# In Support of Obama's Health Care Law



## serenesam (Aug 6, 2011)

I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.

And yes, this is in alignment with Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights:

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights


----------



## Zander (Aug 6, 2011)

Get a job, ya stinkin' hippie!


----------



## serenesam (Aug 6, 2011)

Zander said:


> Get a job, ya stinkin' hippie!



Try directing that statement to these 5,000 phds that are janitors:

h t t p://gizmodo.com/5671062/there-are-5000-janitors-in-the-us-with-phds


----------



## Zander (Aug 6, 2011)

Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it. You're a glue sniffing hippie.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 6, 2011)

Zander said:


> Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.



Yet the neuroscientist Sam Harris doesn't think so. Youtube search "Sam Harris Freewill."



> Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it.



Never? What's wrong with people being entitled to a job? Don't you want people to work?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2011)

Zander said:


> Get a job, ya stinkin' hippie!



Get some brains, ya stinkin' NeoCon!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2011)

Zander said:


> Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it. You're a glue sniffing hippie.



I see. Well, here is hoping that you are diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow. Then you can check out what you did that caused that.

Seriously, that is a insane of a statement as those made by the 'we are all victims of fate' crowd.

Many things in life happen without any input from the person they happen too. If one survives them, you can determine how you react, but there is no way that we are responsible for everything that happens to us.


----------



## Zander (Aug 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it. You're a glue sniffing hippie.
> ...


You're just an old burned out loser who made poor choices and now wants a free handout from everyone else.  People like you are the problem in this country.  You pretend to be compassionate and caring - yet here you hoping that I get terminal cancer.   You're an uneducated hypocrite. 

Here's the deal Old Rocks in the head - You are responsible for everything in your life- even the bad shit that you think you have no control over. If you get cancer you are responsible. There is a  difference between blame and responsibility, if you are too thickheaded to grasp it, that's your own problem.  The sooner the simpletons like you realize that government is not your mommy, the better their lives will be.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> 
> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> 
> ...




From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"

When the President rushed through Obamacare, he promised it would reduce the deficit, citing CBOs scoring! Of course, he never revealed, as was done in the 2010 Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees and the 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, *that Obamacare policies will cut payments for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers by $15 trillion.*


So...you think any of the above will continue to stick around?


----------



## Zander (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.
> ...



Listen up moron! You have no RIGHT to a job, a house, health care, social security,  or anything else that you're begging society for.  You have the "right" of equality of opportunity.  That's it. The rest is up to you. The sooner you understand that concept the better off you'll be. 

If you want a place to live, you'd better find a way to pay for it. Same goes for food, clothing, health care, and everything else in this world. There is no free lunch and there never will be.  Sure, you can find a way to eek out a miserable existence living on friends sofa's and counting on the kindness of strangers. That's a choice.  Maybe you enjoy being a loser, a parasite, a filthy pig? Perhaps living under a park bench sounds appealing to you?  If that is what you seek, you will surely find it! 

Just remember, society doesn't owe you squat pal. You are responsible for your own life. There will never be a 2nd bill of rights.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it. You're a glue sniffing hippie.
> ...



You are one sick freak, hoping that someone gets diagnosed with terminal cancer.... that is just not the thought process of a normal human being.


----------



## Zander (Aug 7, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


He's anything but normal....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> 
> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> 
> ...



Have you read Why Obamacare Is Wrong For America, by Turner, Capretta, Miller and Moffit?

No?

How about the following:

1.Obamacare will collect *more than $500 billion in new taxes *and take $575 billion from Medicare over the next ten years. 

a. Two new entitlements, plus a big Medicaid expansion, are created to reduce the number of uninsured, *at a cost of at least $2.3 trillion*- thats TRILLION- over the first ten years of full implementation.

2. With each passing year *new taxes will be imposed*. As disclosed on the attached chart from the
California Hospital Association:

 2011: A 2.5% excise tax is imposed on pharmaceuticals. (This is part of the plan to pay for the
reform law.) This cost  which will be in the billions of dollars - will be passed on to health care
providers, primarily hospitals, who already operate with very thin margins, and will be under
great financial pressure to raise their rates to pay for it, with resulting price pressure on health
insurance premiums.
 2012: That excise tax increases to 3%.
 2013: A separate 2.9% excise tax on medical devices will begin. The same pass-through will take
place, creating the same pressures on providers and on insurance premiums.
 2014: An $8 billion fee on health insurance premiums kicks in. Obviously consumers will bear
this tax and their premiums will rise.
Because of all these costs, Obamacare is generally unsustainable. Here is one study that addresses that
issue:
Obamacare: The Real Price Tag is a Moving Target

3.	As is usual for liberal-progressives, *the element of coercion is an intrinsic *twin to their intentions, and it remains so in Obamacare. Beginning in 2014, everyone will face a penalty if they dont purchase a health policy that meets the governments definition of a minimum essential level of health coverage. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, Section 1501.

a.	It will be enforced by the IRS. Obamacare authorizes the hiring of 16,500 additional agents. the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the reconciliation bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ... 16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare | J.P. Freire | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

So, if you intend to remain a suppoorter of Obamacare, be sure to remain ignorant of its implications.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.



That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.

It wouldn't have instituted reforms to payment and service delivery in Medicare that are needed to put the program on a more sustainable long-term footing, nor would it have provided additional resources and authority to strengthen program integrity in public programs to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. It wouldn't have addressed workforce issues to start rectifying ongoing physician shortages.

The bill you're describing wouldn't have addressed health care itself--i.e. improving quality and tackling costs to move the system toward sustainability--and it would've left a significant chunk of the coverage picture unaddressed. The ACA _did_ touch all of those areas, which is why it's not a one-sentence law.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

Zander said:


> Listen up moron!



Listen up beyond moron!



> You have no RIGHT to a job, a house, health care, social security,  or anything else that you're begging society for.  You have the "right" of equality of opportunity.



How is this possible if there isn't a "right" of equality of opportunity when the number of people applying for jobs does not equal to the job positions available?



> That's it. The rest is up to you. The sooner you understand that concept the better off you'll be. If you want a place to live, you'd better find a way to pay for it. Same goes for food, clothing, health care, and everything else in this world. There is no free lunch and there never will be. Sure, you can find a way to eek out a miserable existence living on friends sofa's and counting on the kindness of strangers. That's a choice.  Maybe you enjoy being a loser, a parasite, a filthy pig? Perhaps living under a park bench sounds appealing to you?  If that is what you seek, you will surely find it!
> 
> Just remember, society doesn't owe you squat pal. You are responsible for your own life. There will never be a 2nd bill of rights.



Who knows. Maybe there will. I am certainly no psychic.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"
> 
> When the President rushed through Obamacare, he promised it would reduce the deficit, citing CBOs scoring! Of course, he never revealed, as was done in the 2010 Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees and the 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, *that Obamacare policies will cut payments for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers by $15 trillion.*
> 
> ...



Yes, the government will have no choice but to take care of its people. If they don't, there would be mass riots and crime. People will do what they have to do to survive. 

Also there's a great book by Damon Vickers called "The Day After the Dollar Crashes"

Perhaps only a collapse is necessary for a brand new global economic and social system to occur. This is predicted from numerous people both on the Right and on the Left and all others from Ron Paul, Gerald Celente, Marc Faber, Zeitgeist experts, Peter Schiff, etc.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Yeah, I have to agree. Regardless of our position in politics, we should never hope someone gets diagnosed with terminal cancer. In Love and Light.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> ...



Okay, I will.

More lives will be saved for the uninsured at the expense of those with lots of money.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.
> 
> It wouldn't have instituted reforms to payment and service delivery in Medicare that are needed to put the program on a more sustainable long-term footing, nor would it have provided additional resources and authority to strengthen program integrity in public programs to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. It wouldn't have addressed workforce issues to start rectifying ongoing physician shortages.
> 
> The bill you're describing wouldn't have addressed health care itself--i.e. improving quality and tackling costs to move the system toward sustainability--and it would've left a significant chunk of the coverage picture unaddressed. The ACA _did_ touch all of those areas, which is why it's not a one-sentence law.



Yes, I can see where you are coming from but that is what is frustrating about life in that everything has to be so complicated. Okay then, why can't there be universal health care with high quality for everyone then?


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 7, 2011)

Did the OP intentionally omit reasoning behind his claims or was he simply forgetful?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



Of course, your current post is almost as facetious as the original. But Im proud of you! Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!

1. As you have stated, I expect that you will be true to your word, and remain ignorant.

2. There is no basis on which "More lives will be saved..." as Obamacare neither increases the numbers of healthcare providers, nor can it accomplish its missions by rationing that care which is now available.

As usual from an Obamacare supporter, observations sans supporting evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"
> ...



Yes, indeed...so this is one of those threads.

One must, in a certain percent of the cases, find that what seems to be a serious, interesting topic has been parroted and posted by Bongo the Chimp.

One of those 'Gee, I wish we could.....whatever a three-year-old desires" or "can't we all just get along" theads....

Here we are again.

Absolutely the same level of understanding of healthcare, economics or human nature: zero.

I mention a text that deal with the healthcare debate, and Bongo comes back with Damon Vickers'  "The Day After the Dollar Crashes".....Buddhism and the usual Left-wing warmist propaganda.

I can almost believe that you invented stupidity, Bongo- rather than just perfected it.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Of course, your current post is almost as facetious as the original. But Im proud of you!



Thank you very much. I most humbly accept you being proud of me.



> Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!



You got that right! 



> 1. As you have stated, I expect that you will be true to your word, and remain ignorant.
> 
> 2. There is no basis on which "More lives will be saved..." as Obamacare neither increases the numbers of healthcare providers, nor can it accomplish its missions by rationing that care which is now available.



It's called common sense in which you seem to lack. Think about it. A person is uninsured and can't get medical treatment. Now that he/she is insured, he/she can be more healthy. Duh, no brainer.



> As usual from an Obamacare supporter, observations sans supporting evidence.



Evidence can always be distorted whether it be from the Right or from the Left. It's called propaganda.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Yes, indeed...so this is one of those threads.
> 
> One must, in a certain percent of the cases, find that what seems to be a serious, interesting topic has been parroted and posted by Bongo the Chimp.
> 
> ...



Well I suppose then that you are God and know everything. Right.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

Obama's healthcare plan is the same plan the Republicans introduced in the early 1990's.

Now the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that they are against their own plan!

Personally I would prefer a system like the French have that is a combination of public and private insurance. Their plan is more fair and cheaper than ours.

You can read about it at this link....

The French Lesson In Health Care


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> Obama's healthcare plan is the same plan the Republicans introduced in the early 1990's.
> 
> Now the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that they are against their own plan!
> 
> ...



Gotta love the documentary "Sicko" by Michael Moore!


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's healthcare plan is the same plan the Republicans introduced in the early 1990's.
> ...



I haven't seen it.

But what the French do is a combination of conservative and liberal ideas.

And it works.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes, if only we can get that kind of cooperation here in the USA.....

You should definitely see the documentary, it is a good one to watch.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, your current post is almost as facetious as the original. But Im proud of you!
> ...



Bongo, it has become painfully evident that you have no problem having strong opinions based on zero knowledge, and questionable verisimilitude.

Example: "A person is uninsured and can't get medical treatment..."

Let's remember that we are discussing Obamacare...your choice...and that implies the United States: there has always been 'medical treatment' for every single person in the nation, legal or illegal, citizen or visitor.

Certainly even one with your level of skills has heard about ER's and hospitals, which, by law treat all comers.


Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So no one needs to buy insurance since they can just go to the emergency room.

Right?


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bongo, it has become painfully evident that you have no problem having strong opinions based on zero knowledge,



By logic, it is impossible to have zero knowledge.



> and questionable verisimilitude.
> 
> Example: "A person is uninsured and can't get medical treatment..."
> 
> ...



Of course, nobody would be stupid like you to have to point out the obvious. You lack the intelligence to comprehend that I was talking about cost hence, "affordable care act." Look up the word "affordable" in the online dictionary, I'm sure that will be of great help for you.



> Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


Stop drinking the fluoride. It makes you dull.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



What happens (I know someone who is uninsured) is that they make you sign a paper saying you are responsible for the cost. A lot of people end up going into medical debt very easily. If you don't pay, it goes to collections and I'm sure the rest is self-explanatory.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes, it does. And they have an impressive system..... which is bankrupting ordinary working people in France. I have seen their system, up close and personal. And, in fact, if Obama had come up with something similar, I'd have been very open to being persuaded to support it, despite the costs.... which are huge.... but possibly worth the investment to provide a decent system. 

But please don't pretend the French have some perfect system.... it isn't. 

Oh, and I think it was actually me who suggested the French system was one we should consider - long before you did.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



I can understand why you'd want to change the subject....I suppose I might, as well, if my position were as jejune as yours...

1. Your doppelganger was wringing his little hands, claiming that those without medical insurance had no healthcare.
I disabused him of his erroneous misapprehension.
I understand that, due to his ....limitations....he will continue to advance the mistake, but am I to conclude that you, also, lack this understanding?

No? Good for you!

2. "So no one needs to buy insurance..."
These are your words, not mine.
But, in truth, until Obamacare kicks in, the words are true.

No one needs to buy medical insurance, based on the good old American view of freedom.
True?
Good.

3. Now, if you would like to ask the question this way: 'Should one have medical insurance?'
The response is based on the following constellation of factors.
a) one's age, medical condition, personal attitude about risk.
b) one's financial situation- at least until 2014, when incomes up to $88,000 will be subsidised.
c) none of your business.....at least until 2014.

Clear?

Next time, try to be more precise.


----------



## old navy (Aug 9, 2011)

The PPACA was a bad piece of legislation that has has already had detrimental effects, and has not even been fully implemented. Health care costs have risen, physicians have started refusing Medicare patients, and corporations are dropping people from coverage. The health care delivered in this country is the best in the world. Hopefully it and the rest of the country will not be destroyed before January of 2013.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2011)

old navy said:


> The health care delivered in this country is the best in the world.



Funny how you can always find evidence for the opposite (just about everything besides politics):

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/


----------



## old navy (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > The health care delivered in this country is the best in the world.
> ...



I'm talking about the actual care. The quality of facilities, physicians, equipment and so on. Ranking U.S. health care with other countries is akin to comparing the U.S. education system. For example, not all people have access to Mayo, Hopkins, or the Cleveland Clinic, but the local health department is available or the ER or Doc in the Box. That of course raises equality red flags and causes a downgrage in quality of care measurements. In education, our numbers include tests taken by students that can hardly speak English and some who cannot. Yet, every year some very bright kids can't get into middle tier schools, let alone the top schools, due to the high number of well qualified applicants. So our schools are actually doing a lot better job than they (we) are getting credit for.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2011)

old navy said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > old navy said:
> ...



Maybe for emergencies:

The U.S. has the best health care system in the world


----------



## old navy (Aug 9, 2011)

Your link goes along with what I am saying. The level of poverty and poor choices people make contribute to the lower numbers the the US health care system has. The elements of the system are the best in the world though.

Also, the literature does not show that preventative programs help bring down the cost of health care or improve the numbers in the "best" in the world competition. That is due to the above mentioned poor choices, poverty, generational obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2011)

old navy said:


> Your link goes along with what I am saying. The level of poverty and poor choices people make contribute to the lower numbers the the US health care system has. The elements of the system are the best in the world though.
> 
> Also, the literature does not show that preventative programs help bring down the cost of health care or improve the numbers in the "best" in the world competition. That is due to the above mentioned poor choices, poverty, generational obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc.



And that is why everyone deserves access to the best care possible.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2011)

Can't wait to see when rich folks start having the same probability of dying as a poor person. Whahahahaha!


----------



## old navy (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> And that is why everyone deserves access to the best care possible.



I have no problem with that.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 9, 2011)

old navy said:


> The PPACA was a bad piece of legislation that has has already had detrimental effects, and has not even been fully implemented. Health care costs have risen, physicians have started refusing Medicare patients, and corporations are dropping people from coverage. The health care delivered in this country is the best in the world. Hopefully it and the rest of the country will not be destroyed before January of 2013.





To add to the obvious, PPACA is front-loaded. Meaning that those who already purchase their own health care insurance, either on their own or through their employer (for all those that still have a job and if the employer is still able to offer it), will have tax increases on TOP of what they already pay.

This is not about health care, it is about health insurance.

Several things are needed in order for health insurance to reform on it's on.
1) Allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines. Competition is GOOD!
2) TORT reform. Lower malpractice equals unnecessary testing so Docs aren't always trying to CYA. Less testing equals lower costs.

A possible third option is for health insurance to revert BACK to what it was intended for to begin with, CATASTROPHIC injuries, and insurance companies were non-profit! Not to bring Jr to the ER because Jr has the sniffles, aka a cold, unless adults want to pay for the bill, in full, out of pocket. 

A few examples:

Offering Medical Service, No Insurance Allowed - Connecticut Insurance

Doctors Who Don
This one also talks about concierge docs, who charge a flat fee of $1,800 a year! That fee includes routine tests etc. Basic stuff. 
When was the last time anyone paid $1,800 a year for health insurance?

Of course there are critics. Who cares? Are the critics thinking outside the box? NO!


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 9, 2011)

If Obama care is so great why is Congress exempt from it and why does the Govt give out so many waivers to so many groups of people?

Annual Limits Policy: Protecting Consumers, Maintaining Options, and Building a Bridge to 2014 | cciio.cms.gov


----------



## Chris (Aug 9, 2011)

The French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

The French Lesson In Health Care


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 9, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> If Obama care is so great why is Congress exempt from it



Congress isn't exempt. See Section 1312.

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
                    (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).​


> and why does the Govt give out so many waivers to so many groups of people?



Because many mini-med plans can't accommodate the annual limit requirements. Thus the wait for the exchanges to be operational.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 9, 2011)

Links please!

Including definitions.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 9, 2011)

Pub. L. 111-148

CCIIO: Annual Limits


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> 
> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> 
> ...



That was tried in Europe.  It is currently failing.  If this country had stuck with the original Bill of Rights (and not tried to twist it to give the gov't more rights), our country would have continued to be the most prosperous in the world.  If Roosevelt's is put in place, say goodbye to the country, and hello to "tribal" law.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Get a job, ya stinkin' hippie!
> ...



Doesn't that pretty much demonstrate what a "liberal" education is worth?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.
> ...



"Entitled" implies they will not work, jut expect a paycheck.  That is not how society improves.  That is how society collapses, read history.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> ...



The one that was put in place will not take the medical system toward "sustainability" (or the country either, for that matter).  It is designed to destroy the middle class and divide the nation into the ruling elite, and the peasants.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"
> ...



Were you at a state fair last Thursday?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



Those that worked really, really hard for "lots" of money will just stop working, because they have lots of money.  That will leave no one to care for those that need medical attention.  You cannot "order" people to spend their time "giving" medical treatment, and expect "quality" care.  That would be slavery.  BTW, doctors and nurses know how to take lives as well as save them.  If the gov't does think it is going to institute slavery of the medical professions, the political class, and their mobs may find their numbers reduce drastically, after medical care.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 9, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



Cool, thanks, Rush.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.
> ...



It isn't "complicated".  It is hard.  You work hard to find a job.  You work hard to keep a job.  You work hard to find a mate/house/happiness.  Then you work hard to keep it.  See, it is really, simple, not complicated.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I believe the survivor rates for major illnesses are still better under the current system in the USA.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > Your link goes along with what I am saying. The level of poverty and poor choices people make contribute to the lower numbers the the US health care system has. The elements of the system are the best in the world though.
> ...



Who is going to "give" you the best care possible?  If some one donates to goodwill, do they give their best things, or do they give things that they have replaced with nicer things?
You are talking "service".  Do you go out and "give" people service because they "deserve" it?  How much "service" would you "give"?  Do people buy top of the line vehicles and "give" them away?  Do you expect the medical professionals that buy top of the line medical equipment (that means they have to pay for it) to "give" free passes for use of that equipment?

If you do, you really are an idiot.
Forcing people to "give" results in lower standards and poor quality.
It makes more bureaucrats, which leaves less money for the service.  Repeat.

The people that have decades of experience in medical care will retire/leave the medical profession before they agree to be treated like slaves by the "entitled" class.  That will leave the people that are stuck with student loans, and average to poor performers.  Do you really think you will be getting the best medical care possible?

The bureaucrats will decide if and when to buy new medical equipment.  If it works like the rest of the government purchasing, they will buy it, it will sit in storage until the warranty runs out, at which time they will finally have the funds to install it.  Five, ten years can go by, if you needed it ten years ago, chances are, you don't need it any longer.

Are you seeing the picture yet, or will you have to live it, to understand how moronic it is to came your rights must be provided by other people.  The guys that were alive over two hundred years ago understood, maybe you are evolution in reverse?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 9, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Can't wait to see when rich folks start having the same probability of dying as a poor person. Whahahahaha!



The most honest thing you have said.  You really aren't concerned about raising standards.  You are envious and want to see others suffer.  What a tiny, little, pathetic person you are.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 10, 2011)

My apologies, I have sociopathic tendencies in which I have no control over derived from environmental conditioning.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 10, 2011)

serenesam said:


> My apologies, I have sociopathic tendencies in which I have no control over derived from environmental conditioning.



It is obvious, you take no responsibility for the person that you would like to be.  No one can do it for you.  You must do it on your own.


----------



## handana (Sep 1, 2011)

And if a few&#65279; thousand people suffer and die while the all powerful "invisible hand" works its marketplace magic, well, tough titty, is that about right? Monstrous.

People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.

It's only the financially stable US citizens that do not want health care to go this route because they are afraid that the guy that was born into poverty may get the same treatment at a health care facility that they will... they feel they earned to be taken&#65279; care of first. *Pure Greed.*

As soon as the US gets over the difference between 'socialism' and 'communism' they can start the healing.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.
> ...



In your job, as an employee of whomever you work for, you are compensated because the company you work for values the skill you provide them. Compensation goes both ways. It's an exchange. You are provided money for skills your employer finds value in. The employer is provided productivity for money. So how exactly can you require just anyone to find value in the skills you may (or may not) have? Thanks, you just convinced me that FDR is in fact the worst President in U.S. history.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

handana said:


> And if a few&#65279; thousand people suffer and die while the all powerful "invisible hand" works its marketplace magic, well, tough titty, is that about right? Monstrous.
> 
> People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.
> 
> ...



And *Pure entitlement* is all you are. You believe people are somehow owed things from other people simply for taking up space. I am not afraid of a homeless person gettng the same care I do. The fundamental problem with you libs as that you have no personal accountability. You insist that everyone who has a certain condition (poor for example) be treated the same way and given things by the government and totally disregard how people got to that point in the first place. When will you morons get that you aren't really helping people by doing for them what they are capable of doing for themselves?


----------



## serenesam (Sep 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Which equals more people will not have a job. 

So much for the "lazy variable"

Yet a lot conservatives seem to lack understanding that correlation does not equal causation, a very BASIC principle by the way: 
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 1, 2011)

handana said:


> And if a few&#65279; thousand people suffer and die while the all powerful "invisible hand" works its marketplace magic, well, tough titty, is that about right? Monstrous.
> 
> People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.
> 
> ...



Why exactly is it "greed" for someone who has "earned" money to use that money to get the best medical treatment they can afford?  You've lost me there.

What you're saying in essence is that even though one person may have put in years of 80 hour weeks to become successful, that they are being "greedy" if they use the fruits of all that labor to get better health care treatment then someone who has done the bare minimum work wise.  

The term "fair" gets bandied around quite often on this board...usually as a reason for why one group of people thinks they should be able to take something that belongs to someone else. I think you're trying to be "fair" here as well.


----------



## handana (Sep 1, 2011)

Hey let's privatize firefighting, police force, libraries and highways too. Only people who can afford it should be able to have access to these things anything else is just socialism.  Maybe the rich could buy up all of the land and then allow the poor people to live on it, and charge them 90% of their earnings to live there. We could call&#65279; the rich people Lords, the poor surfs.... 

Socialising your medical care does not mean you're socialising the&#65279; country, your police is free, your libraries are free, your post is free ..... why not health care? Your economics can be run using the profit motive but your health is not something to risk being priced out of.

In the US, it's the insurance companies that are dictating health care treatment but there should be no profit motive in regards to healthcare. 

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception. I believe that the US would benefit from a government run health care and also a privatised health care system like in England. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers. 

There's a reason why the US has such a high infant mortality rate and low life expectancy despite it being one of the most powerful and developed nations in the world. Do you not agree that there needs to be _some_ sort of change to their health care system? 

I just don't think it's right, letting the poor and even the middle-class workers struggle to get treatment for their health especially if you don't know their circumstances.




Oldstyle said:


> What you're saying in essence is that even though one person may have put in years of 80 hour weeks to become successful, that they are being "greedy" if they use the fruits of all that labor to get better health care treatment then someone who has done the bare minimum work wise.



Of course that isn't right. In every system, there are peope who abuse it. 

But I find it just as wrong that there are rich, spoiled lazy heiresses who live off their billionaire grandpa's money who are able to afford basic health care, versus a single hard-working mother working 3 jobs to support her and her sick kids.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

handana said:


> Hey let's privatize firefighting, police force, libraries and highways too. Only people who can afford it should be able to have access to these things anything else is just socialism.  Maybe the rich could buy up all of the land and then allow the poor people to live on it, and charge them 90% of their earnings to live there. We could call&#65279; the rich people Lords, the poor surfs....
> 
> Socialising your medical care does not mean you're socialising the&#65279; country, your police is free, your libraries are free, your post is free ..... why not health care? Your economics can be run using the profit motive but your health is not something to risk being priced out of.
> 
> ...



Actually those things aren't free. You pay for them through your taxes. Well I gues their free to the nealry 50% of the population that have no income tax liability, but never mind that. When you start asking these free loaders to start paying their fair share, then you can get on the moral high horse.


----------



## NGSamson (Sep 1, 2011)

serenesam said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.
> ...



Only those that are worth it.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

handana said:


> And if a few&#65279; thousand people suffer and die while the all powerful "invisible hand" works its marketplace magic, well, tough titty, is that about right? Monstrous.
> 
> People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.
> 
> ...



Who is going to take care of anyone, once capitalism is out of the system?


The capitalist will move to professions that pay better.  What you will have left is people that are slaves to the gov't, that will take out their anger and frustration on their ..... patients.

The financially stable people are dying.  They are the ones that give doctors money to do research and then, offer themselves as guinea pigs for new medical techniques.  When they can no longer take care of themselves, they employ people to take care of them: nurses, doctors, cooks, drivers, assistants, etc.  Those employees have families and those wealthy provide jobs.  Some of them pay enough that the facilities can be generous to those that are not wealthy.  The doctors that learn new techniques, use them on others to improve the length and quality of life.

Compare that to places where the gov't runs health care: 
people starve to death in the hospital
people die of thirst in the hospital
people have to have their families bring them food
people aren't cleaned by the hospital staff on a regular basis
the hospital is not cleaned on a regular basis
people have to wait months for joint replacement
people have to wait months for cancer treatment

Conservatives do not want "unfettered, unregulated, capitalism".  They want each person to be personally responsible for their own actions. When people (Christian-like) have enought to provide for  their families, they are generous; love your neighbor as yourself.  It is the liberals/progressives/communists/socialist/islamists that want to halt individualism, and worship at the alter of the gov't: legion.  

Forcing someone to clean up after the mess you made in your life is not a right; it is oppression.


----------



## serenesam (Sep 1, 2011)

NGSamson said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Keep digging yourself a hole.


----------



## handana (Sep 27, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Conservatives do not want "unfettered, unregulated, capitalism".  They want each person to be personally responsible for their own actions. When people (Christian-like) have enought to provide for  their families, they are generous; love your neighbor as yourself.  It is the liberals/progressives/communists/socialist/islamists that want to halt individualism, and worship at the alter of the gov't: legion.
> 
> Forcing someone to clean up after the mess you made in your life is not a right; it is oppression.



Please remember that there exists people who ARE hard-working but can't afford health care.... 

You seem to think that everyone in the world has absolute control over every circumstance in his or her life and thats just not true. For example: You were born with a pre-exisiting condition that prevents your insurance company from covering your expensive medical bills. Or youre in college and you graduate and there are no jobs? Or there are jobs, but every one you apply for has a hundred other applicants? Its happening all over the country. Will you then have a little sympathy for people who cant find anything better and struggle to make do with what they can get? 

(In my experience if you cant muster some sympathy for other peoples crappy circumstances, youre not going to make a very good human being. Just saying). 

My opinion of the whole situation is individual greed. I dont believe in a communistic society but I do believe people should have a moral obligation in knowing when enough is enough.


----------



## Chris (Sep 27, 2011)

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance. 

Why? Because it's the right thing to do. 

The richest country in the world should be able to take care of the old and the sick.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 27, 2011)

Chris said:


> Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance.
> 
> Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> ...


If everyone else in the world reinstated slavery, would you support it? Also, you make the assumption that the old and sick can be bettet taken care of by a government. I would argue a free market system would be best for everyone. Currently the US system is corporatist. Obamacare makes it more corporatist. It exaccerbates the problems.

I am not a conservative, but arguing against government care is not selfish. In my view, government care will do less to help the sick and old than free market care would.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 27, 2011)

handana said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives do not want "unfettered, unregulated, capitalism".  They want each person to be personally responsible for their own actions. When people (Christian-like) have enought to provide for  their families, they are generous; love your neighbor as yourself.  It is the liberals/progressives/communists/socialist/islamists that want to halt individualism, and worship at the alter of the gov't: legion.
> ...


Nobody is assuming people have absolute control. And being against government run healthcare does not mean you have no sympathy. If people are in dire need of healthcare, if I had the money I would donate it to charity. In the past, doctors provided cheaper care to poor patients because they felt it was right. Private individuals subsidized the poor on their own accord. Now they do not, because government has taken over the role of doing so. In the process, resources are wasted, quality of care declines, debt soars, people have less of their own money to keep, and society no longer feels obligated to do their part in helping the disadvantaged--they have some faceless bureaucrat handle it for them. I don't see that as morally right at all.

People assume for some reason that unless government provides for the less fortunate, the less fortunate will die on the streets or something along those lines. That is simply not a logical or historically accurate assumption. Private charities would be far better at helping those in need because they would have limited budgets. They would have to be efficient. Government can just say "we need to tax the rich more" which will only drain wealth from the economy.

Also, a note on why the poor cannot afford insurance: a) rising prices of everything in the general economy, and b) greater rising prices of health insurance plans.  The first is caused by the creation of money by the Federal Reserve system which essentially distributes wealth from the poor and working classes to the rich business and political elites (that is where inequality comes from folks). The second is caused by government mandates on insurance companies, the disconnect between individuals and insurance companies (because of employer-provided insurance) and other government interventions and regulations that make a lower price impossible.

If the problem is that healthcare is too expensive, that can be fixed with less government. If there is still the worry after that problem about providing the poor with care, that can be fixed with more private charity. And if people have more money in their pockets, they will be more likely to give. That is historically what has happened. Its called civil society.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 27, 2011)

handana said:


> Hey let's privatize firefighting, police force, libraries and highways too. Only people who can afford it should be able to have access to these things anything else is just socialism.  Maybe the rich could buy up all of the land and then allow the poor people to live on it, and charge them 90% of their earnings to live there. We could call&#65279; the rich people Lords, the poor surfs....
> 
> Socialising your medical care does not mean you're socialising the&#65279; country, your police is free, your libraries are free, your post is free ..... why not health care? Your economics can be run using the profit motive but your health is not something to risk being priced out of.
> 
> ...



OK, so who gets to make the call on which heirs are "worthy" of their ancestor's fortunes?  I'm sorry, Handana but as much as I detest Paris Hilton...that money was left to her by someone that worked hard to amass it in the first place.  It's not "our" money to allocate as we please.  Rather than try to TAKE what belongs to the wealthy?  Why don't we increase the opportunities for those who aren't wealthy to become wealthy?  That's what made America great.  Income redistribution is a recipe for mediocrity.


----------



## ZiemanZnzoru (Oct 10, 2011)

you know that there are so  many  nations where this type of health facilities are not  available but  they are not blaming any rule .just stand support the things for good cause .


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 10, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Private charities would be far better at helping those in need because they would have limited budgets.



Need to let that one sink in.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 6, 2012)

Well, all we need is Obama re-elected and I think the conservative's fate is sealed at least until 2017.

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thank God for Obamacare!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Thank God for Obamacare!



Are you a socialist /communist too? Do you want socialism/communism in all our industries? Did you like the USSR??

Did you think Red China was stupid to switch to Republican capitalism? 

As a liberal you will lack the IQ to handle any of these questions.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for Obamacare!
> ...



What about Chief Justice Roberts who broke the tie?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2012)

serenesam said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



As a liberal you lacked the IQ to handle any of the questions so tried to change the subject to Roberts and hoped no one would notice. We all noticed!!


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Where's the connection between political affiliation and IQ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2012)

serenesam said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



once again As a liberal you will lack the IQ to handle any of these questions so will try to change the subject.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You call that changing the subject? Thanks for showing your IQ.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 9, 2012)

*This is when Willard endorsed his Massachusetts plan for the nation ... watch Lindsey Graham nodding his approval.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs]Mitt Romney supported Federal Mandate in 2009 MTP appearance - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## yankhadenuf (Aug 17, 2012)

serenesam said:


> I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> 
> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> 
> ...


 



Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a monumental first step towards FDR goal of Second Bill of Rights. Eventually America will catch up to the rest of the civilized Western democracies of the planet, (I keep telling myself).


----------



## logical4u (Aug 18, 2012)

yankhadenuf said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> ...



Meanwhile..... Medicare is eliminated (in all but name) for seniors, young people not covered by their parents cannot even afford the most basic coverage, and employers are looking for ways to shed employees, so they do not have to pay for unpredictable health care costs.  Vote Obama if you agree "his plan" is "working": more unemployment, more people living in poverty, more people on foodstamps, and no hope for the future.


----------



## serenesam (Aug 20, 2012)

Since somebody obviously wants to go off topic by referring to communism as if everything is linked to it including Obamacare I have this quote for EdwardB:

"And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits. It started out with a noble and high motive, viz., to block the trade monopolies of nobles, but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Since somebody obviously wants to go off topic by referring to communism as if everything is linked to itincluding Obamacare I have this quote for EdwardB:



I suppopse it might be coincidental that Barry had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, and openly wants single payer????? 




serenesam said:


> "And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits. It started out with a noble and high motive, viz., to block the trade monopolies of nobles, but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



Of course this is pure filthly liberal ignorance beyond words since there are no nobles today, let alone nobles with monopolies. Today we have millions of corporations all around the world locked in a life and death Republican capitalist competition to serve us with the best products at the lowest prices.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 20, 2012)

The goal of obamacare has nothing to do with care.  It has to do with what the SEIU wants.


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Well, all we need is Obama re-elected and I think the conservative's fate is sealed at least until 2017.
> 
> WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Thank God for Obamacare!



Negged for resurrecting this dumbass, commie, left coast bull shit.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 20, 2012)

serenesam said:


> I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
> 
> However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just *one* statement.
> 
> ...



Roosevelt was wrong. 
It's the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing that seems to trip liberals up. 
The founders knew exactly what they were doing in creating an atmosphere in which everyone had, in Obama's words, "a fair shot". 

They didn't get overly specific for a reason as YOUR idea of happiness may or may not be shared by others. We're all free to decide for ourselves what "happiness" is to us and we have the liberty to pursue it. Being handed a new stack and guitar each time something bigger and better comes out would make me very happy but there's no reason it should happen. If I want those things I simply embrace the freedom and liberty America offers me, combine that with some hard work and perhaps even a little sacrifice in other areas and there is nothing stopping me from getting them.

The founders never intended to use redistribution to provide "happiness" to some at the expense of others. 
A free Republic in which people are aware of what is available to them but also know that acquiring that which makes them happy requires effort and hard work produces a citizenry, nay a nation, in which we all benefit. Some appear to benefit more but that's not the case. They've simply made better decisions or been more fortunate in that chance made their pursuit more attainable. 

Are those who are born healthy only to later contract some horrible disease any more or less deserving of happiness than anyone else? Of course not. We simply play the hand we're dealt in a game in which there are always going to be winners and losers. 

Those who refuse to put in the effort should not starve in the streets but we should NEVER see instances in which federal entitlements are a better deal than hard work and actively pursuing that which makes us happy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Expand Medicaid eligibility



but what good is free health care if you don't have more important things like free food, clothing, and shelter??????

I say we embrace communism to support free food, clothing and shelter, and then free healthcare,....and then free psychotherapy!!


----------



## bob1234 (Aug 22, 2012)

There is no need for health care reform. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own health insurance and stop expecting hand outs from the government. Should the government go give every homeless man a deed to a new house? Should someone who has caused their health issues get the same treatment as someone who watches everything they put in their body? How about a heart transplant for someone who is healthy and for someone who is morbidly obsessed, who should get priority?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2012)

bob1234 said:


> stop expecting hand outs from the government.



this is true! The more who get handouts the fewer who  work, and the poorer and weaker our nation becomes.


----------



## serenesam (Nov 10, 2012)

Well, now that Obama got re-elected, all I have to say is this. WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> *This is when Willard endorsed his Massachusetts plan for the nation ... watch Lindsey Graham nodding his approval.*
> 
> Mitt Romney supported Federal Mandate in 2009 MTP appearance - YouTube



This health plan originated with Bob Dole. Rs loved it back then but although they passed it for themselves, they just never quite got around to passing it for the rest of us. Since it was passed by Obama, NOW they hate it.

People like katzen-liar and "EdwardBaiamonte" want to keep their FREE SOCIALIST health care. For some reason, they also want illegals to get the same free health care they get. And, hypocrites that rw's are, they want illegals to be able to deliver their kids for free. And/or abort them. 

Its the rw's who are against paying for their own health care insurance.

Tough. 

Its not going be repealed and smart Americans are taking advantage of its benefits. If rw's don't want to make it work in their favor, I really couldn't care less.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Well, now that Obama got re-elected, all I have to say is this. WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!



I happily second that!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2012)

Zander said:


> Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it. You're a glue sniffing hippie.



Nice to see the usual lazy bum rw saying people should take responsibility for their own health care insurance. 

Congrats cuz, in case you missed it, most rw's want to keep the FREE SOCIALIST health care "system" we currently have. You know, the same one that a pub put in place and that Romney said he planned to keep in place. 

See if you can the other rw's to agree to take responsibility for their own health care insurance instead of forcing Dems/libs to pay for dead beat rw's care. Thanks.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2012)

zander 





> ... You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it.  ...



As I'm sure you know, you are quite wrong about this. serenesam even gave you the link.

Edited to correct typo. Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 10, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> most rw's want to keep the FREE SOCIALIST health care "system" we currently have.




too stupid!! If they are right wingers they cant support socialism and still be right wingers!

To help you grasp the concept: if a right winger supports socialism he is no longer a right winger he is a socialist!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????????

Also, please note if socialism is good in helath care it should also be good in more important industries like food clothing and shelter.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > most rw's want to keep the FREE SOCIALIST health care "system" we currently have.
> ...



Two things:

One, you need to make up your mind. You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now and against paying for your own health care insurance.

You can't have it both ways. Which is it? 

Second, I will not respond to rw's who cherry pick what they want to respond to while ignoring the point I make in my post. IOW, if you lie, I ignore. Deal with it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 10, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now and against paying for your own health care insurance.




if i do that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a lying brain dead liberal.

What a surprise , luddy did not take the bet but instead ran away with her liberal tail between her legs.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> One, you need to make up your mind. You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now and against paying for your own health care insurance.



Maybe you need to add 'socialism' and 'responsibility' to your list of words to look up. The existing system is flawed, and definitely needs fixing, but it's not any more socialist that PPACA is.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 11, 2012)

dblack said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > One, you need to make up your mind. You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now and against paying for your own health care insurance.
> ...




yes, the liberals out of pure ignorance pretend the current system is pure capitalism and this proof that capitalism does not work!!


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 11, 2012)

serenesam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"
> ...



Holy shit, they said the government will have to take of of IT'S PEOPLE.
So now we are OWNED by the government huh?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now and against paying for your own health care insurance.
> ...



a) No, of course, I would not take a "bet" from some silly twit on line.
b) Not being on line does not mean anyone has "run away". 

All you have to do is read my MANY posts on this subject to know I have never run away from this discussion. YOU, however, do run away, just as dblack and other rw's do. You use really stupid tactics to run a way - like a fictional $10,000 bet when we both know that's way more than your parents give you to mow the lawn. 

Note to rw's: I'll be off line most of today. If you idiots believe that means I have "run away", that's fine.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Holy shit, they said the government will have to take of of IT'S PEOPLE.
> So now we are OWNED by the government huh?



I assume they don't think of it that way. But the language is revealing. I don't think they understand the power and control inherent in the kind of dependencies they want to maintain.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now



any evidence of this or just a strawman you have created out of shere desperation.

See why we are 100% a liberal will be slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

serenesam said:


> Yes, the government will have no choice but to take care of its people.



yes yes exactly !!!That's the whole reason people founded America: to be taken care of like children, not to be free of paternalistic Nazi- like liberal government!!


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

serenesam said:


> How is this possible if there isn't a "right" of equality of opportunity when the number of people applying for jobs does not equal to the job positions available?



Dear SereneSam: Jobs do not naturally exist, nor are they magically created out of nowhere. Jobs are created where entrepreneurs who develop a service or good can match this supply to a demand, and increase the productivity and revenue by building over time.

If you have no knowledge of job creation, then maybe it is wise to listen to people who do run businesses and create jobs. Maybe if the business leaders push for Romney's approach to business and govt, instead of Obama's declaration of taxing the rich for being wealthy, then that freedom to invest one's own capital into employees, company, and community is what we should be supporting, not punishing a person's ability to do so and forcing citizens to pay govt to do this work through a bankrupt bureaucracy.

Would you patronize a business that forced you to buy from them? Based on promises?
or would you take your money to a business that proves it provides reliable cost-effective services, and gives you a choice to take your money elsewhere if you are not satisfied?

The basic common sense of a business person also applies to govt. That is why people I know who work two jobs trying to support ourselves while fixing problems in the community that govt messed up and won't fix, prefer a model for govt where you have freedom to support the programs that work, and don't rely on any govt forcing you to depend on it.
Where is the accountability in that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

serenesam said:


> the number of people applying for jobs does not equal to the job positions available?



This is because liberal unions, liberal corporate taxes, liberal deficts, and liberal minimum wages have shipped about 30 million jobs off shore.

And, because, in an effort to get the immigrant vote, liberals have let 20 million illegals in to take 20 million jobs.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the government will have no choice but to take care of its people.
> ...



Dear Serenesam: The purpose of federal government is to provide for things like national security, and oversight over commerce or other institutions that cross state lines. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit govt and prevent infringement on states' and individuals' rights.

it is NOT the purpose of govt to act as a "church" or "charity" in taking responsiblity for social needs, except in extreme cases such as a natural disaster where security forces have to be sent in and assistance given to states to rebuild infrastructure etc.

In general, if the churches/charities/schools/businesses can be supported to serve local communities, there is direct accountability and more cost-effective services, checks and balances on the supply and demand, the intake and the spending.

As an overall trend, teh larger an institution is, the greater risk of losing accountability to the individual and risk of abuse of collective resources concentrated in the control of the few.

That is just sociology, how humans work. We have a better chance of redressing grievances and being accountable for our actions in smaller groups with direct relationships, than in bigger institutions with so many resources to manage and so many people to represent or serve that it has to be "broken down" into a hierarchy of levels, like big companies. So there is less direct relations/accountability from the very top to the very bottom, and things go awry. Happens with any group, any church or state institution, when it gets too big.

So SS, this is why you will see people arguing for limited govt.

It is NOT to deny help or services to people, but the opposite! It is to protect direct controls and responsibility on the LOCAL levels where people have better chance at representing their own interests and including their diversity, instead of a one-size-fits-all policy at the top that would leave out people at the bottom with different needs or approaches.

Govt should ideally be built from the bottom up, letting people take responsibility for the programs they put together to serve their communities, and basing govt on what works and what they consent to delegate to state authority and to federal after that. It should never be backwards where the govt mandates from the top down and people fight over power.
That is what we see happening today, so it is wasting resources not solving problems, when people could be investing resources directly into solutions and govern the process directly.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

Dear Luddly: The opponents of ACA that I know SUPPORT people CHOOSING whether to pay into this system or that one. Nobody I know is fined or penalized for NOT depending on Medicare or Medicaid. So it is NOT the same as ACA requiring people to buy insurance or else face penalties.

I agree people should pay for the system they choose to use.
And that is why so many people OPPOSE ACA, because it DOESN'T respect this choice of how to "take responsibility for their health care" but penalizes people if they don't choose the insurance mandates.

Are you sure you do not understand the difference, and why people are so against this?



luddly.neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Honey there is a third choice, of wanting freedom to use either the govt systems and pay for those, or using the ACA and paying for that, or using other ways and paying for that.

Most humans I know want this freedom, and only agree to legislation that MATCHES what they want to choose anyway. if it doesn't match they are more opposed than supportive.

If you enjoy the choice of wanting this ACA, why can't you see people equally want a choice?
What makes you think this is the only way to pay for health care, and anything else means you don't want to take responsibility? really? I take responsibility for paying other people's rent and bills all the time when they are in trouble, and wouldn't want that forced on me, but do so when I agree to it; and I am against this bill because it doesn't offer that choice and doesn't have accountability to the people paying for it. So that is why I say to be fair, let supporters like you pay for it, and not people who have seen no proof it works for them.

Luddly are you sure you are "taking responsibility" for paying for your own health care bill?
Or are you expecting other people to pay for it to make it work who disagree?
Where is the social responsibility in that?


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

What no one seems to be addressing regarding the polls getting something Soooo wrong, are those since 2009 that have consistently said that over 60% of the people do not support this healthcare plan. Obviously those polls were wrong. 

Obama and his healthcare legislation scored an overwhelming victory Tuesday, at least electorally.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > You post in favor of the SOCIALIST system we have in place now
> ...



There is plenty of evidence. Your own candidate said his "plan" for health care in the US was to keep the REPUBLICAN SOCIALIST system of free care in Emergency Rooms. That includes illegals giving birth to so-called "anchor babies" and to abortions. Other pubpots concurred. 

Indeed, I don't know of any pubpot who disagreed with Willard the Rat. Please post links if you disagree. 

And, was it you who said ObamaCare is "unConstitutional"? That's wrong, of course because the very definition of "constitutional" is what our SCOTUS says it is.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2012)

emilysomething 





> Are you sure you do not understand the difference, and why people are so against this?



Of course I understand both. But why does that matter to me?



> Luddly are you sure you are "taking responsibility" for paying for your own health care bill?
> Or are you expecting other people to pay for it to make it work who disagree?
> Where is the social responsibility in that?



What is it with rw's and those who say they are not rw's even though they talk like rw's?

I've paid for my own health care insurance as well as my employee's health care insurance for many years. 

The people who want to stay with the *FREE SOCIALIST * health care "system", put into place by a REPUBLICAN and endorsed by Romeny - THOSE are the HYPOCRITES  who don't want to pay their own way.

*Where is the social responsibility in that?*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> There is plenty of evidence. Your own candidate said his "plan" for health care




too stupid!! You said I was for socialism, now you say my candidate said!!

See why we are positiv a liberal will be slow and lack character???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Your own candidate said his "plan" for health care in the US was to keep the REPUBLICAN SOCIALIST system of free care in Emergency Rooms.



too stupid!! IF a politician says he wants to keep socialists elements of our current system it doesnt means I agree, or that conservatives agree or that libertarians agree or that the Tea Party agrees!!

Still over your head??????

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 12, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> And, was it you who said ObamaCare is "unConstitutional"? That's wrong, of course because the very definition of "constitutional" is what our SCOTUS says it is.



too stupid!!  They can say Liberalism is Constitutional but obviously conservatives would say that is impossible given that the Constitution was designed to preserve freedom from liberal government. 

This is all much too subtle for you to grasp. Sorry


----------



## serenesam (Jan 17, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear SereneSam: Jobs do not naturally exist, nor are they magically created out of nowhere. Jobs are created where entrepreneurs who develop a service or good can match this supply to a demand, and increase the productivity and revenue by building over time.



I thought I could get a job working for the government.



> If you have no knowledge of job creation, then maybe it is wise to listen to people who do run businesses and create jobs.



Government can definitely create jobs. It's called working for social services.



> The basic common sense of a business person also applies to govt. That is why people I know who work two jobs trying to support ourselves while fixing problems in the community that govt messed up and won't fix,



The problem with this is that not everyone can obtain two jobs. There are people who send out hundreds of resumes and could never get a job let alone two.


----------



## serenesam (Jan 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> serenesam said:
> 
> 
> > the number of people applying for jobs does not equal to the job positions available?
> ...



Well, the ultimate decision still rests on the businesspeople to do such a thing right? If business people really cared about the American people, they would NOT ship the jobs overseas right? Unless from a conspiracy theory viewpoint, they want to create a New World Order.......


----------



## dblack (Jan 17, 2013)

serenesam said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > serenesam said:
> ...



Which people are they supposed to be caring about most, their employees or their customers?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 18, 2013)

serenesam said:


> If business people really cared about the American people, they would NOT ship the jobs overseas right?
> 
> ...




too completely stupid and 100% liberal !!! If business people don't have the lowest prices they will go bankrupt and not have any jobs to do anything with!!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!


----------

