you want to multiply the amount of medicare fraud, waste, and abuse by a factor of 10?   How exactly is that going to make things cheaper?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It sounds like you're talking about something more like the 'public option' rather than 'single payer', right?


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


It's rampant!  Rampant I tell ya.

*           Ohio A-G reports on voter fraud cases        *




 

_Ohio Attorney General&#8217;s information_
 COLUMBUS &#8212; Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced an update on  the 20 cases referred to his office by Ohio Secretary of State Jon  Husted to be investigated for possible voter fraud as a result of Ohio&#8217;s  voluntary involvement in the Interstate Crosscheck Program.
 Agents from the Attorney General&#8217;s Office Bureau of Criminal  Investigation (BCI) have investigated nineteen of the cases, and are in  the process of investigating the remaining case.  Nineteen cases have  been turned over to county prosecutors&#8217; offices.
 Of the 20 cases:


Evidence in five cases was insufficient to prove criminality
Thirteen cases have been turned over to county prosecutors&#8217; offices
One case remains under investigation
Kim Trombetta plead guilty of one count of falsification in Butler County
 &#8220;Ohioans should have confidence in the elections process, and know  that no amount of fraud is acceptable,&#8221; said DeWine. &#8220;These cases show  that if you cheat, you will be held accountable.&#8221;
 &#8220;Our commitment to cleaning up Ohio&#8217;s voter rolls and to share data  with other states helps to ensure that we are dealing in facts and  evidence when it comes to voter fraud,&#8221; Husted said. &#8220;I want to thank  Attorney General DeWine and county prosecutors for their work to get to  the bottom of these cases.&#8221;


Ohio A-G reports on voter fraud cases « The VW independent


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



For someone allegedly with an MBA from Harvard Business School you certainly don't post like one. Then again the previous POTUS allegedly had one too. There must be some website where you can download them.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Facts not in evidence!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



That was just a different name for the same concept. Medicare is Single-payer irrespective of what you want to call it.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



30 million people on medicare  300 million in the country.   factor of 10 is correct.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



So if we assume these 20 votes were all fraudulent they were enough to swing both the state of FL and OH into the blue for Obama according to Redfish!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I think W went to the liberal bastion of Princeton.   not Harvard.   and no, you don't get them on line, its a very difficult curriculum and not everyone makes it through.  

But it did pay off well for me.  I thank the liberal profs at Harvard for that.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



who knows?   those are just the cases that have been prosecuted.  who knows how many hanging chads are out there or how many people voted from the grave?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Strike two against your credibility. Bush is probably one of the more famous graduates of HBS but you have no knowledge that he is a fellow alumni of yours.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



In other words you are now disrespecting the Republican governors of two red states as being too incompetent to uncover all the cases of voter fraud that occurred in 2012. Obviously throwing them under the bus is easier than admitting that you have squat to support your allegation.


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


What I proved was you were a dumbass by stating the 2012 election that gave Obama the win was a result of voter fraud "in a couple of counties in Ohio and florida."

Oh, and, according to you - "black pride."


----------



## paperview (Nov 16, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Wow. You supposedly got an MBA from Harvard, and you didn't even know Bush went there?

There's something stinky there.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



My understanding is that they were significantly different approaches. The idea behind a public option would be more or less what you're describing - government subsidized insurance that people could buy. Whereas true 'single payer' would be taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone by default.

This website seems to agree:
Public Option Vs. Single Payer


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Medicare is taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone over 64 by default and has the government as the single-payer. The "public option" would just allow any member of the "public" under 65 to purchase Medicare as their insurer as an "option" to Aetna, Cigna, et al.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



False question and false definition of me.

You are not mainstream.  You are a simple far right reactionary who does understand none of the American narrative.  Unlike Antares, you are trying to understand, I will grant you that.

But the constitutional issue is over until SCOTUS reviews it again.  As long as Roberts is CJSCOTUS, that will not be for some time.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



SCOTUS found it to be Constitutional based upon it being a "Tax" despite the lawyers for the Administration's entire argument being based on it NOT being a Tax.

Poor Jizz Boy.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Right, public option. That's what you were suggesting, right? That the exchanges could be modified to allow the general public to purchase Medicare (or something like it)? 

'Single payer' refers to something like what Canada has. I think the article I linked to goes along with the way most people use the terms.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually Medicare is mostly subsidized


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That you don't like the fact that it is constitutional does not mean anything at all.

That you don't like me doesn't bother me, Antares.

Go for it.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Poor Jakey, your challenge was to prove my post wrong, you couldn't so you instead chose to make it about you. 

My post was/is correct...and old man you aren't worth emotion either way...you incorrectly assume I feel anything toward you at all...I do not.

You are a peripheral entity seeking relevance and finding none.....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes, the public option is a hybrid of the single-payer system found in Canada. The primary difference being enrollment is optional rather than automatic coverage by the government.

The RW argument against it is that it would be "unfair competition" to the for profit insurers. The positive aspect is that it would hold down the costs of insurance.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



LOL, unfair?

It would eliminate them.


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.

Why aren't you right wing fucks screaming about something entertaining like gun control or black people? Get back to your roots.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.
> 
> Why aren't you right wing fucks screaming about something entertaining like gun control or black people? Get back to your roots.



Then leave, nobody has missed you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Strange that it hasn't done so in any of the other civilized nations that use single-payer.


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.
> ...



I'm here to be entertained but man, you right wingers have really fallen off. Even Fox News isn't fun anymore. All your attempts to derail the country have failed, your party is in complete disarray, you look like a bunch of bitter brain dead racist children and now you can't find anything fun to get kooky about. Can't we get another Sarah Palin for Prez or Glenn Beck thread? We're crying about paranoid third person rumors about national health care now? 

Get your game together you loony fucks.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yawn, post market share, its your assertion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Yup, I was right.  You don't count for anything.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...




You've never been intelligent enough to worry about.

Nigga/Cracka lied, he knew this shit was going to happen...just because you like his dick in yo ass in no way means the thread isn't applicable.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



What difference does market share make? Either it exists or it doesn't!

All the facts for you from every nation in the world!

Health systems by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Hahaha, not really helping your cause by citing intelligence and then calling the President a ****** but this is the idiocy I do enjoy so much. Please regale us with more of your brilliance.

I really do appreciate that most right wingers have dropped the pretense that they're not racist lately and are just coming out with it. It just proves everyone right despite all the whining and crying to the contrary since '09.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

antares said:


> ballsbrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > antares said:
> ...



when it makes a comment i would be very thankful so i can't see it shit all over it self that you not quote its pile of shit.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 16, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This bill doesn't just let people stay on their pre-ACA policies, it also lets the insurance companies keep selling those policies to new customers.
> 
> Another classic boneheaded overreach by the GOP.



Because God forbid someone buy what they want for insurance rather what the liberal ilk tells them they HAVE to HAVE... gotta make sure granny has birth control coverage, y'know


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> antares said:
> 
> 
> > ballsbrunswick said:
> ...



Still running and hiding like a bitch from me eh? You should be for me calling you out for cheering on the murders of those kids in Sandy Hook and your racist delusions.


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Deflection Boi.....


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 16, 2013)

Obamacare...

Because *FUCK YOU*, that's why

Signed
Progressives


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



Nope, sorry.

He is a Nigga/Cracka......half and half, I don't like either half.

You've never been "right" in your life kid.


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Please express your opinions to any black man walking down the street, see what happens. You know assuming you're not a pussy which I'm assuming you are otherwise you wouldn't be saying these things.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> Obamacare...
> 
> Because *FUCK YOU*, that's why
> 
> ...



Hey dave I've been wondering how the supporters of obamacare feel about the highest tax hike of all time on the middle class and the poor? I wonder if they even care?


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Please pay attention...for profit insurers live on market share......


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



THIS RW'er has a different argument against it. 

And if you love freedom you should be against it too.

*Affordable Care Act is about government control*



> The Affordable Care Act consists primarily of taking away many of our liberties by advocating health care for the less fortunate.
> 
> The government does not possess the authority to require an individual to purchase health insurance, so why try trick the uniformed into thinking the government knows what is best for them?
> 
> ...



Affordable Care Act is about government control


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare...
> ...



More taxes for more bloated government

Because *FUCK YOU* that's why...

Signed
Progressives


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



You are "free" to "assume" anything you like kid....

But here it is......the Prez is an asshole who thinks he is the "boi king" and can rule by fiat..you also assume I should be afraid of all blacks....why?

You know nothing about me...not one thing 

You know...the fact that you think all "blacks" support the "boi king" shows you to be an abject "racist".......niggas can't think for themselves eh?

My wife is black kid....she detests the "boi king"...is she an "Aunt Jemima"?


----------



## Jackson (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



The entertainment has died now that the Democratic party is in the toilet, is that what you are saying?  I admit, it had to be so much more fun for you when you could call out that the government was shut down because of the Republicans and they'll never come up for water again, ha ha ha ha ha.

Well, now that it turns that the Republicans were trying to stop or delay Obamacare would have been the best scenario for Obama, doesn't it?
Strange how that happens.  Now that the Democrats have had their way, the Republicans were right all along, and voters are siding with Republicans, who they can trust, you can lower yourself to a litany of name calling but sorry friend, that's all you have.  Except for your party that is pure panic now.  I feel your pain.  Get some rest.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



yep  on the middle class and poor this should work well for the democrats in 2014


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



 I know you're stupid because you think there's a difference between the word ****** and nigga when referring to a black person and I know you're a pussy because you obviously haven't been around a lot of black people in your life. No one said anything about all blacks supporting Obama, I'm just talking about the fact you're not very bright.


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Jackson said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Huh, random words from a nobody about nothing. There's nothing there to even dissect or talk about. That was just a bunch of baseless babble from someone with hurt feelings.


----------



## Jackson (Nov 16, 2013)

*Obama demonstrated how much he cared for the Americans who lost their insurance by providing the "fix."  And promising to veto it the very next day.​*


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



(smile) I am in Omaha (Bellevue), come show me the error of my ways 

You have of course implied all blacks support the "boi king".

Everytime you post you assume everything you think is "right"....you also imply I should "fear" blacks because they are "black"...naaa


----------



## Jackson (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



Have another drink, pal.


----------



## BallsBrunswick (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



 You challenging me to put up my dukes? I assumed you were in Bellevue or at least something similar.

Yeah calling a black man boy and ******... not racist. And you're clearly not intelligent because not once have I said or insinuated all blacks support Obama, but that's clearly part of your ODS. 

And I didn't say you should fear blacks at all, I said try to call a black man a nigga and see if they think it's not racist. 

Maybe you just have the reading comprehension of a house plant?


----------



## Antares (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



Huh...look how defensive you are.....

You ain't my first rodeo kid....you aren't very good at this...I might suggest you take on Jake..he is about your speed.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You are the worst kind of lib. One that lies about being a lib while arguing the lib side of every issue.
You're not fooling anyone.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You are wrong, jakes fooling one person himself. Maybe he truly believes he's a republican


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...


Black people vote at a rate of over 85% democrats. When the candidate is black, that rate jumps to over 95%.
You can drop the self righteous indignation over race. Nobody cares.
BlackDemographics.com | POLITICS
And now you'll come back with some nonsense that the GOP is inherently racist so that's why black vote democrat.
Stow it. 
Black people vote in virtual lockstep for democrats and that's that.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 16, 2013)

Obama says over and over that we can keep our plans.Period.
Then it turns out we can't!
Then he says that he's working on letting us keep our plans.
Then congress writes a bill letting us keep our plans.
Then Obama says he will veto legislation that will let us keep our plans!

Have I gotten this right?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Antares said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.


----------



## Jackson (Nov 16, 2013)

Rozman said:


> Obama says over and over that we can keep our plans.Period.
> Then it turns out we can't!
> Then he says that he's working on letting us keep our plans.
> Then congress writes a bill letting us keep our plans.
> ...



Yep!  Go figure.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me.  Fool me three times,,, Go to Hell.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I wanted to return to this because it now sounds like what you mean by "single payer" is more like what most call the public option. And my answer to that would be "it depends". Specifically, it depends on whether we're still assuming a mandate to buy insurance. If so, I'd still be adamantly opposed.


----------



## oreo (Nov 16, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



*Democrats are going to have to get an awful lot of pressure from their constituents to do that.*  Remember that all those running for re-election in 2014 not only voted for Obamacare--but also voted against a FIX back in 2010 that would have allowed people to keep their current plans.

They are neck deep in Kim-Chee right now.  So are they going to remain loyal to Obama and go down with the lies and distortions, or are they going to side with their constituents is the question?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 16, 2013)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> So in less than 24 hours after telling the nation he will let us keep our policies, he now will veto legislation that allows us to keep it.



He can't let Republicans get credit. Wouldn't be surprised if he claims it was his idea all along.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 16, 2013)

Zander said:


> The Upton bill has passed the house with bi-partisan support. Now it will go and die a quiet death in the Harry Reid Senate.....



And Super-Barry will sign executive order and save the day.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Every time I post the far right reactionary response shows just how right I am.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2013)

Ame®icano;8160487 said:
			
		

> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The Upton bill has passed the house with bi-partisan support. Now it will go and die a quiet death in the Harry Reid Senate.....
> ...



And the far right continues to lose.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ame®icano;8160487 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All I know is that every time Red Barry signs something my family lose.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

BallsBrunswick said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



Seeing as how some black men call each other 'nigga' on a regular basis, I would assume to think that they have no right being offended by being called one by a white man. I mean they didn't mind referring to each other as such.


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 17, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...



Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Every time I post the far right reactionary response shows just how right I am.



No you just show how left and wrong you are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)




----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

Obama's logic:

2009: You can keep your insurance if you like it

2013: Wait no you can't

Friday: Wait, wait! Yes, you can have it back again.

Later that day: NO!! I DIDN'T SAY YOU COULD HAVE YOUR INSURANCE BACK! RETURN IT AT ONCE OR I WILL FINE YOU!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Obama's logic:
> 
> 2009: You can keep your insurance if you like it
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 17, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Not really.  I was raised in urban America.  African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here.  It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



So was I. I can name you multiple experiences where black boys would call each other 'nigga' for the hell of it. Not realizing the insult they heaped upon their ancestors. My city has a very large black population, you'd be surprised at what they call each other out of jest. 

Speaking of alternate experiences, maybe those guys at Total Recall could give you you real memory back. You seem to think you're a demographer or a sociologist or something.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Geezus, make up shit much?

Yes they DO call each other that.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



and that has been the goal of the left from the beginning.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I understand the concern, but the insurance lobby wouldn't let that happen. They'd make sure the the public plan was substandard and mostly just a dumping ground for the hard cases - chronic pre-existing conditions etc...


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thats what Obama did on Friday, he made the ACA compliant plans no more than the CHIP plans that had already been in place.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Not sure what you mean. But in any case, i'd be opposed to the public option, because it would mostly likely still include an individual mandate, which is the worst aspect of the current law.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



By offering a one year extension to grandfather in theexisting plans he has potentially taken most of the healthy people out of the compliant plans...leaving predominately sick people in them..that means losses will be exponentially high..potentially bankrupting the plans.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The government already has single-payer insurance. It's called Medicare and Medicare is going broke. 

The only reason folks like Obama want single-payer is so they can rob us of our cash. That puts more money under their control. And we all know that Congress has been using Social Security and Medicare as their own private little slush fund.


----------



## 1776 (Nov 17, 2013)

Well he might just sign a law passed by Congress, then ignore it like he does with enforcing the border and arresting illegals. 

He just invents his own laws.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well, that's not 'single payer'. Medicare is a safety net program. Single payer is when government is the primary funding mechanism for all health care. I don't think it would be a proper use of government, but it could be done sanely. If we did it more like what we've done with public education - locally financed and controlled - I don't see why it would necessarily fail.



> The only reason folks like Obama want single-payer is so they can rob us of our cash. That puts more money under their control. And we all know that Congress has been using Social Security and Medicare as their own private little slush fund.



Yep.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...





> Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanismreferring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fundand does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, *some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system*.



Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yeah. You could still have certain areas - dental, mental-health, etc... - that were covered by private insurance. People could also enlist private insurance to supplement the default coverage provided by government. But single payer does replace private insurance with government as the primary means of financing our health care.

I'm still not clear what you're advocating for, because what you described earlier - allowing the general public to purchase Medicare - is NOT single payer, in the traditional sense. It's what is more commonly referred to as the public option, which simply creates a government run insurance program that competes with private companies offering similar coverage.

I was also unclear on whether you would still want to include an individual mandate in the idea you were proposing.


----------



## PixieStix (Nov 17, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...



Obama has episodes. I wonder if he has been diagnosed


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > BallsBrunswick said:
> ...


Go bake cookies. You silly little girl.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Misnomer. Government pays for NOTHING. The taxpayers fund it. 
And that IS the central issue here. 
Taxes in countries with single payer insurance are confiscatory. That is intolerable.
The demographic group that suffers the highest burden is the middle class.
Wealthy people feel little pain because they have the resources to absorb the additional expense. The poor pay nothing. This leaves the middle classes to foot the bill.
And to break that down even further, those who earn just above levels where subsidies kick in, feel the most pain. Their budgets are planned out for such and such money to go to essential spending( bills, housing, etc).
The thinking on the part of the left's idea of just waive a magic and wand VOILA!!!! Free medical care is an overly simplistic view generated by a dream of living in a socialist utopia. 
As we have seen there are several western European nations in dire fiscal trouble due to socialism that the citizens can no longer afford to support. Too many riding in the boat and not nearly enough people rowing the boat.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Would you eat anything she cooked?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Is that a trick question?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

PixieStix said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> ...



A dictator mind


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The mandate that everyone must be covered still applies. Under the current ACA only private insurance is an option, albeit subsidized for those in lower income brackets. By changing the ACA to make Medicare an option it then becomes a hybrid single-payer system that includes private insurance. The Netherlands, Swiss and German hybrid single-payer systems work on a similar model. Mandating coverage is the key to universal healthcare. How it is delivered is only a factor of how much profit overhead you are willing to bear.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Ok... well, scratch what I said earlier then. What you're calling 'single-payer' (aka 'public option') would be no better than ACA in my view. Ultimately, it's the same approach, the lobbying cartels would ensure the public plan offered little competition for profitable customers, and the mandate would still scapegoat and punish the people exhibiting the most personal responsibility (by carrying the least amount of insurance). 

Ultimately, it's just a corporatist ploy to privatize socialism. I'd rather have my socialism straight up and honest, and run by government - not by private companies for a profit. Either provide health care as a taxpayer funded service of government, or stay the hell out of it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I agree with your sentiment that honest socialism is preferable to the hybrid system. However we have to deal with reality. In the unlikely event that the ACA is ever repealed it won't be replaced for a pure single-payer system since those advocating the repeal are opposed to single-payer. The best that we can realisitically expect is the "public option" hybrid system. Until we can rid this nation of corporate control over the political process we are never going to see any different.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Oh no never. Black people _never_ refer to each other as "nigga" or "******"...
If you maintain this line, it is most certain you were NOT raised in a mixed race urban setting. And if you were, it was in an upper middle class setting.
Nobody cares if you believe you are 'offended'....That is one problem you libs have. you are always looking for things with which to bother yourselves.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


This is typical of liberals. They see things that make them uncomfortable. They then ignore them, hoping they will go away.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



A hybrid system amplifies the worst drawbacks of both a free market and state socialism - the worst of both worlds. It destroys consumer freedom and guarantees corporate profits via government collusion.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Single payer isn't the same as public option.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=single+payer+vs+public+option


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


it's worse


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



And?
The government should not be in the insurance business save for the types available before ACA was passed.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Just pointing out that single payer and the public option are radically different things.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Facts not in evidence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well considering obamacare supporters are void of facts thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I post the far right reactionary response shows just how right I am.
> ...



Nope, just shows that what you think is left, liberal, prog is actually right of center mainstream.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jakes confused he call's himself one thing but openly writes support for the total opposite


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You support the far right clownishness that would hurt this country.

I support the middle mainstream of America and the center of its worth.

The far left and that of the far right simply are weird extremes and caricatures of Americanism.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you are conceding that is cannot be worse because you haven't substantiated your allegation. Have a nice day.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



As I said void of facts come back when you have some.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

bigreb has never met a fact he can't ignore if it makes him feel bad.  And he cannot tell you the difference between ACA and single payer.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ah...now Obama is "right center mainstream", hence your drooling support of him.

You really are stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do you hear that? Berkeley's calling they miss their idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You have no idea of what you speak, but that is nothing new for you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The irony of this post


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You support Obama, YOU said you support things that are "right center mainstream".

You are an idiot.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




*We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs.*

Um....do you know who sets the rates?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well reasoned!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You still have that government control a list of approved plans what you can and cannot have. sooner or later it will give precedence over how you must live your life.  Can't have dangerous items in your home we must inspect them.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Medicare Parts A and B do not have a selection of "approved plans what you can and cannot have". It is just guaranteed coverage. If you want *SUPPLEMENTAL* coverage you can purchase it under Parts C and D but you cannot be denied coverage in Parts A and B if you qualify by reason of age.

As far as dictating "how you must live your life" that is just paranoia. There is no substance to that allegation since hundreds of millions of seniors have Medicare and live as they choose.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Horse shit obama spouted that lie long ago and we already know obamacare was built on a lie so stop it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 17, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.
> 
> Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.
> 
> ...



You can always tell when a democrat is about to rape you of your assets.  They promise what they are doing is for your own good.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer. 
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense. 
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority. 
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Go back and check your illogical reasoning then come apologize to all two of us, you and me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



bigrebnc must be so grateful to be guided by you on these matters.

Imagine that he does not understand Medicare.


----------



## Antares (Nov 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Poor Jake, I've been bitch slapping you since I arrived on this board...you have just NEVER been up to taking me one.....well...or anyone else actually...you are a mental midget.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The insurance lobby.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So does the mandate. The only difference is that the insurance companies are doing the confiscating.



> Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.



Yep. This is the danger - but it's present with the mandate as well. We're already seeing this excuse used to all kinds of new regulations.



> A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
> Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
> No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
> Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
> Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.



These problems are very possible, even likely. But they're just as likely with a mandate forcing us to 'tithe' to the insurance cartel. What ACA does is create a 'privatized' wing of government. It outsources our socialism to for-profit companies who funnel taxpayer money to their shareholders. It's far, far worse than single payer.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 18, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Antares, if that nonsense keeps you feeling good about yourself, go for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Logic confuses the far right that hate making sure all have accessible and affordable health care.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Heh... no, the Tea Party should be fighting the federal government's attempt to take over health care with everything they can muster. If the Democrats, on the other hand, were decent liberals, they'd be doing as you suggest. But they're not, and they didn't.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead. The reason the Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The Dems were stymied by Obama inviting all the special interest groups to take part in formulating law. Corporatism is the antithesis of liberalism, and that's what Obama is more than anything else.



> The Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.



There's no reason whatsover to assume that would happen. Congress never raises taxes to account for increased spending, and they wouldn't do it with single payer. It's far more likely that, even with token tax increases, single payer would bankrupt the federal government.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless. The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.



First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened. 



> The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.



It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Who's gonna pay for it?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.
> ...



We live in a different world today. Your family doctor doesn't visit you in your home and you can't pay him with chickens either. We have tried using the for profit healthcare model and it has failed because the profit motive drives the costs up exponentially. This has harmed both corporations and individuals. The only feasible cost effective alternative is single-payer. That is today's reality.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, it's not.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Says the parasite that want's someone else to pay his way in life.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



For profit healthcare did work until government start pushing their noses into it. Like everything else, once government get involved its doomed to fail.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ever notice how much time and effort the extreme right puts into trying to bring others down to their level? It never works but they never give up trying either.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 18, 2013)

If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

paulitician said:


> If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.



What exactly is "un-American" about allowing corporations to gouge hardworking people over an essential issue like healthcare?


----------



## paulitician (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.
> ...



Get that Obamacare...or else! It's a profoundly oppressive intrusion into Citizens' lives. It's not what America is about. It's as Un-American as it gets. It should be scrapped.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



The concept of mandatory health insurance is a conservative one as defined by the Heritage Foundation who proposed the ACA in the first place.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



And just as wrong.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Unleash the IRS Hounds! YAY BIG BROTHER!! It's shocking so many are supporting this debacle. Shame on them.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.
> ...


What's un-American is pinning them down and forcing them to hold still for the gouging.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 18, 2013)

It's very regrettable so many Americans have chosen to hand so much of their Freedom & Liberty over to Big Brother. This particular Healthcare solution is not the right solution. I just hope & pray the Democrats decide to do what's best for the Country, not their Party. It's time to support repealing this debacle.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



As opposed to the gouging that they were already getting before the ACA came into law?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

paulitician said:


> It's very regrettable so many Americans have chosen to hand so much of their Freedom & Liberty over to Big Brother. This particular Healthcare solution is not the right solution. I just hope & pray the Democrats decide to do what's best for the Country, not their Party. It's time to support repealing this debacle.



Why would they support repealing the ACA? It isn't as though what existed before was any better. It was considerably worse in fact. The concept of going backwards only appeals to those who have fantasies of what the past was like as opposed to the reality.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yes, as opposed to that. Back then, we could still walk away. Many were. That's why the insurance lobby acquiesced to 'reform' and proceeded to twist it into the corporatist boondoggle it became. They now have us as captive customers.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Only those with the good fortune to be healthy could afford to "walk away" and hope that they weren't involved in accident. Anyone who was in less than perfect health or who had a sick child was gouged to the point of bankruptcy if they didn't have employer healthcare benefits.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Bullshit. We had the freedom to choose as much or as little insurance as we thought made sense. ACA took that freedom from us. You can deny that all you want, but the fact won't go away.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The dubious "freedom" to watch your child suffering from cystic fibrosis choking on the fluid buildup in their lungs or your spouse dying of breast cancer because you couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums for their "pre-existing conditions". I''ll pass on that BS "freedom" in exchange for affordable healthcare in a heartbeat.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sorry to hear about your family having all these health problems.  How many families do you plan to force into bankruptcy to fund your family finances, so you don't have to find a way to pay your way in life?

Affordable health care is not affordable for the people being forced to pay.  It's only affordable for parasites like you.


----------



## Antares (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You seem to lack any real ability to comprehend what you read, my apologies.
Jake is a moron who picks the fight and the runs...I don't really care if you like it or not


----------



## Antares (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



*(5) PREMIUMS- 
(A) PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO COVER COSTS- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs (including claims and administrative costs) using methods in general use by qualified health plans.*

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Nope


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



LOL.... riiiiight. "methods in general use by qualified health plans". That says the Secretary will use the same methods the insurance companies do. Tell me you weren't going for irony?


----------



## Antares (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




(smile) You were wrong sally, man up.

All rate increases must be filed with the Dept. of Insurances of each State...the Secretary is now an added layer...the Sec and Ins Commissioners will now set rates.

But by all means continue in your ignorance


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I'm neither wrong, nor ignorant. You, however, are naive if you think prices will be set in a way that doesn't guarantee healthy profits to the insurance industry, or that such price setting won't be influence by lobbying. By fixing prices via a regulatory regime, rather than through free markets, profits become a matter of influencing government (something insurance companies are very adept at) rather than attracting customers.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The difference is one could jump to another insurer.
With ACA, "you will comply"....And then get gouged.
Big difference.
Liberal ideas....so good for us, they have to be mandatory.


----------



## oreo (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




It's not only the lies about being able to keep your insurance.  Not many are talking about the COST of Obamacare out of their pockets.  The states that elected to do Obamacare web-sites are not getting a lot of paying customers.  WHY?  *The premiums are outrageous.*

For the millions that are receiving cancellations notices their premiums are doubling or tripling in these state Obamacare exchanges.  _That's the next shoe to drop if they ever get the Federal web-site working._  Which is why only 27,000 signed up for pay for it yourself on these exchanges, while 500,000 signed up for free Medicade.






What a total fiasco.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2013)

Wheres our $2,500 savings


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Umm. People in Canada lose half their paychecks at a minimum to taxation. Then there are the federal and provincial VAT's. Then the local sales taxes. Most of which goes to fund their socialized medicine.
Many European countries are barely hanging on. Some ( Spain, Portugal, Greece) required huge cash bailouts because their economies could no longer produce the tax revenue required to fund their 'free' medical care.
"For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes."....So in your mind it is better to hand over your financial well being over to a bunch of bureaucrats. Typical liberal. You people fear independence and liberty. You people deny that we as individuals are capable of taking care of their own affairs. And of course, you run to the government. You believe that government is the answer to everything. Fine...YOU can have it. 
As for the rest of your post, spare me. 
I cannot fathom how anyone could with a straight face place their trust in government to efficiently operate a gargantuan bureaucracy which would be larger than the economies of most of the countries on Earth. And trust them to get it right. 
Please. 
You are spouting off to the wrong person. 
There is not ONE THING the US federal government does within budget and on time. And you are trying to convince me that handing over my medical needs to the Beltway is a good idea....Sell that shit to someone who is listening.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 18, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


The problem you lefties have is ACA does not come close to covering everyone. Like Obama said it would. 
Yes. It is completely logical to hand over our medical care to Washington....Have you any other good jokes you'd like to tell?
So you have to rely on the hate card in your desperation.


----------



## Antares (Nov 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually you are wrong, completely.
Gosh, Obama and Sebelius have shown such a large capacity to listen to others...no wonder you think they'll let the Ins Companies have their way with the rates.
(rolling eyes)

This is a different world now...you are going to need to adjust the way you view what is happening.

With insurers compelled to spend 80 cents of every dollar collected on claims there isn't much room for "profit".


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The stock market seems to disagree.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


From where do you get this nonsense. 
Look, if you want to renounce citizenship and become a subject of government that's your business. But don't you dare ask anyone else to jump off that cliff with you.
Oh, your theory that there is enough wealth to pay down debt does have some validity. However, the price you pay is a mandatory balanced budget and an end to base line budgeting. No more automatic year to year budget increases. 
Until government is run like a business with finite resources and fully accountable to the stock holders( taxpayers) there is no deal. 
Oh..Single payer would add massive debt to our economy because there simply is not enough wealth to fund it. No way. All one has to do is look at the crushing debt of the Western European countries. 
Why is it you wish to repeat their mistakes?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.
> ...



It is un-American to remove choice and place all citizens into a captive marketplace full of government red tape bureaucracy and the eventual corruption.
BTW, WHO is being 'gouged'....
Is it the fact that insureds have to pay ANYTHING? As though all medical care should be free of any out of pocket expense?
You keep using the term "gouge"...Prove it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

oreo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



obama's drones are just like his policies they both destroy without him actually having to be there.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 19, 2013)

The People don't want this travesty. Giving Government and especially the IRS absolute Power is not the answer. I believe Freedom & Liberty will win out on this one. You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 19, 2013)

Antares said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What is the "asking price" for good health?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Priceless. Care to pony up all your income for my priceless good health?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 19, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts?


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Insurance companies aren't selling good health. That's the delusion of ACA.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Don't tell him that, I was hoping for a check.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yup, Antares always runs away.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Mistakes 1 and 2: that I am a liberal and that you are mainstream.

Fact: this is the start of ACA and it will get better.

Fact: hate is the purview of your far right


----------



## paulitician (Nov 19, 2013)

It's very hard to fathom how so many Americans are so willing to hand the Government, especially the IRS, absolute Power. All Americans should stand up and oppose the State on this one. It's just plain Un-American.


----------



## Antares (Nov 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



So we have another Jake sock?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> It's very hard to fathom how so many Americans are so willing to hand the Government, especially the IRS, absolute Power. All Americans should stand up and oppose the State on this one. It's just plain Un-American.



What part is unfathomable about of half the country is just plain un-American? We are talking about people that would vote for Satan himself for a few bucks.


----------



## Antares (Nov 19, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Oh Jakey....we BOTH know better than that.


----------



## oreo (Nov 19, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




IOW--the Hopey and Changey is still with you--LOL--because that's all you've got.  *Reality has yet to set in.*


----------



## paulitician (Nov 20, 2013)




----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Contrary to the beliefs of those of you brainwashed into the notion that for someone to be healthy they MUST have health insurance, there is no 'asking price'...All one needs to do is eat healthy, get some exercise, get a yearly checkup and be mindful the human body does not function well without routine maintenance.
And please, don't bother with the "but what about" scenarios.
There is a gigantic marketplace out there for insurance policies which cover for serious illness, disease and injury.
The problem is your side has been convinced that you are entitled to first dollar free from out of pocket expense on demand medical care. And you believe government in the form of some program called "universal" can offer that to you. 
Well, this imaginary 'universe' does not exist. And it cannot be created out of pen and paper.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 20, 2013)

paulitician said:


>


Sad, sad day when a leader is so detached from his advisers he misleads the people based on their say-so, and never disciplines those who omitted him from knowing things he needed to know to tell the public in his speeches which attack those who *do* know his advisers aren't being square with him.


----------

