# So Republicans, let me get this straight



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
It was signed into law
it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
Even if they did, the President would veto

And yet, they still feel the need to punish America because they didn't get their way


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Actually, the punishment will be when obamacare goes into full swing. It's the punishment that the American Voter deserves for their stupidity. The GOP is trying, in vain I'm sure, to save their asses.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 21, 2013)

The House is the ONLY agency in our Government doing the will of the People.

What does that say to you?


----------



## zeke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...




Not only do they want to punish Americans, they don't even have the balls to stand up and say; yes America, we shut down the government for your own good.

No they can't do that. They are such pussies that they are now trying to say it would be the Democrats fault for shutting down the government.

Why can't Republican EVER accept responsibility for their actions? Even when they think their actions are for the good of the nation, they won't own it.

Whats wrong with Repubs?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2013)

Forty TeaP members of Congress represent maybe 10% of America.


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



The Repubs are trying to stop American from being punished by this banana republic legislation. Why is this president above the law in picking and choosing how and when the law he crafted and signed is implemented?.........


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

driveby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



How dare you call our Constitution a banana republic?

Obamacare was approved by all branches of government and is the law of the land


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

Seems that it's the other way around.
While many get exempted from the law all other Americans must pay for it.

There has been 1,040 organizations that has been waivered from the law.
Congress exempted themselves from it and Obama illegally changed the law to delay business for 1 year.
The President does not have Executive Power to change any law that has been passed.

Seems to me it's only fair for all Americans to have a 1 year delay also.
They don't even have the software up and running correctly.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> The House is the ONLY agency in our Government doing the will of the People.
> 
> What does that say to you?



It says you don't understand our form of government


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

zeke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



We are actually saving Americans, and the government won't shut down dumbass.



zeke said:


> No they can't do that. They are such pussies that they are now trying to say it would be the Democrats fault for shutting down the government.



Really? How thick headed are you? Do you ever have a thought of your own?




zeke said:


> Why can't Republican EVER accept responsibility for their actions? Even when they think their actions are for the good of the nation, they won't own it.



How ironic. This from a sheep who supports a president that can never accept responsibility for anything.

You are a good little sheep, I'll grant you that.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

driveby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Dumbass, no one is arguing that it's unconstitutional anymore, or that it isn't the law. Are you so simple-minded that you think that approval by the SCOTUS means it's a good thing and will do exactly as advertized? Nevermind, I already know the answer to that.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obamacare was approved by democrats using a legislative trick in the senate---reconciliation,   a method never used in history for something of this magnitude.

its terrible legislation passed in a corrupt way.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > The House is the ONLY agency in our Government doing the will of the People.
> ...



Maybe, but he's head and shoulders above your ignorant ass.


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The law was passed in banana republic type fashion and now democrats act like they believe in the constitution....  

Don't tell me it's the law of the land, tell Obama to accept it and stop manipulating it....


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



slavery and prohibition were also laws of the land--------bad laws that were repealed.   Obamacare is bad law that should be repealed or significantly changed.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Yeah, and no one was allowed to read it until it was passed. It's hard to understand how an act as heinous as that was allowed to stand. Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, or at least drummed out of office.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

zeke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Everything is funded except the New Health Care Law.
That is not shutting down the government.
Democrats in the Senate are the ones who want to shut down the Government. All because their precious Health Care Law won't be funded for 1 year.
Talk about cry babies.
The Dems are the ones who are not compromising.


----------



## Vox (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



obamacare was rammed through our throats and pushed us to swallow it and has been regurgitated ever since. it is toxic for our organism it should be either vomited out or passed down to the toilet as quickly as possible It can't stay - it's toxic.

Sorry for the graphic description


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...


Bullshit

Obamacare was legally and constitutionally enacted. To declare it banana republic is an insult to all Americans


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

The real reason that dem/libs continue to support obamacare.


anyone care to guess?


because it is the only thing that obama has done and if it is repealed or changed,  his terms will be a complete failure, he will have accomplished nothing.   dem/libs cannot live with a history that the first black president was a complete failure-----so they will continue to lie about his signature piece of legislation.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Vox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Obamacare was discussed for over a year and is still being enacted.  How does that constitute "ramming" through?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> The real reason that dem/libs continue to support obamacare.
> 
> 
> anyone care to guess?
> ...


Maybe it is because we have been fighting for 70 years for some type of universal healthcare


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



tar and feather her and make her walk across the golden gate bridge naked.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2013)

Democrats are tapdancing that ObamaCare might get pushed until after the midterms

GOP is once again, doing all it can to help Obama and the Dems destroy the USA


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Since most Americans are against Obamacare, it's more of an insult to banana republics.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason that dem/libs continue to support obamacare.
> ...





the country does not need it.   there was no healthcare crisis that mandated revising the entire economy of the country.   No one in the USA was denied medical care before obamacare,  NO ONE.   not even those here illegally.

yes, there were cost problems and some issues with insurance contracts,   but those could have been fixed without destroying the best medical system in the world.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Absolutely

Get the votes in Congress to repeal it........don't throw a tantrum and shut down government because you cant


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



That horse has left the barn. Obamacare is the law

Republicans don't lke it.....make it better

Don't hold the country hostage because you don't get your way


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Any Political Party that has a super majority like the Dems did and had no input by the minority (Repubs) and passed it with the Majority of Americans who did not want it, is called rammed down our throats.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Republican propaganda has done a good job of bad mouthing Obamacare

Yet when you ask Americans whether they support insuring those with pre existing conditions, children up to 26 on their parents policy, insurance pools to hold down costs...........they are in favor


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 21, 2013)

zeke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



the GOP has offered ways to make it better.   Obama has said "my way or the highway".   Obama and Reid are the ones who are willing to shut down the govt if they don't get their way.

But, obama can change the implementation of the law and grant waivers by presidential dictate-----which is violating the law that he signed.   are you OK with that?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bull shit and it has nothing to do with the topic. No one is saying that it isn't constitutional or the law, dumbass.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Republicans openly acknowledge that they cannot repeal Obamacare. 

Yet they insist on punishing America because they did not get their way


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Every time I think, "RW has said the stupidest thing ever", you one-up yourself.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



there are a few good things in ACA.   no maximum lifetime limits,  no ban for preexisting conditions.   Pooling of insurance.

keeping adults on parents policies until they are 26 is just fucking stupid.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Bullshit

Republicans refused to participate in Healthcare discussions. At the healthcare summit when Obama asked.......What can I do to this bill that would enable you to vote for it?  The universal response was......Tear it up and start over

Republicans killed healthcare under Clinton with a promise they would work to make it better. Once it was killed, they did what they could to prevent healthcare bills from passing


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Republicans openly acknowledge that they cannot repeal Obamacare.
> 
> Yet they insist on punishing America because they did not get their way



You can keep repeating the bull shit over and over, it still is wrong.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...


You forgot the irresponsible right  also blames this "punishment" on Obama, not their "own" decision to punish.

Other than that, your assessment is "dead nuts".


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You know this how? You saw it for yourself because the process was broadcast on CSPAN right? ....


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



No it's not

I put my son back on my insurance till he was 26 (thanks Obamacare) it filled a need where young workers who could not get entry level jobs that offered health insurance could get coverage


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



wrong,  the bill that was passed was written in a sealed room by dem staffers only.  no floor debate was allowed, no GOP amendments were allowed to come to a vote.  It was passed by dems only in the middle of the night on Christmas eve.   No one knew what they were voting for,  they were forced to vote before reading it.

terrible legislation passed in the most corrupt way.


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Here's Zo telling it like it is about Obamacare: 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gc_3PlnqLw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gc_3PlnqLw[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Seems that it's the other way around.
> While many get exempted from the law all other Americans must pay for it.
> 
> There has been 1,040 organizations that has been waivered from the law.
> ...



Links?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Then let's keep those parts and throw away the rest. I believe in compromise.


----------



## rdean (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



You mean like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Seems like every time Republicans vote against legislation and lose, it turns out good for the country.  And the legislation they do pass?  The deficit creating Bush tax cuts, the drugs for votes program and the unpaid for wars.  We need to keep Republicans out of politics.  I'm tired of the country suffering.


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yep, i retract my previous statement, it was actually worse than a banana republic.......


----------



## Camp (Sep 21, 2013)

Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Horseshit.    young people can get individual policies for very reasonable premiums,  less than $100/month for a basic policy.   The vast majority of people in that age group are healthy and don't need medical insurance except for accidents or serious illnesses. 

Another falacy is that the parents premiums do not go up when they put their kids on their policies----------of course they do.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



This....right...here.

The Dems think this is how legitimate legislation is passed and this kind of thing means it's a good law.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Republicans openly acknowledge that they cannot repeal Obamacare.
> 
> Yet they insist on punishing America because they did not get their way



How are they punishing America if most Americans agree with them? It's not about republicans not getting their way. It's about a majority of Americans not getting their way.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.



Obama won the election because of a biased media, and a voter base that refused to acknowledge that the first black president was a failure and a fraud.   It had nothing to do with obamacare.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2013)

Obamacare, from the same team that brought you: 57 states, asthma breathalyzer, bank ATM's are destroying the economy, not so shovel ready failed stimulus, first ever credit downgrade, raising the debt ceiling does not increase debt, and the longest period on unemployment since FDR's Depression


----------



## Intense (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



If it is so good for us, how come there are so many exemptions being given out, mainly to those that supported it? I get that you are blind to your own Hypocrisy, but have you no shame. 

Do you think Congress should make it a Law to sign all future legislation without reading it, discussing what is in it, or having no clue as to what they are imposing on us? Does that sound normal to you? You are okay with them exempting themselves, why exactly is that? Without the ability to print money on demand, these Clowns, could not keep a Kool-Aid Stand out of the Red, but, you are okay with that, as long as your camp can stay on the bridge, and blow the whistle, while steering us right into the rocks. I get that part.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Great!

why can't more republicans be like you?

Instead of passing 40 bills to repeal Obamacare with no promise of replacement, why don't Republicans pass 40 bills to make it better?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.



 Nothing got rammed down our throats? You must be referring to the big businesses, elites and other Obama supporters who got  waivers.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rdean said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Wake me when you have some new and original lies. I'm tired of those old lies.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Why were exemptions given?

Because those companies were already offering coverage that met the standards. They were not exempted from offering any coverage


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.



Jesus Christ you liberals are stupid.

Obamacare was rammed down our throats BEFORE it was Romney vs Obama.

Dumbass.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 You would have to talk to Harry Reid about that. He's the one who wont bring republican bills up to the floor, especially if those bills would pass with bipartisan support.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

I heard that Obamacare is so bad, Obama is calling it "Bidencare".


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.
> ...



 Don't leave out IRS targeting of political rivals.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 21, 2013)

Intense said:


> If it is so good for us, how come there are so many exemptions being given out, mainly to those that supported it? I get that you are blind to your own Hypocrisy, but have you no shame.


Maybe if I had feelings, shame would play a role; but since I don't, it doesn't. 




Intense said:


> Do you think Congress should make it a Law to sign all future legislation without reading it, discussing what is in it, or having no clue as to what they are imposing on us? Does that sound normal to you?


That's how we got the Patriot Act, but you don't see democrats shutting down the government to repeal that, do you?




Intense said:


> You are okay with them exempting themselves, why exactly is that? Without the ability to print money on demand, these Clowns, could not keep a Kool-Aid Stand out of the Red, but, you are okay with that, as long as your camp can stay on the bridge, and blow the whistle, while steering us right into the rocks. I get that part.


If we really wanted to cut unecessary spending, we'd end these bullshit wars and cut the pentagon budget in half.

That would pay for all our infrastructure projects and the ACA as well.


----------



## Camp (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.
> ...



The voters disagreed with your opinion that is was rammed down our throats. To claim it was rammed down the voters thoats indicates the majority of voters felt as though they were forced to accept Obama care against their will. The whole "rammed down our thoats" claim was nothing more than a talking point. Just because it gets repeated by folks like you does not make it a fact or a majority opinion. It still is nothing more than a talking point without a factual basis.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Nice dodge

Come on Republicans. Tell us all the GOP programs that have helped Americans


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



In 2008, voters overwhelmingly elected Obama with a healthcare platform
In 2012, he was overwhelmingly reelected after passing Obamacare

Seems like it was rammed down their throats alright


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I heard that Obamacare is so bad, Obama is calling it "Bidencare".



I hear America was so proud of the ACA that they rechristened it Obamacare


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



You stray from the truth there

When bills like the "Kill Obamacare jobs bill" come up, they are ignored


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems that it's the other way around.
> ...



1,040 organizations have been exempted.
Number of healthcare reform law waivers climbs above 1,000 - The Hill's Healthwatch

President Obama exempts businesses for 1 year.
Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed For One Year

Members, staff will keep health-care subsidies under Obamacare | The Daily Caller


----------



## whitehall (Sep 21, 2013)

Prohibition was passed and signed into law and apparently affirmed by the courts but the unintended consequence was that it ruined the brewing industry, put people out of work and set the stage for organized crime. The Supreme Court affirmed narrow issues of Obamacare but the freaking law is as long as a Stephen King novel and with as many twists and turns. If you look back during what can loosely be called a "debate" where republicans were literally locked out of the room the speaker of the house at the time didn't even read the freaking thing before ordering her lock-step democrats to vote for it. Amazingly she got away with saying "you will find out what's in it after it is passed".


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Prohibition was passed and signed into law and apparently affirmed by the courts but the unintended consequence was that it ruined the brewing industry, put people out of work and set the stage for organized crime. The Supreme Court affirmed narrow issues of Obamacare but the freaking law is as long as a Stephen King novel and with as many twists and turns. If you look back during what can loosely be called a "debate" where republicans were literally locked out of the room the speaker of the house at the time didn't even read the freaking thing before ordering her lock-step democrats to vote for it. Amazingly she got away with saying "you will find out what's in it after it is passed".



Republicans pretty much locked themselves out of the process when they made it clear they wanted no healthcare bill at all.


----------



## Leweman (Sep 21, 2013)

Even Dems admit this is a huge disaster.  We need some reform but this aint it.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Lame attempt to CYA over a truely ignorant post.

Obamacare was not an issue on the voter's minds in the 2012 election.

Dumbass.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Leweman said:


> Even Dems admit this is a huge disaster.  We need some reform but this aint it.



Even left wing hero Warren Buffet said that obamacare needed to be scrapped.

Democrats care more about winning than they do about the consequences of their policy failures.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Link?


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

Camp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



The Majority was forced to accept it against their will
55% of Americans did not want the New Health Care Bill when it was passed.

The Majority still don't want it.
CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed - CBS News

 A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.


According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The Republicans are listening to the people, the Dem's are not.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 21, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



See post # 70 for the links


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Funny, you right wing turds always argue against majority rule and democracy, until....


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Hey pea brain, did you READ the link you posted? Do you understand mini-meds?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I guess if you weren't so thick-headed, you would be a conservative.

A "form follows function" kind of thing I guess.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I wonder what bfgrn will say now since "Link?" is the extent of his debating skills?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Prohibition was passed and signed into law and apparently affirmed by the courts but the unintended consequence was that it ruined the brewing industry, put people out of work and set the stage for organized crime. The Supreme Court affirmed narrow issues of Obamacare but the freaking law is as long as a Stephen King novel and with as many twists and turns. If you look back during what can loosely be called a "debate" where republicans were literally locked out of the room the speaker of the house at the time didn't even read the freaking thing before ordering her lock-step democrats to vote for it. Amazingly she got away with saying "you will find out what's in it after it is passed".
> ...



So you admit that there really wasn't an offer from obama to compromise. First truth uttered by a lib in this entire thread.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Again, bipartisan approved bills killed by Harry Reid.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...


That's funny......you are good


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




There was at first, and there was even some input allowed in the Senate bill which eventually became the law, but it became apparent that much of what the MINORITY Repubs wanted wouldn't work with what the MAJORITY wanted, so they had a hissy fit and got sent to the kiddie table for the rest of the process.

Their hissy fit got them success in the next big election, but 2012 showed that it ain't 2010 anymore, so....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



"Delay" better describes the process, which is business friendly, an attitude the mainstream of Republicanism approves.

Congress and staff are not 'exempt', are not getting anything outside the provisions of the law.

Keeping our reactionaries in the GOP on track is like herding a bunch of stupid cats.


----------



## Rozman (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



The Democrat's sold this as a mandate then when the Supreme court didn't care for that so much Obama's people said OOOOooops Did we say mandate we mean tax.

They knew it would not gain traction with the people if it was sold as a tax so they told us it was a mandate.

Then to get it finalized they made behind closed door deals to win a few votes to get them over the top.

Now we have so many waivers issued, Obama has delayed part of his own bill that he loves so dearly for another year....

Why?

Because as is this bill blows whale dick.


And we all know it.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Yes, we all know it. Even the liberals here. They just don't care about consequences, all they care about is the win.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Explain mini-meds pea brain...

3,2,1...GO!


----------



## Vox (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



BULLSHIT.
it was rammed through the throats even dems - who opposed it - with blackmail by pelosi to cut funds for reelection. not even one republican voted for it. Americans strongly opposed and continue to oppose this POS legislation and the sooner it is flushed down the toilet of history - the better for America.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

91 posts and I'll bet Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight yet.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

We now have two democrats who voted to defund Obamacare. I suspect it will be more for those democrats who want to keep their jobs. I suspect that this is what the finagling is mostly about. Defeating democrats in red and purple states come next election cycle. Forcing individual democrats to put their names on Obamacare can only help the republican party gain seats. At least if the polls are any indication.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 21, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Prohibition was passed and signed into law and apparently affirmed by the courts but the unintended consequence was that it ruined the brewing industry, put people out of work and set the stage for organized crime. The Supreme Court affirmed narrow issues of Obamacare but the freaking law is as long as a Stephen King novel and with as many twists and turns. If you look back during what can loosely be called a "debate" where republicans were literally locked out of the room the speaker of the house at the time didn't even read the freaking thing before ordering her lock-step democrats to vote for it. Amazingly she got away with saying "you will find out what's in it after it is passed".
> ...



It doesn't work that way unless you assume that this is a monarchy or dictatorship. Republicans who were the minority party at the time,  were literally locked out of the debate by democrats who had no idea of what was in the 3,000 page monstrosity when they used bribery and coercion to get the thing to Hussein's desk.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 21, 2013)

Vox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You mean politicians used politics to get a controversial bill passed?

Wow....


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




I'm sure it looks that way to you, but....


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



BULLSHIT! 

CBS News/ July 22, 2009
*
GOP Senator Won't Retreat from "Waterloo" Comment*







Republican Sen. Jim DeMint refused to back down from comments last week in which he said a White House defeat on health care reform would be President Obama's "Waterloo."

*"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,"* the South Carolina Republican, pictured center, was quoted last week as telling fellow conservatives.

Waterloo is a reference to French Emperor Napoleon's final defeat in 1815 at the hands of a British-led coalition, before finally being sent into permanent exile.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

Vox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Not one Republucan voted for it?

I'm shocked. republicans have been trying to keep Americans from healthcare for decades


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Democrats begged Republicans to be involved in healthcare. They still refuse


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



 Do you disagree with him?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



 Why do you make stuff up?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Is that what a 'loyal' minority is supposed to do? Try to destroy the President of the United States? Obstruct NEEDED changes to a broken health care system?

Oh, that's right...THIS is what you right wing authoritarians followers believe is 'patriotism'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

*Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency
*





"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Fine, don't answer my question.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



You just answered mine.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 21, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> The House is the ONLY agency in our Government doing the will of the People.
> 
> What does that say to you?



Read the OP again. Its correct and you're wrong. 

The Rs are doing the will of a very few radical teepotters and at the expense of the American people. They are traitors, period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



That would be correct. 

Consider it a rightwing hissy-fit.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 21, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Passive aggressive much? Next time you post something you might want to decide if you agree with the post or not. Floundering is not a strength, despite Obama's many examples.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



The only question is why?

They have nothing to gain, America has everything to lose


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



108 posts and you still don't have it "straight".

Retard.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



No, the Repubs think that it might be successful and actually help the poor and uninsured.  That is their greatest fear.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



I don't agree with Demint. It is traitorous. The only "Waterloo' would be imposed on America families. 

The Cost of Doing Nothing
*Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform*

2008

The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.

Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.

Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.

We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

*Economic Cost*

The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delawares economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.

*Affordability*

As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. *Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.*

More


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 23, 2013)

zeke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



If neither side can agree to the terms of a debt ceiling raise, why is only one side to blame?  What are the Democrats willing to compromise on?


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 23, 2013)

.

"Passed by both Houses of Congress".

The screamingly obvious flaw running through this thread is the notion that Obamacare was approved in gleeful bi-partisan fashion and now some Republicans are screaming foul for no reason.  While I'm tempted to call it something far different from a "flaw", I'll run with that term.

As we all know, the ACA, a massive, deep, broad bureaucracy created out of thin air, was written by one party and pushed through by *one party* the thinnest of partisan margins.

I don't like the way the GOP is acting -- elections have consequences and just saying "no" has its risks -- but the least we could do is try to be intellectually honest about how this beast of a law came to be.

Not holding my breath, of course.

.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 23, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> "Passed by both Houses of Congress".
> 
> ...



So now, Republicans should somehow be rewarded for being obstructionist?

Fact is, Republicans have never supported ANY healthcare proposal. Anytime, anywhere


----------



## dblack (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



I don't think of it as rewarding them for obstructing, but rather punishing them if they don't. Republicans definitely bear some of the responsibility for the fiasco of PPACA. Their failure to act when they had the chance provided the excuse and the opportunity for the statists to strike.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



 I don't know why I'm going to bother asking you the same question I always ask you. However, I'm a big fan of hitting my head against the wall so I guess I'll ask it again. Why do you make stuff up? Why do you make stuff up when it is so easily proven wrong? Do you really believe that you are the only one on a computer site that has a computer?

Differences Between The Republican and Democratic Healthcare Reform Bills

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 23, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yes, I'm quite aware of the talking points. Thanks for reiterating however.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 23, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Oh please.....why even try

The Republican "Healthcare Plan" was a farce, panned by OMB as unattainable and it is something Republicans never vote on

It is a paper plan. The same as the plan developed by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s which the Democrats picked up and Republicans rejected

Republicans give healthcare lip service and will never actually vote for it


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well, at least you're backtracking a bit. I'll take any improvement I can.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 23, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They've already compromised too much. 

The Rs "governing" by temper tantrum and blackmail has got to stop because it only harms the country. 

OTOH, since that is evidently what the Rs want, they're doing just fine.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 23, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.
> ...



Obama won the election because he was the best choice and recieved the most votes. Quit being a crybaby making up lame excuses. He was beatable, but the Republicans had no one to put up against him. He was the best choice.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 23, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.
> ...




*WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!*






_(sign's in the shop again)_


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 23, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Obama campaigned on Obama care. Romney said he would kill it. Obama won the election. The voters spoke. Nothing got rammed down our throats.
> ...



WARNING

2 Point violation of approved GOP Talking points. Failure to mention "Free Stuff"


----------



## Steven_R (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Congress controls the purse strings. Half of Congress doesn't want to pay for Obamacare. Some compromise will have to be reached, but compromises mean both sides bring something to the table and neither Reid nor Obama are offering. Elections have consequences and the House of Representatives is the direct voice of the American people who have said they don't want to pay for Obamacare.

Checks and balances.


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...





Meh.  The GOP will get what it gets.  Most likely a self-inflicted wound.

But I'm glad that you agree with my point.

.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Checks and Balances requires three branches of Government

So far, only one half of a branch wants to kill Obamacare


----------



## Steven_R (Sep 23, 2013)

Doesn't matter. If Congress isn't united enough to do something , it isn't going to get done. It is a check again an imperial presidency. The House of Representatives, the immediate voice of the American people, has said they aren't going to fund Obamacare. That's how the process works.

The House has agreed to everything the Dems wanted except Obamacare. What are Reid and Obama willing to give up to reach a compromise?


----------



## Camp (Sep 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Doesn't matter. If Congress isn't united enough to do something , it isn't going to get done. It is a check again an imperial presidency. The House of Representatives, the immediate voice of the American people, has said they aren't going to fund Obamacare. That's how the process works.
> 
> The House has agreed to everything the Dems wanted except Obamacare. What are Reid and Obama willing to give up to reach a compromise?



They appear to be willing to give up Republican control of the House and maybe a few Republican Senate seats.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Doesn't matter. If Congress isn't united enough to do something , it isn't going to get done. It is a check again an imperial presidency. The House of Representatives, the immediate voice of the American people, has said they aren't going to fund Obamacare. That's how the process works.
> 
> The House has agreed to everything the Dems wanted except Obamacare. What are Reid and Obama willing to give up to reach a compromise?



Obamacare's already funded.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 along with most of America.


----------



## dblack (Sep 23, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



The insurance lobby disagrees. Submit!


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 24, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Have they compromised too much?  How so?  Specifically?

And if you don't approve of them compromising, why is it that the other side should concede to compromise?  If you don't want your side to budge an inch, how can you be mad at republicans for doing likewise?


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



It's not clear to me how any valid claim of 'compromise' can be made. Not a single Republican voted for the bill, so - if they did compromise, WHY??? It certainly wasn't in exchange for Republican support.

What's needed isn't compromise, it's consensus, and that's different. Compromise is accepting some of what you don't want in exchange for something you do want. It might seem like a good way to go, and sometimes I suppose it is, but it creates laws that have a lot of what both sides _don't_ want, that they'll be laboring to get rid of.

If, instead, Congress focused on solutions that both sides agreed on then we'd have law that stick, that we could all get behind and support.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Absolute solutions are impossible


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Of course. So what?

Do you get the point I'm making?

Focusing on efforts both sides agreed on would leave us with reform that was stable and not just another political football.

It's a moot point anyway because the Democrats didn't compromise. Not with the Republicans at least. If anything, they compromised with the insurance lobby.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Our Constitution was a compromise

Our nation has survived for over 200 years because of compromise. The current GOP position that compromise equates to failure is destroying our country and making us the laughing stock of the world


----------



## Samson (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Indeed.

When did you realize the USA has a two party system that controls the government?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

When the GOP doesn't "compromise" it's because they are obstructionists. When Obama doesn't compromise it's because he's strong and takes no prisoners. Such extreme hyper-partisan reactionary nonsense.
 Words like HOSTAGE, ANARCHIST, ARSONIST have joined the liberal lexicon among other words like RACIST, WAR ON WOMEN and my personal favorite HE'S A CANADIAN!
 Remember when Obama threatened to hold social security checks hostage if the debt ceiling wasn't raised? 
 I like the way Obama is holding the white house hostage since HIS sequester was granted.
 Jesus Christ people, all these meaningless words being angrily thrown around. Reminds me of monkeys throwing their own poop. The rancid smell of partially digested banana is strong today.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> When the GOP doesn't "compromise" it's because they are obstructionists. When Obama doesn't compromise it's because he's strong and takes no prisoners. Such extreme hyper-partisan reactionary nonsense.
> Words like HOSTAGE, ANARCHIST, ARSONIST have joined the liberal lexicon among other words like RACIST, WAR ON WOMEN and my personal favorite HE'S A CANADIAN!
> Remember when Obama threatened to hold social security checks hostage if the debt ceiling wasn't raised?
> I like the way Obama is holding the white house hostage since HIS sequester was granted.
> Jesus Christ people, all these meaningless words being angrily thrown around. Reminds me of monkeys throwing their own poop. The rancid smell of partially digested banana is strong today.



Which compromises are Republicans asking for?

Is REPEAL OBAMACARE asking for a compromise or would recommending certain changes be a more likely compromise?


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > When the GOP doesn't "compromise" it's because they are obstructionists. When Obama doesn't compromise it's because he's strong and takes no prisoners. Such extreme hyper-partisan reactionary nonsense.
> ...



I can't speak for Republicans, but first and foremost, get rid of the individual mandate. Obama campaigned against it. It's easily the least popular provision. If the Dems dropped that, virtually all support for Republican opposition would evaporate. Hell, I'd even quit complaining.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Agree

It is not popular but requiring companies to cover anyone with pre-existing conditions is both popular and humane

We need to find a way to cover patients with pre-existing conditions without expanding the insurance pool

The obvious answer is nationalized healthcare, but Republicans would never stand for it


----------



## PredFan (Sep 24, 2013)

140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's not obvious at all. Why not just expand the safety net? Why do we have to indulge the statist urge to take over everygoddamnedthing with government?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > When the GOP doesn't "compromise" it's because they are obstructionists. When Obama doesn't compromise it's because he's strong and takes no prisoners. Such extreme hyper-partisan reactionary nonsense.
> ...



 Nobody is compromising. This is my point. Instead of compromise we get dire warnings about impending doom and sophomoric name calling while hypocrisy protects us from our own judgements.
 All I'm saying is that I've seen this movie before and I'm all out of outrage... and Junior Mints.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I met a guy from England once and the conversation turned to healthcare. He told me how he had heart surgery the year before and I asked how it was paid for. He said you are given a number when you ae born and carry it for life. When he went for surgery, he gave his number and never saw a bill
My wife had heart surgery and even though I have good insurance, it ended up costing me $9000 out of pocket as well as a stack of insurance claims that were 3/4 inch thick. I ended up fighting/negotiating the claims for almost a year. 

If I could just pay the government and never have to worry about a medical claim...I would do it. If I pay the government or I pay a private insurance company....what difference does it make?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



I am still looking to see where Obama was asked to compromise and he didn't


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> If I pay the government or I pay a private insurance company....what difference does it make?



It makes a huge difference. There is only one government and it's compulsory. Everything government 'provides' becomes a political bargaining chip and subject to manipulation by anyone with influence and an agenda.

Let's say we get nationalized health care and the Republicans get back in power. Is it such a stretch to imagine them pursuing policy that would withhold health care from gays? STD carriers? Recreational drug users? If a private vendor tries this shit you simply refuse to do business with them. You can't refuse to do business with government.

That's the difference.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Actually, by all evidence, it is the bulk of Americans who wil be punished with higher premium costs. We are allready seeing the negative effects. Obama told us if we like our insurance we can keep it. Guess he forgot to tell Wallgreens, or the myraid other businesses that are either dumping people onto the exchanges or cutting down to part time to not provide insurance. There will only be a select few that benefit from it. Namely only those that can't afford it. They will be subsidized by the government. This will be paid for in the form of higher premiums for those that can afford it. 

Obamacare is simply horrible policy. It's an insurance based approach (as if getting everyone covered by insurance is the solution to the many problems with our health care system) that doesn't follow the rules of how insurance is supposed to work. it's not supposed to be used for everything and you are supposed to be charged more if you're of greater risk. It is doomed to failure. 

However, as a purely political tactic, the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate. What we need to get back to is a system where shop and pay for their policies on their own. We want companies to keep dumping people onto the exchanges. That way people will see what they're really paying for. They will see how much there premiums cost because of mandated coverages like mental health screening and addiction coverage. Then perhaps the minority that are still in favor of this mess will have their eyes opened.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Obamacare is barely started. Any attempts to characterize it as a failure are vastly premature. Obamacare is opening up competition. Premiums reported from the exchanges are significantly less than available on the open market.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No they're not. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell you what's coming. The facts on premium rates and whos are being affected are already a matter of public record. 

As to the cost of premiums, sure they're going down when you factor in the subsidies. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for that. If you're a young healthy person, your premiums are likley to go up. This is occuring as the result of the community rating mandate part of Obamacare. It basically says an insurance company can't charge one person more for the same plan than an other. Even if one person is going to be riskier to insure than the other. Again anyone with basic economic sense can see how the insurance will and are responding to this. The rates for the elderly aren't going to go down because the insurance companies will lose to much money. To comply with the mandate, the rates of the young and healthy will go up to that of those of higher risk. Again exactlhy the opposite of how insurance is supposed to work. For an insurance model to work, insurance companies need to be able to factor risk into the cost of premiums, just like every other form of insurance. 

The other reaction we're starting to see is cash only clinics. Sure Obama can try to get everyone covered, that doesn't require a hospital or clinic to accept the insurance. Again this is good because people can start seeing what health care really costs. When customers get more in tune with what services really cost then you'll see the true cost of services decline. Unfortuantely that would involve mostly free market solutions. Somthing you libs just can't wrap your heads around.


----------



## Rebelitarian (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Obama is not a US citizen...

Obamacare is un-Constitutional !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Yabut, they get double points  if they use the LIE, "ObamaPhone".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 24, 2013)

Rebelitarian said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



And, they forfeit all points if they fall back on this lame ass nonsense.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 24, 2013)




----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

Rebelitarian said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



Why do you bother posting here?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.



What is to get straight?

republicans have no way of defunding Obamacare yet they shut down the government anyway

Spite?  Stupidity?


----------



## peach174 (Sep 24, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


>




Yes and they were absolutely right about it eventually costing too much, and that it would bankrupt us.

In 1966 Medicare was estimated by CBO at 19 million.
By 1967 is was over 3 Billion. Each and every year it has risen and growen.
Look at how much Medicare costs are now - over 855 Billion
SSI is over 809 Billion
New Health Care Law is over 1 Trillion. Can you imagine how much it will grow and cost in in 40 years like Medicare did?


----------



## Samson (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.
> ...



Politics?

_While the health care law is not directly tied to funding the government -- the CR -- or paying bills already incurred -- the debt ceiling -- it is being used as a powerful bargaining chip.
...
*The House, which is controlled by Republicans, voted on a measure that would fund the government until December 15 *-- but in exchange for keeping the government open, the health care law would be defunded.

*But the Democrat-controlled Senate vows that Obamacare defunding will have no part in efforts to keep the government running and is expected to strip that provision* out of its version of the Continuing Resolution sometime this week_

It appears R's will fund the government, but the Senate (D) will refuse to pass it in favor of its own Continuing Resolution. Amazing how long our government has functioned without a budget.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.
> ...



It's about keeping their word on campaign promises and making congress listen to the people who want this law changed.

Everything else is funded except the New Health Care bill.
It will be Sen. Harry Reid and President Obama who are saying that they will shut down the Government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.
> ...



Both. 

Along with the fear of being primaried.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 140 posts and Rightwinger still hasn't gotten it straight. Will he ever? Don't bet on it.
> ...



An added benefit of the R tantrum is that FINALLY, the rw's will learn who it is that writes the budget. 

Even so, none of them seem to understand the Rs are lying to them about being able to repeal/defund.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Style points for getting both failure _and_ fraud in the same sentence, however.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Asked to compromise? I don't think Obama ever let it get that far. Republicans weren't allowed to have any input into the healthcare bill. It's hard to compromise when the president of the United States refuses to negotiate or even talk to the other party while he is conducting back room deals, giving out waivers to political friends and bribing congressman. Of course the congressman that were bribed with pork programs were kicked out soon thereafter by their own constituents.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 24, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



At least one Senate Republican did.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Is the name of this senate republican a secret or do you plan on sharing it with the class?


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 24, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Grassley.


Obamacare Policy Subsidizing Congressional Coverage Was Chuck Grassley's Idea


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 24, 2013)

Republicans kind of reminds me of a little kid who tells his mommy that if she doesn't get chocolate ice cream for his birthday party, then he doesn't want any ice cream at all...for himself, or the rest of the party guests.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

Grassley didn't have any input in the healthcare bill even though he tried. Grassley wanted no rationing and no government bureaucrats  getting in the way of the patient and doctor. Needless to say, Grassley is one of Obamacare's biggest critics today.
 As for the link you posted. It seems that there is some rhetorical gymnastics going on if the left wing is going to blame Grassley for language he had written that has since been through "various revisions" and become "less clear".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 24, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



How quickly they forget.

Are you really saying you don't remember John McCain falling asleep at the table? You really don't remember Obama demanding that cameras be allowed to film every word the Rs said? Remember that they said they would never let that happen again?

The Rs were invited every step of the way. And, they refused, every step of the way.


----------



## dblack (Sep 24, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't give one flying fuck about the Rs, or the Ds. OUr nation is being raped by the insurance industry and you all are playing stupid partisan pissing matches.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 24, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 Links please.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 24, 2013)




----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Ignorance worn as a badge of courage...

July 22, 2009

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint refused to back down from comments last week in which he said a White House defeat on health care reform would be President Obama's "Waterloo."

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



How many do you need?







Obama invites GOP to summit on health care
By Michael D. Shear,February 08, 2010

President Obama moved to jump-start the stalled health-care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to participate in a bipartisan, half-day televised summit on the subject this month.

The president made the offer in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric hours before the network televised the Super Bowl. Obama challenged Republicans, who have been largely unified in opposing his proposals, to bring their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system to the public discussion.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

Highlights from Obama's health care summit - CNN.com

Where to Watch Obama's Health Care Summit Online  Tech News ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Grassley didn't have any input in the healthcare bill even though he tried. Grassley wanted no rationing and no government bureaucrats  getting in the way of the patient and doctor. Needless to say, Grassley is one of Obamacare's biggest critics today.
> As for the link you posted. It seems that there is some rhetorical gymnastics going on if the left wing is going to blame Grassley for language he had written that has since been through "various revisions" and become "less clear".



Educate yourself...

Ruth Marcus - Paging Grassley's Gumption

The last, faint hope for truly bipartisan health reform rests with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- and faint may be overstating the prognosis. 

 The 75-year-old Republican has been browbeaten by his leadership for collaborating with Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee on which Grassley is the ranking Republican.

Grassley has been besieged by nervous constituents during this most tumultuous of August recesses. He's up for reelection next year and is worried about a primary challenge. He's eager to become the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee when his tenure on Finance is up, and is said to fear that he'll be denied the post if he goes wobbly on Democrats.

"There is tremendous pressure on both Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus to walk away" from health-care negotiations, one Republican senator told me. "That accounts for why you see Grassley doggedly going to these meetings, working very hard, but then he'll get nervous about it and say, 'Well, even if I support it, unless a majority of the caucus supports it, I won't vote for it.' I think those kinds of mixed messages reflect the tremendous pressure that he's under."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona "are working this very hard," said one Democrat involved in the health-care talks. "They have berated [Grassley] directly about the degree of his participation so far, and they work hard to prevent other people from going along." 

Grassley Endorses "Death Panel" Rumor: "You Have Every Right To Fear"

One of the three Republican senators working on a bipartisan health care bill perpetuated a particularly outrageous untruth about the legislation on Wednesday.

Appearing at a town hall in his home state of Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley told a crowd of more than 300 that they were correct to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma."

In making his remarks, Grassley becomes the latest in a string of GOP lawmakers to jump on a myth about the health care legislation produced by the House of Representatives. The most infamous statement was made last week by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who declared that the President's health care plan would set up a "death panel" to determine whether or not to euthanize her son with Down Syndrome.

2009 - PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

2010 - PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 25, 2013)

Thank you for posting the left wing opinion pieces. Not sure what it proves, but thank you. 
 I guess I'm supposed to post a column by Charles Krauthammer as a rebuttal?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 25, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



 You finally posted a fact. A fact in which I had forgotten. Thanks for reminding me about the 7 hour summit three years ago. You could possibly see how I might have forgotten about that since absolutely nothing was accomplished. Yes, I know you will blame the republicans for the impotence of the show summit but I'll let it slide since I have been humbled by my lack of memory. In my defense, I think there was a Golden Girls marathon on at the same time.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Yea and the public loved all those Dems who rammed through Obamacare they were summarily booted out of office.

The Supreme Court affirmed it was a tax, which Obama claimed it wasn't.


I think Congress should just let it go though.  Let the country suffer under Obamacare.  Once people really start to see the results, then they'll have a chance to repeal it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



The Healthcare Summit was a master stroke by Obama

It made it clear to the American people that Republicans had no intention of participating in a Healthcare discussion. Republican contribution to the healthcare discussion....Tear it up and start over


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Thank you for posting the left wing opinion pieces. Not sure what it proves, but thank you.
> I guess I'm supposed to post a column by Charles Krauthammer as a rebuttal?



What is 'opinion'?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2013)

The Republicans worst nightmare is that Obamacare will succeed and Americans will like it. That is why they are so determined to kill it NOW
Healthcare Exchanges take effect in two weeks. Republicans want to make sure that Americans do not become too attached to them


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


>



Hmmmmm. It seems this cartoon was supposed to make me think opposing those programs is a bad thing. Interesting.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 25, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Grassley didn't have any input in the healthcare bill even though he tried. Grassley wanted no rationing and no government bureaucrats  getting in the way of the patient and doctor. Needless to say, Grassley is one of Obamacare's biggest critics today.
> As for the link you posted. It seems that there is some rhetorical gymnastics going on if the left wing is going to blame Grassley for language he had written that has since been through "various revisions" and become "less clear".




How heavy are those goalposts?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2013)

BDBoop said:


>



Yes and No. The confusing thing is what the Republicans are currently opposing. They're oppising the individual mandate. While the government really doesn't have the authority to make people buy something, allowing it would have a silver lining. When people are forced onto the exchanges they will start to figure out what things cost. They will start to see that Obama has mandated they buy insurance with coverage they don't really need, but are forced to pay for. Young, healthy people will start to see that they are paying as much for the same coverage as older, riskier people. Perhaps then the pulbic tide will shift enough to really do something about getting rid of Obamacare.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Republicans worst nightmare is that Obamacare will succeed and Americans will like it. That is why they are so determined to kill it NOW
> Healthcare Exchanges take effect in two weeks. Republicans want to make sure that Americans do not become too attached to them



I really don't see individuals getting real attached to being forced to purchase plans with coverages they don't need. I don't see healthy people getting real excited about paying the same rates as sick people.


----------



## Samson (Sep 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Republicans worst nightmare is that Obamacare will succeed and Americans will like it. That is why they are so determined to kill it NOW
> Healthcare Exchanges take effect in two weeks. Republicans want to make sure that Americans do not become too attached to them






You mean Republican fear of ObamaCare is kinda like Dem's fear of Carbon Emmissions?



Partisan Politics


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans worst nightmare is that Obamacare will succeed and Americans will like it. That is why they are so determined to kill it NOW
> ...



Let em die....thats my motto


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Out of counter arguments I see. They're healthy. They're LESS likely to die yet they will be forced to pay the same as someone who is more likely to die. 

This is what is really happening to millions of americans; Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died

You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 How was the healthcare summit a master stroke by Obama when most people are against Obamacare?


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 25, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Grassley didn't have any input in the healthcare bill even though he tried. Grassley wanted no rationing and no government bureaucrats  getting in the way of the patient and doctor. Needless to say, Grassley is one of Obamacare's biggest critics today.
> ...



You tell me.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 25, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for posting the left wing opinion pieces. Not sure what it proves, but thank you.
> ...



David Frum and Ruth Marcus are political pundits and columnists. They give opinions. They are not reporters.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 26, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



No, they are credible sources that have backed up my accusations and refuted your parrot speak. David Frum, George W. Bush's former speechwriter, was an insider who worked at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the major right wing think tanks. Ruth Marcus is a highly educated journalist who writes for the Washington Post and was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in commentary.  

On the other hand, all YOU have brought here is pure parrot speak with ZERO evidence.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 26, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Ruth Marcus was a finalist for a pulitzer prize in what? LOL! 
 David Frum was a former speechwriter, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
 Not unlike Sarah Palin who was a former governor, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
 I have no objection to sharing the views of your favorite commentators but don't confuse FACTS with OPINIONS.
 Also, please don't confuse "insults' with "debate". Thank you


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 26, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Considering that President Obama was re-elected on the promise of ObamaCare, its pretty silly to keep saying that. 

Remember too, every single one of the Clown Car Candidates were running against the promise of universal health care and Mittens is still furiously dancing around the FACT of the very successful health care program in Mass. 

Doesn't matter much though because its law and it will not be repealed or defunded. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 26, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



to rw's, a credible source is Malkin, Coulter, Bachmann ... 

That reminds me - What the heck happened to idiot Reince Prebus? I wonder if they finally tied a rock to his foot and tossed him over the cliff.


----------



## Samson (Sep 26, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obama was re-elected in 2012.

ObamaCare was signed in 2010.

If he signed ObamaCare before his re-election, then how was he "re-elected on the promise of ObamaCare?"

It could be true to say that he was originally elected PARTIALLY on the promise of ObamaCare, but in 2012, the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot be forced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion under penalty of losing their current Medicaid funding. Thus, whatever ObamaCare was when it was signed, and BEFORE Obama was re-elected, it is NOT the same NOW.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 26, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



 It's pretty silly to ignore every single poll that exists.
 Obama won reelection because he ran a superior campaign and Romney ran a highly flawed campaign. Romney danced around Obamacare because of his own "Romneycare".  
 As for the law not being repealed or defunded. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are wrong. The future will tell.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 26, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Reince Prebus was on Greta Van Sustern's show last night. No, this is not an invitation to go all psycho bitch over the "evils" of Fox News. Just answering your question.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care.  It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine.  Morals aren't factual.  They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids?  Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.


----------



## Camp (Sep 26, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining.  In my perfect world, tho?  You stable?  You on your own.  At least as far as the government's concerned.  Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted.  I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own.  I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about.  For purely selfish reasons, mind you.  I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can.  -If- I can, and -if- I want to.  I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world.  I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 26, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Ever hear of Medicaid?  Been in place for almost 50 years


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How is that an argument?  I didn't put it there.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 26, 2013)

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance  is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.


----------



## dblack (Sep 26, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaine eligble for free care himself, and everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize themwith or without insurance  is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.



They haven't???  I know some of them have. The concept at the core of EMTALA is the core of the problem. I can't say EMTALA itself is really an issue because it really doesn't have that much of an impact. Most doctors and hospitals treat people first, and worry about payment afterward, regardless of the law - so EMTALA is largely a non-issue. But if it's the excuse for selling us out to the insurance industry, then fucking repeal it.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Also, lemme sum up what just happened.  You said let 'em die as a response to  someone's criticism of Obamacare.

So I responded that it's not my responsibility to pay to keep people alive.

Then you said Medicare's been in place for over 50 years, implying that it's already been everyone's responsibility to do so.

What you also implied, however, was that there's already been a system keeping people alive for 50 years.  Whether or not you realized it, your argument has devalued Obamacare by implying that it would be a second layer of government bureaucracy to cover a task that's already covered by a program that's been in place for 5 decades.

But I'm sure this is not your view and was not your intention, so I'll just say you should brush up on your debate skills.


----------



## Camp (Sep 26, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.  
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaine eligble for free care himself, and everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize themwith or without insurance  is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.
> ...



Sorry, dblack. I've been in the medical insurance field for 50 years. I challange you to find a surgeon who will perform a bypass operation on you and worry about getting paid later. Find an oncologist who is prepared to remove a cacerous growth on your lung, and send you a bill afterward. Find a clinic that will give you chemotherapy on credit.

It ain't going to happen, my friend. You  don't have insurance, or cash, you are going to die.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance  is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.



Good try at a straw man argument, but it's transparent.

In this case the straw man choices are either buying health insurance or having everyone else pay for you.

These aren't the only options, big buddy.  Truth is, I've been taken into the ER before unconscious and fucked up and uninsured.  Guess what?  You didn't have to pay 1 cent toward my medical bill.  Why?  I came out of pocket and paid that motherfucker myself.

Never said people should automatically be turned away.  Just said people should pay for their own shit.  Like I have.  Like I do.  As I get older and it becomes more of a risk, I'll buy some insurance.  When it's worth it.  Right now, fit as a fiddle.  Haven't been to the doc for anything more than a checkup in over 2 years.  I got more health than money at the moment and I live accordingly.

I don't need to be refused service because I pay for my shit, regardless of whether or not I pay into your bullshit system.  Try a new argument and, while you're at it, get fucked for wishing ill on me just for having a different philosophical opinion.  Get.  Fucked.

God damn Democrats get vicious when you disagree, considering you kids are supposed to be the party of kindness and acceptance.  Lol.  I smell bullshit.


----------



## dblack (Sep 26, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your  choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 26, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance  is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.
> ...





Oh, Sorry, Not2B. i did not know that you could write a check for $750,000. That is how much a heart transplant starts at. It must be nice making the big bucks! However, it that does seem a little steep to you, the cost of a kidney transplant, including removal from the donor, is only arounf $600,000. A heart/lung transplant? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Strawman? No, D. That is what I did for a living. It is called "lasering out" claims for stop loss policies issued to self insured companies. We would slap a $1,000,000 deductible on Joe Smith, who was on a waiting list for a heat/lung transplant for a company like Disney, who wanted us to cover all losses over $100,000 on their self insured policy.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I'm realistic enough to assume that if I don't plan ahead and something that expensive and catastrophic comes up that's my fault.  If it does, though, given my current health and health habits, it's gonna be at the end of some catastrophic incident as opposed to some slow developing illness.  If I need an organ transplant before I'm looking at probably investing in health insurance (unless I end up in a job that offers it), it's gonna be a right now kinda situation and my placement on the list for said organ, not money, is gonna be the deciding factor in my eventual death.

Worry not, though.  As an adult,  I started at min wage but economically I've advanced steadily.  A few more years and reasonable payments on a bill north of half a mil won't be out of my reach.  By then I'll probably want health insurance, tho lol

Honestly, bottom line:  If I thought my health was at all a risk or I made just a few more hundred a month right now, I'd buy health insurance right now.  The thing is, for the time being I'm pretty low risk healthwise, but juggling mortgage payments and various bills.  If I thought I was truly at risk of hitting an insurmountable medical bill in the next few years before  I can afford to just  buy the shit, I'd make the necessary adjustments now and tighten my belt.  I take pride in being self sufficient.

So here, just for you. . . if I need a lung transplant before I've acquired health insurance down the road, I hope I don't get it.  Happy?


----------



## Camp (Sep 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



How do you make a bunch of near dead young adults or teenagers whose parents don't have insurance accept the consequences of their parents or their choice not to have insurance? Are you suggesting that we just let them die? Why is health insurance different than auto insurance? Is it unfair to insist that everyone who owns a motor vehical have auto insurance?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 26, 2013)

Camp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I don't make them do anything.  I don't make them drive.  I don't make them have parents who don't buy health insurance.  I'm suggesting that the government doesn't force everyone to pay for everything that we consider too evil to allow to continue, I don't care if I agree with the particulars or not.  It's not my place to demand that you abide by my morals, and it's not your place to demand that I do the same.

Lastly, no, and I wish you kids would stop making that comparison so poorly.  I can opt out of driving a car to avoid being penalized for not having car insurance.  I can't opt out of breathing to avoid being penalized for not having health insurance, under Obamacare.  Car insurance is conditional.  The conditional nature of Obamacare is an illusion, as the only out option is death, which can't be considered a rational option.

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no driving

Not quite the same as

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no breathing

I'm sure you can see how the severity of the third options doesn't even compare.


----------



## Camp (Sep 26, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm not sure I understand your answer as to my question about what to do when the ambulance shows up at the hospital with the injured victims and it is determined that they do not have the means to pay for treatment. It seems like you are saying that if the determination is made that they can not afford to pay, they be left on strechers until they expire.


----------



## dblack (Sep 26, 2013)

Camp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



It's bullshit in either case. The entire point of government is to manage the risks of living in a pluralistic society. Delegating that to private corporations is wrong.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 26, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



I appreciate your civil debate. It is unusual on these threads.

In response, however, I have to say that your solution to your health care needs is clearly out of range for 99% of of Americans. My X-wife's first husband incurred medical bills in excess of $1,200,000 from luekemia over an 18 month period. He thought that he had the flu, until he went to the doctor. He died at age 54

My X-wife stopped opening the hospital bills when they reached $1,000,000. Fortunately, he had group health insurance through his employer. The employer stopped offering it to his employees 4 years ago, because, with a company that only had 14 emplyees, he simply could not afford it any more.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Actually 26 is now the cutoff to stay on your parents plan under Obamcare. And I love this excuse that 'we all pay for it anyway', as if that's the way it has to be. We could allow catastrophic only insurance plans, instead of Obamacare forcing people to buy coverage for everything under the sun. They could work out a payment plan for their care. They can collect money from their community. There are all kinds of options and combinations of where we don't need to force people to buy insurance. Your auto repair mechanic isn't just going to just fix your car and eat it if you can't pay for it and if we went to a system that treated health insurance more like auto insurance we would be far better off.

Your above scenario isn't even realistic. It isn't going to cost millions of dollars. Granted it could be several tens of thousands. I had cancer as a child. I was in the hosptial for seven months and through several surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy. Did I rack up a bill for my parents? You bet. But it wasn't millions of dollars and it wasn't insurmountable.


----------



## Camp (Sep 27, 2013)

I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have. 
True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2013)

Camp said:


> I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
> True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.



Well that is the big philosophical question; Do I in fact have a moral obligation to provide your health care if you can't? Some might say yes, but I think if you look at it another way, you'll see the answer is no. When is it okay to use force against another? Whether it be physical or legal. Because that's what really has to take place. The government has to force me to help you. They have to take my money and essentially say because you need it, but dont' have it, it's okay for you via government proxi, to take it from me. I simply don't believe that's moral at all.


----------



## Camp (Sep 27, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
> ...



Again, I do not disagree with the points you make. If we could just make the decision that we will or will not offer medical aid to the uninsured as a moral or philosophical question it would be relatively easy to. The problem is what to do when that abmbulance shows up at the hospital. It is easy to say on paper what our decision would be, but a whole different ball game when the injured or ill person shows up in person with a life threatening injury or illness.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Well I don't think we need to go so far as proof of ability to pay up front. If they can't pay, send them a bill and start working out a payment plan. I'm sure the hospitals would still find that far more preferable to dealing with insurance companies and it would be a constant revenue stream and it would probabluy result in the cost of the services going down as well.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 27, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



And you have brought to the table exactly ZERO evidence, backup or support...

ALL you have presented is ...wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OPINION...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 27, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.


----------



## dblack (Sep 27, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



In a free country, no one is forcing you to buy insurance. If you don't like the way insurance works, don't buy it.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 27, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Yes, not unlike Ruth Marcus and David Frum I have indeed given my opinion. Guilty as charged. I'm also guilty of knowing the difference between fact and opinion. Join me.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



So, in your world, I either have to pay for the deadbeats who don't carry their own insurance OR go without health care insurance myself.


----------



## dblack (Sep 27, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Or sign up with a insurance company that doesn't cater to 'deadbeats'. The only way you're paying for someone else via your insurance is if someone else on the same plan is running up charges. If you're resting your argument on EMTALA, I'm in agreement with you that that law is unjust and should be repealed. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 28, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



You are totally obtuse to the facts. It is a FACT Republicans made a collective decision to oppose President Obama on health care reform. Just as David Frum said.

It is a FACT Senator Jim DeMint stated, their intentions:  "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

It is a FACT Republicans parroted a script given to them by Frank Luntz to make them sound like they are for reform, but is designed to undermine reform by using lies and fear-mongering.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 I appreciate your opinion. Thank you.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 28, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Fact-based opinion.

You're welcome.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 28, 2013)

Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time.  Thank you.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 28, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time.  Thank you.



You've already encountered it. Sorry you're so attached to your blinders.

You're welcome.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time.  Thank you.
> ...



  My blinders are what keep me focused on the topic. Don't worry, they're covered by Obamcare, unless I get a waiver.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 28, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Oh, so you practice willful ignorance? I don't speak to the willfully ignorant. I am sure you will be relieved to hear that.

Good day.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



 If I didn't practice willful ignorance then I would have to ignore such a pleasant person as yourself. Good day.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 28, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



This again?  I addressed this here and in a response to one of your posts elsewhere, but here goes, maybe the third time's the charm.

A deadbeat is someone who doesn't pay their bills.

I am someone who doesn't buy insurance.  I do, however, pay my bills.  I've paid for every medical bill I have ever had and don't plan to stop doing so.

Get that?  Never.  Ever.  Left a medical bill on the table.  Never.

That means that you insurance buyers haven't paid one red cent for my "free" ER visits.

That also means that, insofar as the costs of EMTALA are shared by the taxpayers, the pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals (who then turn and pass a portion of that cost on to the clients; insurance companies and people paying medical bills), I -do- pay for uninsured people in the ER.  That's because I pay my taxes, I pay for whatever medications I need, and, for the third fucking time, I PAY MY MEDICAL BILLS.  Henceforth, you can blow any assumptions to the contrary out your rusty, self righteous asshole.

As a side note I find it funny that you're under the impression that unpaid medical bills are all passed on 100% to the insurance companies.  For someone with such strong opinions and a penchant for condescension, you don't research this stuff for shit, huh?


----------



## dblack (Sep 28, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Yeah, it's on the talking point hit list for the shills. More stupid head games from propagandists. They think it will appeal to (or at least be confused with) the typical conservative aversion to 'paying for deadbeats'. Nevermind that they support all the laws that make this possible in the first place. If Luddly really has a problem with EMTALA he should join those of us calling for its repeal. But he doesn't. He likes that it sucks us into a corporatist cluster-fuck. That's the whole intent.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So as the details of the bill are becoming public as they prep for implementation, how do your facts effect my dislike for those details?

If I hadn't heard some Republicans lying about not liking Obamacare because they really just don't like Obama because he's black, would I agree with the individual mandate?

Before Frank Luntz passed out his evil fear mongering script, was I in favor of the government being in charge of the medical industry?

I guess the most important question I have is, do you have any substantive arguments for Obamacare?  Or pretty much just moral finger waving, hyperbole and criticisms of the GOP?  Cuz I got plenty fingers, I'm awesome with wordplay, and I could sit here and criticize Republicans until carpal tunnel sets in.  Don't really need your help with any of those things.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



What do you call this 'movement'...the 'let 'em die' campaign?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 28, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



Are you REALLY interested in the truth? Do you REALLY understand what the status quo was all about? Hey, you COULD try a novel approach...invest a half hour and educate yourself... Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

OR...
You can stay the way you are...







The choice is yours...


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 28, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> I guess the most important question I have is, do you have any substantive arguments for Obamacare?  Or pretty much just moral finger waving, hyperbole and criticisms of the GOP?  Cuz I got plenty fingers, I'm awesome with wordplay, and I could sit here and criticize Republicans until carpal tunnel sets in.  Don't really need your help with any of those things.



Some positives:


The slowest health care spending growth on record,  medical costs registering the first decline since the 1970s, and medical price inflation now at the slowest pace in 50 years (i.e. the bending _downward_ of the cost curve).
Premiums in the new marketplaces consistently coming in lower than expected
The number of physicians who take Medicare continuing to grow (735,041 in 2013, compared to 705,568 in 2012)
Unprecedentedly slow per capita cost growth in the Medicare program
Continued moderation of premium growth in the group markets in 2013
More competitive marketplaces than shoppers in the individual insurance market have ever seen
The real possibility of better than expected enrollment in the new marketplaces
Unnecessary hospital readmissions dropping as hospitals improve postdischarge support
Hospitals improving quality under ACA programs, while reining in costs
ACA programs causing "spillover" savings and quality improvements even for people not participating in them
Med school applications reaching a record high last year, at the same time as last year's residency match reached a record-high match rate

Just scratching the surface.


----------



## Zona (Sep 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



Even Boner said, eh....let it happen.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the most important question I have is, do you have any substantive arguments for Obamacare?  Or pretty much just moral finger waving, hyperbole and criticisms of the GOP?  Cuz I got plenty fingers, I'm awesome with wordplay, and I could sit here and criticize Republicans until carpal tunnel sets in.  Don't really need your help with any of those things.
> ...



And in exchange we have a part-time economy with declining median incomes


----------



## Dante (Sep 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



The majority voted for Obama

Rightwingers hate the majority that voted for Obama

The riht hates America. They worship and love a nation that doesn't actully exist


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...



 LOL! WOW! Rightwingers hate America? Ah well, I guess nobody's  perfect.


----------



## idb (Sep 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



I can't get my head around this either.
At what point do the opponents acknowledge that the system has done it's job, they didn't get their way, and accept the new reality?
That's what (should) happens in a democracy.
Lawmakers pouring money into undermining a constitutionally enacted law is bizarre.

I've seen plenty of right-wingers write in here that The World (tm) is laughing at the US because of the President or his actions.
The truth is that The World is laughing at these right-wing nuts and their ridiculous views and antics.

This is a more sane legislative chamber than the current congress...
[ame=http://youtu.be/XHMrgwAuJ_U]Korean Parliament Fight 22 July 2009 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## idb (Sep 29, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



"Keep Your Damned Government Hands Off My Medicare!"


----------



## dblack (Sep 29, 2013)

idb said:


> I can't get my head around this either.
> At what point do the opponents acknowledge that the system has done it's job, they didn't get their way, and accept the new reality?
> That's what (should) happens in a democracy.
> Lawmakers pouring money into undermining a constitutionally enacted law is bizarre.



I don't think this is driven by lawmakers. It's driven by the public's sense that ACA is just another bait-and-switch. Congress used a real problem as justification for yet another corporatist swindle. Republicans are doing this because voters are demanding it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They love America.......they just hate Americans


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Love the logic. Because we don't think anyone should be forced to pay for anyone's healthcare that means we hate Americans. Again, awesome logic.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 30, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



You pay for it anyway. You have been for as long as insurance has existed, and people have been uninsured.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



No...because Republicans have an attitude of "I got mine....the hell with everyone else"


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's pretty much the same thing. You're right. I got mine. Why should I be financially responsible for your too?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And buying insurance previously has also been a choice. That's the difference. I don't get why you insist the rest of us have to pay for those that can't one way or the other. If you can't pay at time of service, work out something you can pay over time.


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



How do you work something out with someone who hasn't got a pot to piss in but manages to rack up a huge medical bill?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 30, 2013)

Camp said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 30, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

*The Taxpayer Mandate*

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a consumer choice plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.*3* Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a metaphysical abstraction. 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

*3* The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698), Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).


----------



## alan1 (Sep 30, 2013)

zeke said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> ...


The vast majority of them are too liberal.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Again, this isn't saying anything we don't already know. What needs to happen is a means of getting rid of a system that requires that, one way or another, we involintarily pay for people who can't.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 30, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped. 

*A Snare And A Delusion*

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies. 

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, *it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance.* Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage. 

Pauly also tells us that *employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing*. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion. 

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

 In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple* financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5*

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf


----------



## idb (Sep 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



They had some good ideas those people.
It's a pity they're such raving Socialists!!!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2013)

idb said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Socialists? Why are you people such idiots?


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



They're not...Socialists?
How can that be?
Only Socio/Fascio/Communist Tyrants would write this;


> Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.


(from your first Heritage Foundation entry).


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 1, 2013)

From each according to his ability to each according to his need...

Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing? 

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who _can't_ pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate _that_ people must buy insurance, he mandated _what_ kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.


----------



## dblack (Oct 1, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Oh nice. A new twist on "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Submit!

Obey!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You need to grow up.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Not sure what this has to do with anything I said. I'm not against any and all regulation. It's simply that the regulations in obamacare are nonsensical.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
> It was signed into law
> it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
> Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
> ...



no you didn't 'get it straight',  but thx for trying 

I'd explain it but you have whats called 'fact aversion neurosis'......:eusa_ think: IF obamacare covered that I might fund your healthcare to get you treatment.....


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



They are not nonsensical, they protect consumers from being swindled. Insurance cartels have to actually COVER people's illnesses and accidents.

Why don't you educate yourself on what these cartels have become? 

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

About Wendell Potter - Author. Media Analyst. Watchdog.





Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nations largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations  including those advocating for meaningful health care reform  achieve their goals.

In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2013)

Maximization profits by alienating customers and driving them away...that's Krugmanesque in its detachment from economic reality


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 1, 2013)

Vox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Step off, Vox.  The people voted for it, the Dems were elected, the majority passed it, SCOTUS approved it.

Get over.  It is not going away, but the TPM is certainly going into the toilet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



back off Vox getting between Obamacare and Starkey is like trying to take a bone from a pitbull


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



And perhaps if people were actually invested financially in the products they were purchasing instead of just looking to government or their employer's to handle it, they would become more educated on what they were purchasing. The things the person you quoted talks about developed because government got too involved in the industry. Not because they weren't enough involved enough. To the point that most people today barely know a thing about their insurance policies. 

It's nonsensical that a healthy 27 year old has to pay the same premium price for the same plan as a 70 year old. It is nonsensical to think the cost of medical services will go down when levy new tax upon new tax on service providers and medical device manufacturer's. It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues.


----------



## tresbigdog (Oct 2, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Seems that it's the other way around.
> While many get exempted from the law all other Americans must pay for it.
> 
> There has been 1,040 organizations that has been waivered from the law.
> ...



Congress isnt exempt from the ACA


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Oct 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Most of these hilited points I agree with.  All of them, in fact, to at least some degree.

It's funny, though, because what you hilited says nothing other than that employers aren't giving insurance away for free and people don't realize it, people don't realize what their medical coverage actually costs when they get employer based insurance, and the tax treatment of employer health insurance is dicking up the whole industry.

So what if what you hilited represents the crux of this issue, then why an individual mandate?  Why such a vast increase in government control if, other than lazy ignorance combined with hush-hush insurance spending, the only base problem you've bothered to offer up is the way government handled shit prior to Obamacare?

Lastly, just because I might agree with this assessment of things that are wrong with the medical industry, how does it follow that I must concede that Obamacare and an individual mandate are better?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 2, 2013)

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email! 

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!


----------



## dblack (Oct 2, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "
> 
> I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!
> 
> Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!



You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Oct 2, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "
> 
> I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!
> 
> Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!



So everyone -should- pay for insurance for mental illness, even people who are low risk?  Because hey, it just might happen?

By that logic, there shouldn't be a range of coverage types under Obamacare.  There should only be one type of insurance, one that covers any and all necessary medical treatment.

You sure you support this bill?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "
> ...



Insurance comapnies hate these coverages, and put them in to policies only because they were mandated by both the state governments and the federal government. We made much more profit before we were required to put these into our health polucies. The states and the federal government required us to include these benefits because they kept getting stuck holding the tab, especially for mental illnesses, which they got tired of paying for out of your tax money. The rehab benefits were mandated because actuaries universally agree that rehabing a substance abusor is a whole lot cheaper to a society as a whole than the costs of the injuries, disease, and death caused by substance abusors to themselves, their family and friends and to complete strangers..


----------



## Trajan (Oct 2, 2013)

tresbigdog said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems that it's the other way around.
> ...



is congress and their staffers being treated according to the grassley amendment?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 2, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "
> ...



That is, in fact what insurance comapnies cover. To be precise, we cover injury or disease, as defined as a bodily disorder or disfunction, other than those specificly named as excluded, such as experimental treatments not approved by the AMA. The only difference in coverages are copays, decuctibles, calandar year, and lifetime maximums, and out of pocket maximums.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 2, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Where is the outrage from these right wingers over the highest cost of incarceration of drug users? It cost taxpayers over $30,000 per year to put someone behind bars.


----------



## dblack (Oct 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You mean like Rand Paul?


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There shouldn't be any drug users in prison because drug use, sale, or possession shouldn't be a crime. It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself.


----------

